Re: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[John Bradley]

Over the past 6 months or so, I have used most of 
these modes on hf, and have found that Olivia runs best, followed by 
MFSK.
I'm looking forward to the possible inclusion of 
DominoEX on Mix W, which might make it more effective than the stand-alone 
software
available now. The same goes for MT63, which I used 
alot, too.
 
I think it's great how these modes have 
evolved. the next big breakthru will be an ARQ mode..
 
Think the frequencies are fine, have been using 
Olivia from 14074 to 14080 lately with better results than fighting with the 
pactor 3 stations
on 14107.5
 
John
VE5MU

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  KV9U 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:19 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Should some 
  digital modes be considered obsolete?
  While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that 
  Olivia has supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal 
  and requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult 
  conditions. But from what I see on the print, a number of digitally 
  active hams feel that Olivia is the better choice.But what about 
  the other modes mentioned below? Do any of you use these 
  modes?Other than just trying them out via the sound card to see 
  how they sound, I have not knowingly heard or worked MFSK8, Throb, ThrobX 
  or DominoF.Are there conditions on HF that warrant the use of 
  these modes?Or should they  be considered replaced by the newer 
  modes?Just having a lot of modes is not really the best thing in the 
  long run. What makes a difference to me is having the right mode for the 
  right conditions.This is especially true if you need high speed 
  with very good HF condx vs. some kind of speed that will get through 
  really difficult conditions such as the kind of conditions that stops 
  Pactor signals from working, but still allows some of the digital sound 
  card modes to keep working even though they are magnitudes slower under 
  good condx.73,Rick, KV9UPatrick Lindecker 
  wrote:> Hello Dan,>> Yes USB for all digimodes 
  (DominoEX being side band sensitive as all MFSK> (or IFK) 
  modes).>> Note: I will propose in the next Multipsk version 
  (with DominoEX), the> following frequencies:> MFSK16, MFSK8, 
  THROB, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX (USB)> 1838, 3580, 7037, 10147, 14080, 
  18105, 21080, 24929, 28080 Khz>> 73> 
  Patrick>
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 
  1/27/06





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  


Icom ham radio
  
  
Yaesu ham radio
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[kd4e]

Thanks!  Will have to educate myself re. the AOR device.

doc

> Sure no problem.
> Top to bottom from the photo is
> AOR ARD9800 digital voice modem. (feeding the FT-840)
> Vertex VX3200 VHF rig programmed with police, fire and EMS
> as well as some ham 2M frequency
> the big unit under that is a Yaesu FT-840 HF rig.
> last is a 24Ghz radar unit.
> 
> Any questions, just ask.
> 
> At 07:55 PM 1/30/06, you wrote:
>> Oh, sorry ... ;-)
>>
>> I couldn't read the labels on the equipment and
>> wondered what was what and how they worked together.
>>
>> Also wondered which modes you ran and if you also had
>> a laptop tied in.
>>
>> I love the idea of a 160M - 5.6GHz mobile/portable
>> system that is truely all-mode (getting there
>> incrementally, of course):
>>
>> AM
>> FM
>> CW
>> SSB
>> ATV
>> SSTV
>> 802.11b
>> PSK/OLIVIA/PACTOR/etc



-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

I see that we are both excited about the 
possibilities of DV and intelligent filters and multiple QSO's on the same HF 
channel  ...programs such as PSK Deluxe already show us that we can 
decode multiple information streams within the same bandwidth... Imagine how 
neat it would be to do this in a DV contest
 
Regulations are very much like tariffs.. they 
protect the status quo... and invariably the unintended consequences of tariffs 
is that they make the industries that they initially protect much weaker in the 
long run because they have not been exposed to competition.   Like 
tariffs, regulations protecting the status quo are very popular with the 
"majority' as the "majority"  usually has to be dragged kicking and 
screaming to accept any change (spark gaps, CW, AM, SSB, FM, Digital) even if in 
the long run change will be beneficial for themHeck, if we left 
decisions on new technology to the "majority" we would likely not have 
progressed beyond smoke signals and heliographs...
 
