date:20060222

Too wide.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This just in direct.
> 
>  > John
>  > you have the guts to post this.
>  > how about a WAV file saying "THE FREQUECNY IS IN USE LID"
> 
> How about that Dave. The man has a idea there.
> You did not like any of mine.
> 
> At 07:47 PM 2/22/06, you wrote:
> >We need something recognizable by ear AND recognizable on a
> >waterfall display. I suspect that RYRYRYRYRY fails the latter 
test,
> >unless we're going to say that any RTTY signal will be interpreted
> >as "QRL?"
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
>







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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Joe Ivey






Doc,
 
It is just more B S from those that want to turn 
ham radio into an email server. What needs to happen is give those 
a 10-20 KHZ segment of each band and let them do 
their thing and if anyone else was operating in that segment
would have no reason to complain about 
QRM.
 
Joe IveyW4JSI
 
Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  doc 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and 
  traffic handling and digital
  I would like to see the documentation of this.As a 
  former employee of a state emergency managementagency and a former section 
  emergency coordinator anda Ham for a long time the scenario described must 
  bemissing some important variables.If HF Winlink could hold 
  effective communications onHF then so could a dozen or more modes.  
  There is notechnological reason why HF Winlink was "the only"reliable 
  mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewedto be certain of that 
  outcome.Not looking for an argument, just some healthy 
  cynicismbased on a little knowledge of politics and science.HF 
  Winlink may have been "one of many" modes morecapable of effective weak 
  signal communications but onecannot ever make the claim that it would be 
  the "only".Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the 
  highvalue of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be apoor 
  first/primary choice.  The hardware is so rare asto be readily 
  postulated as "probably unavailable" atboth ends and the complexity of the 
  systems rise abovestandard emergency requirements for 
  mission-criticalapplications.A third-tier or fourth-tier 
  nice-to-have perhaps.IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e> Last 
  August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San > 
  Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9 > 
  earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which > 
  destroyed most of the local infrasture.>  > Due to the 
  simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and > power 
  sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land > Line 
  voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial > 
  County EOC.>  > The only communications that proved 
  reliable was HF Winlink.  San Diego > EOC was able to connect into 
  a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County > was able to connect to 
  another HF node and we established and maintained > both Critical, 
  Tactical and H&W communications through Winlink Email.>  
  > I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else 
  failed > during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in 
  the wool > Winlink Haters around here.>  > Could we 
  have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..>  > We 
  tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)... > 
  however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
  > relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
  > reliability...> > So there definitely is a place for 
  Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...> 
  __> Howard S. 
  White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA





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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread doc

I would like to see the documentation of this.

As a former employee of a state emergency management
agency and a former section emergency coordinator and
a Ham for a long time the scenario described must be
missing some important variables.

If HF Winlink could hold effective communications on
HF then so could a dozen or more modes.  There is no
technological reason why HF Winlink was "the only"
reliable mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewed
to be certain of that outcome.

Not looking for an argument, just some healthy cynicism
based on a little knowledge of politics and science.

HF Winlink may have been "one of many" modes more
capable of effective weak signal communications but one
cannot ever make the claim that it would be the "only".

Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the high
value of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be a
poor first/primary choice.  The hardware is so rare as
to be readily postulated as "probably unavailable" at
both ends and the complexity of the systems rise above
standard emergency requirements for mission-critical
applications.

A third-tier or fourth-tier nice-to-have perhaps.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e

> Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San 
> Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9 
> earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which 
> destroyed most of the local infrasture.
>  
> Due to the simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and 
> power sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land 
> Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial 
> County EOC.
>  
> The only communications that proved reliable was HF Winlink.  San Diego 
> EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County 
> was able to connect to another HF node and we established and maintained 
> both Critical, Tactical and H&W communications through Winlink Email.
>  
> I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else failed 
> during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in the wool 
> Winlink Haters around here.
>  
> Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..
>  
> We tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)... 
> however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for 
> relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or 
> reliability...
> 
> So there definitely is a place for Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA


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] Linux for Windows addicts

2006-02-22 Thread Kristoff Bonne


Gegroet,

Kristoff Bonne schreef:

In addition to the hints given by some other people, you can also take 
a look at "qemu", which is a free PC emulator. The main focus is to 
run it on a linux host but you can also run it on a windows box.


Oeps. Forgot the URLs:
Main project page: http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/index.html
Qemu for win32: http://free.oszoo.org/download.html


Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [digitalradio] Linux for Windows addicts

2006-02-22 Thread Kristoff Bonne


Gegroet,

Andrew O'Brien schreef:


Please excuse the Linux rookie questions.  I wonder if there is an
easy to manage CD bootable Linux program that one could download for a
CD burn?  Sometime ago a member here (Harv, I think) was kind enough
to mail out a CD that did this, it had a few sound card glitches so I
stopped using it.
It seems that some of us that are Windows addicts, but want to try
some Linux only software, could be tempted if we had a simple to
install Linux system that easily reverts to Windows.  Maybe there are
updates to what Harv was distributing?


In addition to the hints given by some other people, you can also take a 
look at "qemu", which is a free PC emulator. The main focus is to run it 
on a linux host but you can also run it on a windows box.