So it ultimately is not a "majority' vs. "minority' 
thing.. but rather it is whether we want to innovate into the 21st century 
or just maintain the status quo of the 20th century
 
For me.. the exciting possibilities of innovation 
wins every time...  there are just too many cool things out there to try 
and play without having to be constantly looking over your shoulder to try to 
decipher all those arcane interpretations of FCC rules...just so you can figure 
out if the latest thing you are playing with is legal or 
not...
 
I want to stop playing lawyer and get back to 
engineering..and the fun of innovating new technologies...
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  kd4e 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:43 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice 
  on HF
  This 
  goes to part of my question and it is excitingto envision "smart 
  filters".Of course a cell phone is only handling same modesabsent 
  many of the huge variables present on HF Hambands so the challenge is 
  considerably more complex.I am certain that Hams and associated 
  business interestsare up to it.  We just need the ARRL and FCC to 
  thinkcarefully before they act and to consult the majorityvs the 
  minority of Hams *prior* to decision making.73, kd4e> Dr. 
  Howard S. White wrote:> DV opens up the possibilites for intelligent 
  digital > QRM filters.. wherein we could program radios it ignore 
  > other DV signals occupying virtually the same frequency> ... 
  imagine the possibilities of multiple DV QSO's > occupying the same 
  bandwidth as a single SSB or AM QSO> ... Heck you are already doing 
  this with your cell phone > ...where upwards of 20 simultaneous 
  conversations share > the same channel.  Imagine the 
  possibilities-- 
  ~~Thanks! 
  & 73, doc 
  kd4e    
  |_|___|_|    
  | | & | 
  |   
  {|   /\  
  {|  /  \ 
  {| /    \    
  {|    /   @  \   
  {|    |   |~_||    
  |   -| |    |\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html  
  KD4E =West 
  Central 
  Florida~~~





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[John Becker]

Sure no problem.
Top to bottom from the photo is
AOR ARD9800 digital voice modem. (feeding the FT-840)
Vertex VX3200 VHF rig programmed with police, fire and EMS
as well as some ham 2M frequency
the big unit under that is a Yaesu FT-840 HF rig.
last is a 24Ghz radar unit.

Any questions, just ask.

At 07:55 PM 1/30/06, you wrote:
>Oh, sorry ... ;-)
>
>I couldn't read the labels on the equipment and
>wondered what was what and how they worked together.
>
>Also wondered which modes you ran and if you also had
>a laptop tied in.
>
>I love the idea of a 160M - 5.6GHz mobile/portable
>system that is truely all-mode (getting there
>incrementally, of course):
>
>AM
>FM
>CW
>SSB
>ATV
>SSTV
>802.11b
>PSK/OLIVIA/PACTOR/etc



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[kd4e]

Oh, sorry ... ;-)

I couldn't read the labels on the equipment and
wondered what was what and how they worked together.

Also wondered which modes you ran and if you also had
a laptop tied in.

I love the idea of a 160M - 5.6GHz mobile/portable
system that is truely all-mode (getting there
incrementally, of course):

AM
FM
CW
SSB
ATV
SSTV
802.11b
PSK/OLIVIA/PACTOR/etc

 > John Becker wrote:
> Such as?
> 
> At 07:35 PM 1/30/06, you wrote:
>> Can you describe the details of your mobile setup
>> a little more, please?



-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[John Becker]

Such as?



At 07:35 PM 1/30/06, you wrote:
>Can you describe the details of your mobile setup
>a little more, please?



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[kd4e]

Can you describe the details of your mobile setup
a little more, please?

> I have worked many mobile from the pick up with he set up
> that I have installed. ( you can see photo at )
> http://www.rfelectronics.com/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm


-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[Danny Douglas]

OHHH that is what has been QRMing the SSTV up there?

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF


> I got to laugh at some of the post on this subject.
> Digital voice has been working well on HF for the
> last 3 years. PSK'ers have not a thing to worry
> about being QRM'ed by DV. That is unless you
> move up to 14,236 where we have been hanging out.
>
> I have worked many mobile from the pick up with he set up
> that I have installed. ( you can see photo at )
>
http://www.rfelectronics.com/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy
discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
>
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[John Becker]

Right you are Jerry.
I have been using a TTY machine for over 25 years.
The only problem I have had is some software and
most TNC are using 200Hz shift and some of the
operators seem to think they must be on USB.


At 05:51 PM 1/30/06, you wrote:
>Rick,
>
>Hams like to hang on to old technology, some like to experiment, so if
>the mode is available in the software package, why delete it?  Have
>asked other contacts if they want to try one of the less used modes,
>and made some discovery as to how they work.
>
>Jerry  -  K0HZI



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[John Becker]

I got to laugh at some of the post on this subject.
Digital voice has been working well on HF for the
last 3 years. PSK'ers have not a thing to worry
about being QRM'ed by DV. That is unless you
move up to 14,236 where we have been hanging out.

I have worked many mobile from the pick up with he set up
that I have installed. ( you can see photo at )
http://www.rfelectronics.com/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm








Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[Jerry W]

Rick,

Hams like to hang on to old technology, some like to experiment, so if
the mode is available in the software package, why delete it?  Have
asked other contacts if they want to try one of the less used modes,
and made some discovery as to how they work. 

Jerry  -  K0HZI

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that Olivia has 
 supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal and 
 requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult 
 conditions. But from what I see on the print, a number of digitally 
 active hams feel that Olivia is the better choice.
 
 But what about the other modes mentioned below? Do any of you use
these  modes?
 
 Other than just trying them out via the sound card to see how they 
 sound, I have not knowingly heard or worked MFSK8, Throb, ThrobX or 
 DominoF.
 
 Are there conditions on HF that warrant the use of these modes?
 
 Or should they  be considered replaced by the newer modes?
 
 Just having a lot of modes is not really the best thing in the long
run.  What makes a difference to me is having the right mode for the
right conditions.
 
 This is especially true if you need high speed with very good HF
condx vs. some kind of speed that will get through really difficult
conditions  such as the kind of conditions that stops Pactor signals
from working,  but still allows some of the digital sound card modes
to keep working  even though they are magnitudes slower under good condx.

 73,
 
 Rick, KV9U
 






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF

[jgorman01]

You might let the folks know what the RF bandwidth is of that cell
phone channel that allows 20 conversations to share it.  It will
probably be tough to get 20 phone conversations at once on 80/75
meters let alone the other bands.

The major problem with this on HF is that cell phones don't talk
direct to other cell phones.  They use a switching center to intercept
the transmissions and direct the information stream to the other cell
phone on the correct channel and vice versa.  The switching center can
keep track of who is one what channel and route accordingly.

I don't know if hams will ever want to give up the direct connection
scenario and move to one where you have to probably pay to subscribe
to a control station with two of everything and automatic failover
design in order to insure 24/7 operation.  To do otherwise would
require a scheme like ethernet with a collision avoidance protocol so
everyone isn't transmitting at once.  Very tough to send digital voice
in a scenario like this without loonnnggg delays.

Too many people are taking systems designed for use at VHF and above
and indicating that you should be able to do the same thing at HF. 
Even the ARRL proposal before the FCC takes a commissioner's comments
about PCS (cell phones), High Definition TV, and fiber optics for
god's sake and attempts to turn it into a reason for modifying HF
regulations.  

You couldn't even cram ONE HDTV signal at HF into ALL the ham bands
below 30 MHz!  Perhaps someone might inform the group how many
megahertz an OC-3 fiber optic signal would consume at HF!

If we want to keep up with digital advances in communications like
those mentioned, then we need to be dealing with them at the
frequencies actually being used, UHF and above.  

At least be honest with the folks that don't know what kind of space
these systems require.  Let them know the RF bandwidths required today
for these systems so they can judge how well they might fit into the
HF amateur bands.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DV opens up the possibilites for intelligent digital QRM filters..
wherein we could program radios it ignore other DV signals occupying
virtually the same frequency... imagine the possibilities of multiple
DV QSO's occupying the same bandwidth as a single SSB or AM QSO...
Heck you are already doing this with your cell phone ...where upwards
of 20 simultaneous conversations share the same channel.  Imagine the
possibilities
> 
> We need to be able to experiment with new technologies just like
most of the rest of the world already can!
> 
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
> Website: www.ky6la.com 
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Rick,

MFSK8 is better that MFSK16 in minimum S/N decodable, but it shares with 
THROB and THROBX the same difficulty to be tuned.
THROBX although not so used as THROB (or better said...not used at all)  is 
better than THROB (due to the fact that THROB uses either one or two 
carriers when THROBX uses always two). The THROBX is really very sensitive 
(Lowest S/N  -17.5 dB for the 2 bauds).