This allows you to play around with different unix operating-systems 
inside a virtual PC on your windows; and will give you a way to try it 
out before you start installing it on a PC or without the need of 
"live-CDs".



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

This just in direct.

 > John
 > you have the guts to post this.
 > how about a WAV file saying "THE FREQUECNY IS IN USE LID"

How about that Dave. The man has a idea there.
You did not like any of mine.

At 07:47 PM 2/22/06, you wrote:
>We need something recognizable by ear AND recognizable on a
>waterfall display. I suspect that RYRYRYRYRY fails the latter test,
>unless we're going to say that any RTTY signal will be interpreted
>as "QRL?"
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ


















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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

At 04:48 PM 2/22/06, you wrote:
>":I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a frequency. I
>know I
>don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am reading a
>transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops would never
>hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are using."

Every now and then I will jump onto HELL or MT63 other that those
2 digital modes all the other modes I operate have no watwefall  and
I must listen to tune. Maybe I'm missing a lot by not operating PSK.
But I did try it and fail to see or get a rush from it.

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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

I have used Winlink occasionally, and have not experienced any 
contention when attempting to connect. I have not tried NTS-D.

Trading absolute efficiency for dramatically reduced QRM -- and the 
frustration it generates -- seems reasonable to me. If the QRL 
protocol enables automatic stations to operate considerately and 
rarely QRM ongoing QSOs, then having ~10% more automatic stations to 
compensate for the protocol's capacity impact is a no-brainer. And 
10% is probably an overestimate...

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 22 February 2006 01:09, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > >>>AA6YQ comments below
> >
> 
> >
> > >>>Unless a remote operator seeking access to the automatic 
station
> > is sitting on frequency waiting for the frequency to clear, there
> > will be a signficant delay between the frequency clearing and the
> > first transaction. The proposed multi-minute process that 
verifies
> > that the frequency is truly clear runs in parallel with this 
delay.
> > The probability that the remote operator will attempt initiation
> > within 5 minutes of the frequency clearing is low, hence the 
impact
> > on overall throughput will be low.
> 
> Have you ever listened on the Winlink and NTS-D frequencies? On 
40m at night 
> it is hard to establish any kind of session because of the usage 
levels. I 
> don't get much of a chance to listen to 20m during the day but 
based on 
> Winlink traffic loads it would appear that those channels are very 
busy also.
> 
> The biggest problem is that the remote operator does NOT sit on 
the channel 
> waiting for it to clear. That is the whole crux of the hidden 
transmitter 
> problem. The proposed multi-minute wait process just multiplies 
the session 
> time requiring even more channels to carry the traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
Replying
> > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether on 
an
> > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> 
> I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a 
frequency. I know I 
> don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am 
reading a 
> transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops 
would never 
> hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are 
using.
> 
> 
> 
> > It would be much better if the automatic station could respond 
to a
> > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that
> > suggested that to me at some time in the past?).
> >
> > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> >
> 
> I don't agree. I like the ability to actually break into a 
transmission much 
> better.
> 
> tim ab0wr
>







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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

What's the rationale behind this proposal?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about 2 PSK tones at 22.75 baud spaced 50 Hz apart that sends
> 1010101001010101 ?
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:36 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital
> 
> 
> -Dave,
> 
> How about something as distinctive as RTTY's RYRYRYRYRYRYRY?  We 
all 
> recognize RYs without decoding it with a terminal.  Your tone idea 
> is good, anything that is easy to recognize with the ear would be 
> good. I wonder how QRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRL sounds in RTTY?
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
>   -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> wrote:
> >
> > If "QRL?" in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of 
eight 
> 1 
> > khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey 
the "is 
> > this frequency in use?" message. It would be distinctive in a 
> > waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
> > software.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they 
won't 
> be
> > > able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have 
> folks 
> > that
> > > are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this 
purpose.
> > > 
> > > Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
> > suffices
> > > for that.  Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
> > situation.
> > > 
> > > Jim
> > > WA0LYK
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
> > instance, 
> > > > will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
> > > > 
> > > > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
> > Replying 
> > > > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether 
> on 
> > an 
> > > > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> > > > 
> > > > It would be much better if the automatic station could 
respond 
> > to a 
> > > > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you 
that 
> > > > suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
> > > > 
> > > > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> > > > 
> > > >  73,
> > > > 
> > > >  Dave, AA6YQ
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

We need something recognizable by ear AND recognizable on a 
waterfall display. I suspect that RYRYRYRYRY fails the latter test, 
unless we're going to say that any RTTY signal will be interpreted 
as "QRL?"

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Dave,
> 
> How about something as distinctive as RTTY's RYRYRYRYRYRYRY?  We 
all 
> recognize RYs without decoding it with a terminal.  Your tone idea 
> is good, anything that is easy to recognize with the ear would be 
> good. I wonder how QRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRL sounds in RTTY?
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
>   -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> wrote:
> >
> > If "QRL?" in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of 
eight 
> 1 
> > khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey 
the "is 
> > this frequency in use?" message. It would be distinctive in a 
> > waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
> > software.
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they 
won't 
> be
> > > able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have 
> folks 
> > that
> > > are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this 
purpose.
> > > 
> > > Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
> > suffices
> > > for that.  Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
> > situation.
> > > 
> > > Jim
> > > WA0LYK
> > > 
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
> > instance, 
> > > > will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
> > > > 
> > > > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
> > Replying 
> > > > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether 
> on 
> > an 
> > > > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> > > > 
> > > > It would be much better if the automatic station could 
respond 
> > to a 
> > > > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you 
that 
> > > > suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
> > > > 
> > > > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> > > > 
> > > >  73,
> > > > 
> > > >  Dave, AA6YQ
> > > >
> > >
> >
>






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] email to Internet without a PC ?