DominoEX is equivalent to DominoF upon my measures of minimum S/N, but has a 
bigger set of characters and a secondary text (when idling).

In general newer modes take profit of older modes and are a bit better...

73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?


> While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that Olivia has
> supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal and
> requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult
> conditions. But from what I see on the print, a number of digitally
> active hams feel that Olivia is the better choice.
>
> But what about the other modes mentioned below? Do any of you use these
> modes?
>
> Other than just trying them out via the sound card to see how they
> sound, I have not knowingly heard or worked MFSK8, Throb, ThrobX or
> DominoF.
>
> Are there conditions on HF that warrant the use of these modes?
>
> Or should they  be considered replaced by the newer modes?
>
> Just having a lot of modes is not really the best thing in the long run.
> What makes a difference to me is having the right mode for the right
> conditions.
>
> This is especially true if you need high speed with very good HF condx
> vs. some kind of speed that will get through really difficult conditions
> such as the kind of conditions that stops Pactor signals from working,
> but still allows some of the digital sound card modes to keep working
> even though they are magnitudes slower under good condx.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
> Patrick Lindecker wrote:
>
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Yes USB for all digimodes (DominoEX being side band sensitive as all MFSK
>> (or IFK) modes).
>>
>> Note: I will propose in the next Multipsk version (with DominoEX), the
>> following frequencies:
>> MFSK16, MFSK8, THROB, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX (USB)
>> 1838, 3580, 7037, 10147, 14080, 18105, 21080, 24929, 28080 Khz
>>
>> 73
>> Patrick
>>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy 
> discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[w4lde]

Rick,

I can only say from recent experience that the more common modes is use
today are,

1. PSK31
2. RTTY (Seems only during the contests)
3. MFSK16
4. Olivia
5. Hell - DominoEX - MT63 and maybe some Chip64

The rest I consider non-active.

I think that Olivia may replace MFSK16 although I like them both very
much.  On 40 meters at night here in the South, both Olivia and MFSK16
provide clean copy while PSK and RTTY fight it out with the QRN and QRM.

Last night I had an S-8 PSK come right on the center frequency of a my
Olivia QSO and I  still copied the Olivia station 100%, we were running
at 16/500, I do not know what might have happened at 8/500, I do not
think that any other mode at this time would have provided that copy. 
The receiving Olivia signal was QSBing from an S-6 to a S-9 during that
time.

I have tested Olivia at 1-watt output over 1000 miles on 80 meters with
100% copy on the other end while he could not get any copy on several
other modes we tried, had to go up to 50 watts to get copy during the
test.  

Ron W4LDE


- Original Message -
From: KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:19 pm
Subject: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

> While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that Olivia 
> has 
> supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal and 
> requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult 
> conditions. But from what I see on the print, a number of digitally 
> active hams feel that Olivia is the better choice.
> 
> But what about the other modes mentioned below? Do any of you use 
> these 
> modes?
> 
> Other than just trying them out via the sound card to see how they 
> sound, I have not knowingly heard or worked MFSK8, Throb, ThrobX or 
> DominoF.
> 
> Are there conditions on HF that warrant the use of these modes?
> 
> Or should they  be considered replaced by the newer modes?
> 
> Just having a lot of modes is not really the best thing in the long 
> run. 
> What makes a difference to me is having the right mode for the 
> right 
> conditions.
> 
> This is especially true if you need high speed with very good HF 
> condx 
> vs. some kind of speed that will get through really difficult 
> conditions 
> such as the kind of conditions that stops Pactor signals from 
> working, 
> but still allows some of the digital sound card modes to keep 
> working 
> even though they are magnitudes slower under good condx.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> 
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > Yes USB for all digimodes (DominoEX being side band sensitive as 
> all MFSK
> > (or IFK) modes).
> >
> > Note: I will propose in the next Multipsk version (with 
> DominoEX), the
> > following frequencies:
> > MFSK16, MFSK8, THROB, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX (USB)
> > 1838, 3580, 7037, 10147, 14080, 18105, 21080, 24929, 28080 Khz
> >
> > 73
> > Patrick
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
> 
> Other areas of interest:
> 
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy 
> discussion)
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[jhaynesatalumni]

It's my understanding that DominoEX is supposed to replace DominoF.