2006-02-22 Thread John Bradley






 

   "I'm still not convinced that this is of use to 
  anyone other than those in extremely remote 
  locations".  
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 
  2/21/06





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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Danny Douglas

":I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a frequency. I
know I
don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am reading a
transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops would never
hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are using."

I believe this is the crux of the whole discussion.  The failure to listen
to a frequency before transmission is the problem.  That is why the
whole suggestion of the software being fail-safe by not transmitting has
come up.  Personally, it has gone beyond amateur radio, if one is not
sitting there and involved in the transmission/reception of traffic.  I
worked 30 years on the commercial/government side of telecommunications and
that is where this type of transmission belong, not here on the ham bands.





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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a
Simulated Emergency Test in San Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the
effects of a 7.9 earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario)
which destroyed most of the local infrasture.
Due to the simulated outages of local
infrastructure, repeaters and power sources, we were unable to establish
VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC
and the Imperial County EOC.
The only communications that proved reliable was HF
Winlink. San Diego EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas
and Imperial County was able to connect to another HF node and we established
and maintained both Critical, Tactical and H&W communications through
Winlink Email.
I might note that the success of HF Winlink when
everything else failed during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died
in the wool Winlink Haters around here.
Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice
Relays?..
We tried HF voice without much success (they were
in a HF dead zone)... however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF
stations around for relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of
use or reliability...
So there definitely is a place for Winlink
EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
__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:
KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:19
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
Tim,I think we all understand your position on
this. If you take it very far, I would have to say that 95% or more hams
would recommend that any kind of automatic operation be prohibited on
amateur radio frequencies. As I said earlier, subbands may be a solution
for now, but long term, maybe not. Nothing is perfect.For example,
if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital CQ or answer a
digital CQ and an automatic digital station comes on frequency, I have no
way of knowing if they were there first unless I happen to be using their
mode. If a Pactor station comes up, I would know that they are interfering
with my Q because, they are going to be operating as an ARQ mode.
This is another significant benefit to ARQ modes, since they insure that a
station coming up on the frequency knows right away whether the frequency
is busy or not. And it doesn't have to occur on a special part of the
band.Now if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital CQ
or answer a digital CQ or try to connect with an automated system and a
human op somewhere starts transmitting on the frequency, I would often
consider them to be encroaching. If they were using a different mode, I
would have no way of knowing if they were there first. Does this happen
very often? Pretty rare, but it does happen. If I am on the same mode, I
may be able to read the mail if they are stronger and maybe not. This is
one of the limitations of digital modes at this time. With CW or voice
you can more easily determine who was there first. QRL in CW as some
suggest is going to be of less value due to the fewer and fewer hams who
will even know CW, but if they hear it, even if they can not understand
it, they will know the frequency is being used, so that has value in
ID'ing a busy channel.As far as using e-mail during emergencies,
you only use e-mail for large files of data. You NEVER, EVER, use e-mail
for critical, tactical messaging. Any emergency operations MUST always
have a solid voice link first. This is one of the most basic tenents of
emergency communication. It is only after you have tactical communications
that you even consider having e-mail linking. But e-mail links can be
useful in emergency situations.One of the best object lessons
(apparently true) about e-mail was when e-mail was used to call for an
emergency test for an organization. The message was sent out at the end of
the week so that everyone would know of the participation on Saturday
morning. Unfortunately, the e-mails did not get delivered to the
recipients until Sunday :( Big problem.I know of a Winlink 2000
situation where the system was to be used to demonstrate its effectives
for emergency use and it utterly failed. Some of the messages came through
much later, but it showed that you can not absolutely rely on any of these
systems to work 100% of the time. But often they do work rather well. When
we were testing SCAMP, I was able to link between my station in SW
Wisconsin, to a station in Nova Scotia, transfer a letter size document in
a few minutes and have the message back on my desktop as e-mail a

[digitalradio] Re: email to Internet without a PC ?

2006-02-22 Thread Jerry W

Andy,

Harv's CD is a "Live" Linux OS a few things can be saved such as
bookmarks and "home" files.  Not sure you can add other applications.
To be sure send a quick email to Harv, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think Harv also reads this group, maybe he will answer.

Otherwise Simply Mepis (based on Debian) is easy to use, configures
your hardware easy.

You can add applications by using the "Synaptic" interface or compile
from "tar ball" files in a Terminal session.

Download and then burn from iso using your CD burning software.
Once the CD loaded there is an icon on the desktop to install to your
HDD permently.  Be careful on setting up partitions so you don't wipe
out your Windows partition.  You need about 5 Gigs hard drive space
for Mepis. Simply Mepis: http://www.mepis.org/node/1462 is the
download page, select a site and save iso file.

HTH,

Jerry  -  K0HZI

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 Yes, but If I understand it correctly Harv's product is an OS and
some ham files .  If I use this cd and create a bootable Linuk OS,
will I be able to load other Linuk software , PSKMAIL for example ? 

 Andy







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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread Tim Gorman

On Wednesday 22 February 2006 01:09, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>

>
> >>>Unless a remote operator seeking access to the automatic station
> is sitting on frequency waiting for the frequency to clear, there
> will be a signficant delay between the frequency clearing and the
> first transaction. The proposed multi-minute process that verifies
> that the frequency is truly clear runs in parallel with this delay.
> The probability that the remote operator will attempt initiation
> within 5 minutes of the frequency clearing is low, hence the impact
> on overall throughput will be low.

Have you ever listened on the Winlink and NTS-D frequencies? On 40m at night 
it is hard to establish any kind of session because of the usage levels. I 
don't get much of a chance to listen to 20m during the day but based on 
Winlink traffic loads it would appear that those channels are very busy also.

The biggest problem is that the remote operator does NOT sit on the channel 
waiting for it to clear. That is the whole crux of the hidden transmitter 
problem. The proposed multi-minute wait process just multiplies the session 
time requiring even more channels to carry the traffic.

> >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. Replying
> requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether on an
> KSR-33 or a keyboard.

I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a frequency. I know I 
don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am reading a 
transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops would never 
hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are using.

> It would be much better if the automatic station could respond to a
> standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that
> suggested that to me at some time in the past?).
>
> >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
>

I don't agree. I like the ability to actually break into a transmission much 
better.

tim ab0wr

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] Software control

2006-02-22 Thread Mel

Hello Clint,

Just read your mail. Have a look at 

www.ptpart.co.uk/quickmix/  or  

www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/QuickMix

It might solve your problem

Regards Mel G0GQK



 






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] Sound card management software?

2006-02-22 Thread clintws1v

Installed a 2nd Soundcard in my PC, I can control both sound devices,
but going thru the menus/control panel to activate each is a pain.
Can anyone reccomend a soundcard management software that remembers the 
soundcard settings for various operating schemes, and requires one click
to activate/deactivate each sound device?

I downloaded the sound management module from here:

http://www.romacsoftware.com/

haven't tried it out yet, but it might be all I need, but I remember
reading somewhere that there was another smaller utility to maintain
various soundcard settings?

73,
Clint
WS1V









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] Soundcard mystery.

2006-02-22 Thread Mel

Hello everyone,

I know nothing about computers and soundcards so can anyone explain 
why I have this problem? I use Quickmix to hold the correct PSK 
settings for each band I operate, and this works mostly OK, with one 
exception, and that is 20 metres.

I have to disconnect the rig after every operating session because my 
shack is in the garden. Each time I re-connect the rig, I load the 20 
metre setting, and every time I have to re-adjust it. Quickmix sets 
it in the same place then I find the ALC is showing so I make the 
correct adjustment and re-load the new setting into Quickmix and then 
everything is OK

The following day I have to go through the same procedure again, but 
only on 20 metres. Why should the VOL setting on the PC be OK for 20 
metres one day, but not the next.?  Sometimes the variation in the 
setting on the VOL scale is quite noticeable.I use an ACC1 cable. Its 
not a big problem, its just irritating.

Mel G0GQK






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] email to Internet without a PC ?




Yes, but If I understand it correctly Harv's product is an OS and some ham files .  If I use this cd and create a bootable Linuk OS, will I be able to load other Linuk software , PSKMAIL for example ?
 
 
On 2/22/06, Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So, Walt...would not NTS be the answer here?  However,  instead of the farce of transmitting NTS message via a relay of amteur stations, the message would just get picked up and put in to the Internet at the first opporunity.  Of course traditional NTS would be needed (or a new invention) for messages intended for someone without an email address . 

 
 
By the way, the use of NTS for messages between the USA and countries that do not have a third party agreement is not allowed, right?  Would this restriction apply to a U.S. ham that picked up a message via amateur radio (non-business related) and then popped it in to the Internet for the rest of its "journey" ?  

 
 
Andy K3UK 

On 2/22/06, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

In dieaster relief communications being able to send E-Mail type messages to another station on HF with or without their ability to forward it to the Internet is very valuable.  Being able to automatically forward a HF radio received message/E-mail and forward it to the internet makes it a valuable disaster relief communications tool. 

As in Katrina, some locations did not have even cellphone service for 3-4 weeks and POTS for 4-8 weeks (some areas six months later still do not have POTS service) and no Internet access for 4-6 weeks and still not high speed internet service makes E-Mail service bewtween stations and forwarding to the internet a valuable service. 

Unless you have been there, you can't appreciate the service of E-Mail via amateur radio. 
Walt/K5YFW   

 -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:19 AM 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ? 

I'm intrigued by all the email software that radio amateurs have produced, including PSKMAIL.  What these programs do is allow someone with a computer to enter in a message, then use a PC and radio to transmit the message to a server.  I'm still not convinced that this is of use to anyone other than those in extremely remote locations.  It would seem to me that the ideal application would allow radio amateurs to send email to the Internet but not require the operator to have a computer.  A revamped NTS-type of radio net would work , check in to the net and have the net members pick up traffic for a simple "popping it in to the Internet"  . Other than that crude method, what other way could we achieve this .  Tranceivers with built in software that would allow composition of a message for transmission to a amateur mail server?  Hmmm, maybe some VHF transceivers already do that via APRS messages.  Something! a little more functional than APRS messages would help.  