I can't say about the others - certainly there are more modes out there
than people are using.

And then some modes I would call "archaic" but not "obsolete".  Such as
Baudot RTTY - there actually seems to be an increasing number of hams
fixing up old Teletype machines so they can work RTTY.







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

I don't think that Olivia supplants MFSK16, if only for the bandwidth.  
I think the jury is still out on real-world performance as well, but 
time will tell.  Now, DominoEX seems designed by Murray to supplant 
MFSK16, and that might happen.

Of course, PSK63 was supposed to replace RTTY...

Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 2:20 pm, KV9U wrote:
> While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that Olivia has
> supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal and
> requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult
> conditions.


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Should some digital modes be considered obsolete?

[KV9U]

While I have used MFSK16 a lot in the past, it seems that Olivia has 
supplanted it, even though Olivia is often a much wider signal and 
requires fairly robust settings to equal MFSK16 under difficult 
conditions. But from what I see on the print, a number of digitally 
active hams feel that Olivia is the better choice.

But what about the other modes mentioned below? Do any of you use these 
modes?

Other than just trying them out via the sound card to see how they 
sound, I have not knowingly heard or worked MFSK8, Throb, ThrobX or 
DominoF.

Are there conditions on HF that warrant the use of these modes?

Or should they  be considered replaced by the newer modes?

Just having a lot of modes is not really the best thing in the long run. 
What makes a difference to me is having the right mode for the right 
conditions.

This is especially true if you need high speed with very good HF condx 
vs. some kind of speed that will get through really difficult conditions 
such as the kind of conditions that stops Pactor signals from working, 
but still allows some of the digital sound card modes to keep working 
even though they are magnitudes slower under good condx.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Patrick Lindecker wrote:

> Hello Dan,
>
> Yes USB for all digimodes (DominoEX being side band sensitive as all MFSK
> (or IFK) modes).
>
> Note: I will propose in the next Multipsk version (with DominoEX), the
> following frequencies:
> MFSK16, MFSK8, THROB, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX (USB)
> 1838, 3580, 7037, 10147, 14080, 18105, 21080, 24929, 28080 Khz
>
> 73
> Patrick
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

[kd4e]

This goes to part of my question and it is exciting
to envision "smart filters".

Of course a cell phone is only handling same modes
absent many of the huge variables present on HF Ham
bands so the challenge is considerably more complex.

I am certain that Hams and associated business interests
are up to it.  We just need the ARRL and FCC to think
carefully before they act and to consult the majority
vs the minority of Hams *prior* to decision making.

73, kd4e

 > Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> DV opens up the possibilites for intelligent digital 
> QRM filters.. wherein we could program radios it ignore 
> other DV signals occupying virtually the same frequency
> ... imagine the possibilities of multiple DV QSO's 
> occupying the same bandwidth as a single SSB or AM QSO
> ... Heck you are already doing this with your cell phone 
> ...where upwards of 20 simultaneous conversations share 
> the same channel.  Imagine the possibilities

-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

[Dr. Howard S. White]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF





Thanks for finally focusing on what the new rules 
are all about... experimentation and advancing the Art of Amateur Radio. and 
not the anti-Winlink, anti-ARQ, Anti-Internet, Anti-anything new or different 
Rhetoric.
 
Which is why I want to see regulation by bandwidth 
(albeit like Walt I believe that the ARRL proposal is far too restrictive) 
.. so that we can try the different technologies and see what works and what 
needs to be improved without having to constantly look into the rule books and 
figure out how many angels fit on the head of the pin...
 
DV is one exciting technology that just might 
change the face of Ham Radio just like SSB did 50 years ago... I remember the 
moaning and groaning back them that SSB would never replace AM... but it did... 
and 40 years ago when we switched to FM for the VHF and UHF bands... mainly 
because we could get a lot of cheap surplus FM police and taxi 
radios
DV has nothing to do with Winlink or the Internet  but it could 
use ARQ in some of its embodiments... So please no rhetoric about Winlink 
or the Internet...
 
DV opens up the possibilites for intelligent digital QRM filters.. wherein 
we could program radios it ignore other DV signals occupying virtually the same 
frequency... imagine the possibilities of multiple DV QSO's occupying the same 
bandwidth as a single SSB or AM QSO... Heck you are already doing this with your 
cell phone ...where upwards of 20 simultaneous conversations share the same 
channel.  Imagine the possibilities
 
We need to be able to experiment with new technologies just like most 
of the rest of the world already can!
 
__Howard S. 
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LAWebsite: www.ky6la.com "No Good Deed Goes 
Unpunished""Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 
911"

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
  
  To: 'digitalradio@yahoogroups.com' 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:28 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Digital voice 
  on HF
  
  I certainly would encourage digital voice (DV)...and I don't 
  feel that U.S. hams have anything to worry about using DV in the current voice 
  bands.
  While it is true that DV below the individual DV mode 
  threshold causes the signal to "drop out", the problem can be overcome by 
  making the mode more robust.  I suspect it to be a matter of a stronger 
  FEC and or codex.  This might cause the signal to be wider than what 
  current SSB transceiver filters will allow.  This makes SDRs an 
  interesting alternative.
  In the U.S. should the ARRL's proposal to limit HF bandwidth 
  to 3 Khz, then the challenge to bring about a more robust DV mode will be a 
  challenge and in fact they may not be able to accomplish it.  However, I 
  would hope that the rest of the world-wide ham community would continue to 
  work toward a very robust DV mode.
  I would also hope that we (hams worldwide) could settle on one 
  DV mode/code so that the various HF transceiver manufacturers could include s 
  DV module in their transceivers.
  Having used DV only briefly on HF using commercial hardware, I 
  REALLY like it...NO background noise. 
  Walt/K5YFW 
  -Original Message- From: 
  digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On 
  Behalf Of KV9U Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:24 
  AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF 
  There are some who have experimented with the expensive 
  adapters, and some who have tried the voice mode of 
  WinDRM. I am not sure how cool this stuff is at this 
  time. I have not had any luck finding much activity, 
  nor others who would be willing to try it out. When I have asked about it, some have said it is very disappointing since it 
  doesn't work if signals are not strong. 
  The main advantage of digital voice seems to be the 
  possibility of a wider audio spectrum, but like most 
  digital modes that require a high throughput (such as 
  voice), the signals drop out completely if the signal 
  goes below a threshhold level. 
  Maybe it will someday be possible to improve digital voice to 
  equal SSB, but I wonder if it is technically feasible 
  to do this considering the practical limitations of 
  physics. The understanding that I have is that digital 
  VHF/UHF voice is used primarily due to the narrower bandwidth compared to FM modes. But against SSB? 
  Comparing CW with digital keyboard modes is a different 
  situation because the amount of data going through is 
  much smaller in order to print well on the receiving 
  end. And if it really slows down enough, it can get 
  through ...  but not in real time. And that is the limitation 
  that I see with voice, in that voice is not very 
  effective if not in real time. 
  But there is nothing preventing the experimentation of digit

[digitalradio] MP-1 Antenna

[Omar Shabsigh]

Dear Friends;
 
I want to buy the MP-1  Antenna for one of our 
senior radio amateurs; Mikhail YK1AN. Can anybody tell me about one or more 
sources.
 
73
 
Omar YK1AO
President TIR
 
 





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: DonioEX

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Dan,

Yes USB for all digimodes (DominoEX being side band sensitive as all MFSK 
(or IFK) modes).

Note: I will propose in the next Multipsk version (with DominoEX), the 
following frequencies:
MFSK16, MFSK8, THROB, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX (USB)
1838, 3580, 7037, 10147, 14080, 18105, 21080, 24929, 28080 Khz

73
Patrick


- Original Message - 
From: "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:21 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: DonioEX


> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n0ziz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Which sideband is used for Dominoex?
>> Dan N0ZIZ
>>
> Dan,
>
> USB everywhere as far as I know, all digital modes use USB.
>
> 73
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy 
> discussion)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

[kd4e]

How do we prevent the inevitable conflict between the
wider and continuous-peak DV modes and other modes on
the bands?

Do we not need to segment digital and analog modes?

Also, is it possible to effectively filter out a known
digital mode?  e.g. If I know that the signal QRMing
an emergency net is a PSK31 or Pactor III or DV could
a filter be switched in that would remove all of that
digital content without also wiping the analog SSB of
the emergency net?