-- Andy Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.orgOther 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 


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.



-- Andy -- Andy 






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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread KV9U

Tim,

I think we all understand your position on this. If you take it very 
far, I would have to say that 95% or more hams would recommend that any 
kind of automatic operation be prohibited on amateur radio frequencies. 
As I said earlier, subbands may be a solution for now, but long term, 
maybe not. Nothing is perfect.

For example, if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital 
CQ or answer a digital CQ and an automatic digital station comes on 
frequency, I have no way of knowing if they were there first unless I 
happen to be using their mode. If a Pactor station comes up, I would 
know that they are interfering with my Q because,  they are going to be 
operating as an ARQ mode. This is another significant benefit to ARQ 
modes, since they insure that a station coming up on the frequency knows 
right away whether the frequency is busy or not. And it doesn't have to 
occur on a special part of the band.

Now if I am monitoring a frequency and start calling a digital CQ or 
answer a digital CQ or try to connect with an automated system and a 
human op somewhere starts transmitting on the frequency, I would often 
consider them to be encroaching. If they were using a different mode, I 
would have no way of knowing if they were there first. Does this happen 
very often? Pretty rare, but it does happen. If I am on the same mode, I 
may be able to read the mail if they are stronger and maybe not. This is 
one of the limitations of digital modes at this time. With CW or voice 
you can more easily determine who was there first. QRL in CW as some 
suggest is going to be of less value due to the fewer and fewer hams who 
will even know CW, but if they hear it, even if they can not understand 
it, they will know the frequency is being used, so that has value in 
ID'ing a busy channel.

As far as using e-mail during emergencies, you only use e-mail for large 
files of data. You NEVER, EVER, use e-mail for critical, tactical 
messaging. Any emergency operations MUST always have a solid voice link 
first. This is one of the most basic tenents of emergency communication. 
It is only after you have tactical communications that you even consider 
having e-mail linking. But e-mail links can be useful in emergency 
situations.

One of the best object lessons (apparently true) about e-mail was when 
e-mail was used to call for an emergency test for an organization. The 
message was sent out at the end of the week so that everyone would know 
of the participation on Saturday morning. Unfortunately, the e-mails did 
not get delivered to the recipients until Sunday :( Big problem.

I know of a Winlink 2000 situation where the system was to be used to 
demonstrate its effectives for emergency use and it utterly failed. Some 
of the messages came through much later, but it showed that you can not 
absolutely rely on any of these systems to work 100% of the time. But 
often they do work rather well. When we were testing SCAMP, I was able 
to link between my station in SW Wisconsin, to a station in Nova Scotia, 
transfer a letter size document in a few minutes and have the message 
back on my desktop as e-mail a few seconds later. The idea is to have 
alternate systems, but always have tactical voice available.

The American Red Cross fiasco with them preventing hams from sending 
Health and Welfare is shocking and you are very correct that ARRL needs 
to negotiate a complete change in thinking within the leadership of ARC. 
I still can not believe how many really bad decisions were made at so 
many levels, by so many people who were in positions of authority.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Tim Gorman wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 February 2006 18:45, KV9U wrote:
> > With the unfolding technologies we won't be needing subbands. For the
> > older technology such as PK-232 equipment the stop gap is to keep the
> > automatic operation areas in place for now. Ideally, they would
> > eventually not be needed. At this time I am not sure that the SCS modem
> > is a solution. It would require improved software to go with the modem.
> > But there is no reason that this could not be developed as a retrofix.
>
> I think you missed my point. Even with the new technology, sub-bands 
> will be
> needed. You are only fooling yourself if you think busy detection by 
> itself
> will eliminate the QRM from the hidden transmitter problem. Let me 
> emphasize,
> *THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY* could not solve this problem during FCC 
> hearings on
> the smart radio concept.
>
> It doesn't matter what kind of busy detection the automatic station 
> has. If it
> can't hear anyone on the frequency it will, sooner or later, respond to a
> query. If you force the protocol to use an extended leaky bucket type of
> timing to respond to queries when activity has been detected at a 
> prior time
> then you only load the channel up further with connection requests thus
> causing even more congestion than occurred before. This hurts the channel
> efficiency tremendous

Re: [digitalradio] Linux for Windows addicts

2006-02-22 Thread Arthur J. Lekstutis

Are you referring to this?
http://hamshack-hack.sourceforge.net/

Later,
Artie Lekstutis
KC2MFS

>Please excuse the Linux rookie questions.  I wonder if there is an 
>easy to manage CD bootable Linux program that one could download for a 
>CD burn?  Sometime ago a member here (Harv, I think) was kind enough 
>to mail out a CD that did this, it had a few sound card glitches so I 
>stopped using it.
>
>It seems that some of us that are Windows addicts, but want to try 
>some Linux only software, could be tempted if we had a simple to 
>install Linux system that easily reverts to Windows.  Maybe there are 
>updates to what Harv was distributing?
>
>  
>





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] Linux for Windows addicts

Andy I have been using Fedora and really like it.
You can download it at this address or I can
burn you a copy of the CD's that I already.

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/3/i386/iso/


John, W0JAB



At 12:44 PM 2/22/06, you wrote:
>Please excuse the Linux rookie questions.  I wonder if there is an
>easy to manage CD bootable Linux program that one could download for a
>CD burn?  Sometime ago a member here (Harv, I think) was kind enough
>to mail out a CD that did this, it had a few sound card glitches so I
>stopped using it.
>
>It seems that some of us that are Windows addicts, but want to try
>some Linux only software, could be tempted if we had a simple to
>install Linux system that easily reverts to Windows.  Maybe there are
>updates to what Harv was distributing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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] email to Internet without a PC ?




So, Walt...would not NTS be the answer here?  However,  instead of the farce of transmitting NTS message via a relay of amteur stations, the message would just get picked up and put in to the Internet at the first opporunity.  Of course traditional NTS would be needed (or a new invention) for messages intended for someone without an email address . 

 
 
By the way, the use of NTS for messages between the USA and countries that do not have a third party agreement is not allowed, right?  Would this restriction apply to a U.S. ham that picked up a message via amateur radio (non-business related) and then popped it in to the Internet for the rest of its "journey" ?  

 
 
Andy K3UK 
On 2/22/06, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In dieaster relief communications being able to send E-Mail type messages to another station on HF with or without their ability to forward it to the Internet is very valuable.  Being able to automatically forward a HF radio received message/E-mail and forward it to the internet makes it a valuable disaster relief communications tool.

As in Katrina, some locations did not have even cellphone service for 3-4 weeks and POTS for 4-8 weeks (some areas six months later still do not have POTS service) and no Internet access for 4-6 weeks and still not high speed internet service makes E-Mail service bewtween stations and forwarding to the internet a valuable service. 

Unless you have been there, you can't appreciate the service of E-Mail via amateur radio. 
Walt/K5YFW   

 -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:19 AM
 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?
 
I'm intrigued by all the email software that radio amateurs have produced, including PSKMAIL.  What these programs do is allow someone with a computer to enter in a message, then use a PC and radio to transmit the message to a server.  I'm still not convinced that this is of use to anyone other than those in extremely remote locations.  It would seem to me that the ideal application would allow radio amateurs to send email to the Internet but not require the operator to have a computer.  A revamped NTS-type of radio net would work , check in to the net and have the net members pick up traffic for a simple "popping it in to the Internet"  . Other than that crude method, what other way could we achieve this .  Tranceivers with built in software that would allow composition of a message for transmission to a amateur mail server?  Hmmm, maybe some VHF transceivers already do that via APRS messages.  Something! a little more functional than APRS messages would help.  

-- Andy Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.orgOther 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 


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. 



-- Andy 






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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







How about 2 PSK tones at 22.75 baud spaced 50 Hz apart that sends 1010101001010101 ?


Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:36 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital



-Dave,


How about something as distinctive as RTTY's RYRYRYRYRYRYRY?  We all 
recognize RYs without decoding it with a terminal.  Your tone idea 
is good, anything that is easy to recognize with the ear would be 
good. I wonder how QRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRL sounds in RTTY?


Andy K3UK


  -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> If "QRL?" in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of eight 
1 
> khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey the "is 
> this frequency in use?" message. It would be distinctive in a 
> waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
> software.
> 
>    73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01"  wrote:
> >
> > The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't 
be
> > able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have 
folks 
> that
> > are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.
> > 
> > Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
> suffices
> > for that.  Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
> situation.
> > 
> > Jim
> > WA0LYK
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
> instance, 
> > > will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
> > > 
> > > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
> Replying 
> > > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether 
on 
> an 
> > > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> > > 
> > > It would be much better if the automatic station could respond 
> to a 
> > > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that 
> > > suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
> > > 
> > > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> > > 
> > >  73,
> > > 
> > >  Dave, AA6YQ
> > >
> >
>







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/
 








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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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.

[digitalradio] Linux for Windows addicts

Please excuse the Linux rookie questions.  I wonder if there is an 
easy to manage CD bootable Linux program that one could download for a 
CD burn?  Sometime ago a member here (Harv, I think) was kind enough 
to mail out a CD that did this, it had a few sound card glitches so I 
stopped using it.

It seems that some of us that are Windows addicts, but want to try 
some Linux only software, could be tempted if we had a simple to 
install Linux system that easily reverts to Windows.  Maybe there are 
updates to what Harv was distributing?







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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

-Dave,

How about something as distinctive as RTTY's RYRYRYRYRYRYRY?  We all 
recognize RYs without decoding it with a terminal.  Your tone idea 
is good, anything that is easy to recognize with the ear would be 
good. I wonder how QRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRLQRL sounds in RTTY?