I am thinking of a case where the digital signal is
just a little too close to the net and it is the outer
edge of the signal and folks are for some reason unable
to get the attention of the op or the op refuses to
relocate.

> In the U.S. should the ARRL's proposal to limit HF bandwidth to 3 Khz, then
> the challenge to bring about a more robust DV mode will be a challenge and
> in fact they may not be able to accomplish it.  However, I would hope that
> the rest of the world-wide ham community would continue to work toward a
> very robust DV mode.
> 
> Having used DV only briefly on HF using commercial hardware, I REALLY like
> it...NO background noise.
> 
> Walt/K5YFW


-- 
~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

|_|___|_|
| | & | |
   {|
   /\  {|
  /  \ {|
 /\{|
/   @  \   {|
|   |~_||
|   -| ||
\ #   http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
  KD4E =
West Central Florida

~~~


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF







I certainly would encourage digital voice (DV)...and I don't feel that U.S. hams have anything to worry about using DV in the current voice bands.

While it is true that DV below the individual DV mode threshold causes the signal to "drop out", the problem can be overcome by making the mode more robust.  I suspect it to be a matter of a stronger FEC and or codex.  This might cause the signal to be wider than what current SSB transceiver filters will allow.  This makes SDRs an interesting alternative.

In the U.S. should the ARRL's proposal to limit HF bandwidth to 3 Khz, then the challenge to bring about a more robust DV mode will be a challenge and in fact they may not be able to accomplish it.  However, I would hope that the rest of the world-wide ham community would continue to work toward a very robust DV mode.

I would also hope that we (hams worldwide) could settle on one DV mode/code so that the various HF transceiver manufacturers could include s DV module in their transceivers.

Having used DV only briefly on HF using commercial hardware, I REALLY like it...NO background noise.


Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Digital voice on HF



There are some who have experimented with the expensive adapters, and 
some who have tried the voice mode of WinDRM. I am not sure how cool 
this stuff is at this time. I have not had any luck finding much 
activity, nor others who would be willing to try it out. When I have 
asked about it, some have said it is very disappointing since it doesn't 
work if signals are not strong.


The main advantage of digital voice seems to be the possibility of a 
wider audio spectrum, but like most digital modes that require a high 
throughput (such as voice), the signals drop out completely if the 
signal goes below a threshhold level.


Maybe it will someday be possible to improve digital voice to equal SSB, 
but I wonder if it is technically feasible to do this considering the 
practical limitations of physics. The understanding that I have is that 
digital VHF/UHF voice is used primarily due to the narrower bandwidth 
compared to FM modes. But against SSB?


Comparing CW with digital keyboard modes is a different situation 
because the amount of data going through is much smaller in order to 
print well on the receiving end. And if it really slows down enough, it 
can get through ...  but not in real time. And that is the limitation 
that I see with voice, in that voice is not very effective if not in 
real time.


But there is nothing preventing the experimentation of digital voice at 
this time from what I have read of the rules. The problem here in the 
U.S. is the ability to send "data" on a voice channel. It is sort of 
legal by some interpretations, but not really clearly legal. The idea 
that a digital picture (image) is OK to send on a voice channel, but 
other data are not is so absurd as to defy logic. Sometimes you might 
want to use SSB analog voice and then send an image, either analog or 
digital. This is done all the time in the voice portion of the bands. 
But some times you might want to send a data file.


Further, even if bandwidth proposals go through, they are still making 
it sound like this problem will not necessarily be corrected. They may 
still require analog and digital to be kept in separate areas with 
bandplans. This really concerns me.


73,


Rick, KV9U





Dr. Howard S. White wrote:


> I for one want to start experimenting with digital voice technologies 
> on HF...  There is a lot of really cool stuff out there to try that 
> could give us 100% voice copy with S/N in the -db ranges.  It would be 
> really cool to copy voice when my CW friends could no longer copy code 
> like we now do with Olivia But most of these new technologies 
> are currently screwed up with the current regulations.
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
> Website: www.ky6la.com 
> "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* N6CRR 
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2006 8:05 PM
> *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: RM-11306 Rant
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> , Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...> wrote:
> >
> > I really LOVE it when people tell me why I think what I think.
> >
> > The scenario I mentioned is *EXACTLY* what I would be doing
> > if it were legal.  What's plain silly is having that s