Andy K3UK

  -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> If "QRL?" in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of eight 
1 
> khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey the "is 
> this frequency in use?" message. It would be distinctive in a 
> waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
> software.
> 
>73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01"  wrote:
> >
> > The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't 
be
> > able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have 
folks 
> that
> > are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.
> > 
> > Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
> suffices
> > for that.  Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
> situation.
> > 
> > Jim
> > WA0LYK
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
> instance, 
> > > will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
> > > 
> > > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
> Replying 
> > > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether 
on 
> an 
> > > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> > > 
> > > It would be much better if the automatic station could respond 
> to a 
> > > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that 
> > > suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
> > > 
> > > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> > > 
> > >  73,
> > > 
> > >  Dave, AA6YQ
> > >
> >
>






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] gmfsk mods

2006-02-22 Thread Leigh L. Klotz, Jr.

Dave,
Let me say that I think your improvements to the gMFSK functionality are 
fantastic.  I really like the mode buttons at the bottom, the "NET" sync 
function, and even appreciate the colors.

I have been sending my changes to Tomi, and he's been really good about 
putting them in.  I think that if you want to un-fork, Tomi would 
probably just take your changes.
Perhaps you've already approached him on this, but if not, please take 
my encouragement.

I think the gMFSK architecture internally needs a little work; the modem 
back-ends are well done, and the UI itself using GLADE is easy to 
modify.  But I'd like to see a better separation of the two.  I did a 
first cut at it with a network.c interface file, and I'd like to try to 
separate out the UI completely from the backend.   I saw that you have 
programs that run on both Windows and Linux, and having the modem 
backend (with network access) from gMFSK available on Windows would be 
great, and that's part of my goal.  I hope you think it's a good idea too.

Also, I noticed your PSKMeter software.  I wrote the first Linux 
software for it, a simple command-line tool, and Marty AA6E picked it up 
and did a nice version in Python.  I'll try yours -- it's looks like it 
has a lot of nice features.

73,
Leigh / WA5ZNU

wvbkpr wrote:
> I have posted a number of modifications to gmfsk-0.7pre1 on my web site:
> www.w1hkj.com.
>
> Also find other amateur related linux and windoze software.
>
>
>   

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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

At 09:34 AM 2/22/06, you wrote:

>Some commercial repeaters (those in the Land Mobile Radio Service) 
>and  some governmental services use CW at 20 WPM to identify their 
>repeaters/base stations and some even have it identifying mobiles because 
>its very inexpensive.  But I'll bet that 99% or their radio technicians 
>can't read a word of CW even at 2-3 WPM.
>
>Walt/K5YFW

Having worked in the 2 way radio service for over 27 years
I can tell you the you are right. The CW ID is not for the
system users or owners but because FCC rule 90.402
says the system MUST be ID'ed by voice or CW. trying
to get a person to it on time is out of the question.
I think the fine is $1,150.00 if I recall what I was told.

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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

It is not necessary to decode in order to sense a busy frequency; it 
is only necessary to detect any of the underlying forms of 
modulation in use. There are far fewer modulation schemes than 
modes. The SCAMP prototype demonstrated the effectivenss of this 
approach.

Requiring a common header (both protocol and modulation format) 
would certainly be more accurate, but "boil the ocean" approaches 
are impractical in the amateur community.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMHO, there are only two ways of preventing HF data mode QRM other 
than the
> "hidden tranmitter"...
> One is to have a universal mode decoder that would identify the 
mode or
> require that each mode send a common protocol at the beginning of 
each
> transmission to identify the mode and to have established sub-bands
> automatic/semi-automatic operation.
> 
> The second is to break up a large sub-band into channels and have 
each mode
> assigned a number of channels (all who want this raise their hand).
> 
> I suppose the their way would be would be to only allow "accepted" 
modes in
> one sub-band and agree to negotiate and QRM and all other modes in 
another
> sub-band where you must accept any and all QRM.
> 
> There maybe other ways, but its the way I see things now.
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tim Gorman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:51 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and 
digital
> 
> 
> Rick,
> 
> I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will 
find that 
> sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice. 
> 
> First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as 
part of the
> 
> NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If 
I were to 
> be told that this was going to be banned from the ham bands, I 
would drop
> out 
> of the NTS-D. So would others who use exactly the same equipment. 
None of us
> 
> would have $1000 or more to get equipped with SCS modems. It would 
be much 
> better to keep these operations in the sub-bands and keep them 
operating
> than 
> to just kill the system by default.
> 
> Second, I would be interested in how SCAMP operated when QRM came 
on the 
> frequency? Did it end the session so it wouldn't QRM the other 
guy? Or was 
> the busy detector disabled after the session had been established?
> 
> If the later, the busy detection scheme is only a placebo for 
many, many 
> situations and not a true fix. Since the systems today offer no 
true trunk 
> system control signals (i.e. calls to a busy channel are not 
abandoned by
> the 
> originating end but just continue to be attempted) as soon as the 
automatic 
> station detects a clear channel (the station it could hear turns 
the 
> transmission over to a station that can't be heard) the session 
will be 
> started and will cause QRM. Bottom line? No difference. The QRM is 
just 
> delayed by one transmission period. 
> 
> The only situations which would be truly helped would be those 
where the 
> automatic station can hear ALL stations in the QSO on the 
frequency of use.
> 
> If SCAMP stops operation upon busy detection, even after a session 
is 
> established,  it is likely that the system would come to a 
screeching halt 
> during busy times of the day. Since it is likely this is when long 
distance 
> propagation may be at its best, system throughput could be 
drastically 
> impacted. 
> 
> It would appear that the *only* way to minimize impacts of the 
automatic 
> stations is to maintain automatic subbands. Other operations who 
want to 
> venture into these areas should understand that protections 
against QRM are 
> not what they are in other areas. 
> 
> For those who think that restricting automatic operations to small 
subbands
> is 
> not fair to operations like Winlink, I would be happy to lay out 
changes in 
> operation that would let Winlink pass all of its traffic on five 
500hz 
> channels. That's not five channels per band but five total, and 
Pactor II at
> 
> that.
> 
> To those discussing email content. It is my opinion, for whatever 
that is 
> worth, that it is *not* the content of a specific communication 
that is the 
> problem, per se, but the *regularity* of third party 
communications. Regular
> 
> communications with third parties are specifically mentioned in 
the Part 97 
> rules. It would seem to be axiomatic that for one time use or even 
> non-regular use, almost any content could be allowed, even it is 
not what 
> most would consider acceptable. When the use is for third-party 
> communications on a regular basis, especially the *same* third 
party all the
> 
> time, the use enters a different realm. 
> 
> For instance, I keep getting the issue of weather reports thrown 
out when
> the 
> subject co

[digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

If "QRL?" in CW is too retro, we could specify a sequence of eight 1 
khz tones of 250 ms duration separated by 250 ms to convey the "is 
this frequency in use?" message. It would be distinctive in a 
waterfall display, and could easily be recognized by application 
software.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't be
> able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have folks 
that
> are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.
> 
> Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall 
suffices
> for that.  Recognizing a QRL in CW may not work well in this 
situation.
> 
> Jim
> WA0LYK
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for 
instance, 
> > will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
> > 
> > >>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. 
Replying 
> > requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether on 
an 
> > KSR-33 or a keyboard.
> > 
> > It would be much better if the automatic station could respond 
to a 
> > standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that 
> > suggested that to me at some time in the past?). 
> > 
> > >>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
> > 
> >  73,
> > 
> >  Dave, AA6YQ
> >
>







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] email to Internet without a PC ?

Title: RE: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?







Bob,


In the disaster relief agency I work for, our radio operators are 50% ham radio operators (80% of these are only techs and don't even own ham radio equipment).  That probably means that perhaps 10% are general class or higher.

These folks get to operate ham radios and commercial radios maybe 4-6 times a year in practice and then during an emergency.  Having them become proficient in using Packet or some other data program is a problem.  They can do E-Mail because the use it daily at their desk so if you can make the application panel look like their E-Mail program, then they will probably be Ok.  WinLink 2000 and some other data mode application panels try to do this...but you are correct, it is a problem.

Any time you add a new application or new radio to learn to operate (and try to teach them to program it in the field), there is a HUGE learning curve and it may take a couple of years and participation in actual disaster relief communications to get them feeling confident in using a new application.

73,


Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:43 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?



I am interested in the possible application of something like PSKMAIL to emergency communications.  I realize there is always VHF packet but the learning curve seems to be  steeper than the average ARES member wants to deal with.  The same for WinLink2000.  

Am I barking up the wrong tree looking for an application like this? 


Bob  N0BHC 








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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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] email to Internet without a PC ?

2006-02-22 Thread n0bhc



I am interested in the possible application of something like PSKMAIL to emergency communications.  I realize there is always VHF packet but the learning curve seems to be  steeper than the average ARES member wants to deal with.  The same for WinLink2000.  

Am I barking up the wrong tree looking for an application like this? 

Bob  N0BHC 





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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







IMHO, there are only two ways of preventing HF data mode QRM other than the "hidden tranmitter"...
One is to have a universal mode decoder that would identify the mode or require that each mode send a common protocol at the beginning of each transmission to identify the mode and to have established sub-bands automatic/semi-automatic operation.

The second is to break up a large sub-band into channels and have each mode assigned a number of channels (all who want this raise their hand).

I suppose the their way would be would be to only allow "accepted" modes in one sub-band and agree to negotiate and QRM and all other modes in another sub-band where you must accept any and all QRM.

There maybe other ways, but its the way I see things now.


Walt/K5YFW




-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tim Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:51 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital



Rick,


I think the problem is more complex than this. I believe you will find that 
sub-bands will ALWAYS be the answer of choice. 


First, I use a pk-232mbx on pactor in the automatic sub-bands as part of the 
NTS-D system. This box only listens for other pactor stations. If I were to 
be told that this was going to be banned from the ham bands, I would drop out 
of the NTS-D. So would others who use exactly the same equipment. None of us 
would have $1000 or more to get equipped with SCS modems. It would be much 
better to keep these operations in the sub-bands and keep them operating than 
to just kill the system by default.


Second, I would be interested in how SCAMP operated when QRM came on the 
frequency? Did it end the session so it wouldn't QRM the other guy? Or was 
the busy detector disabled after the session had been established?


If the later, the busy detection scheme is only a placebo for many, many 
situations and not a true fix. Since the systems today offer no true trunk 
system control signals (i.e. calls to a busy channel are not abandoned by the 
originating end but just continue to be attempted) as soon as the automatic 
station detects a clear channel (the station it could hear turns the 
transmission over to a station that can't be heard) the session will be 
started and will cause QRM. Bottom line? No difference. The QRM is just 
delayed by one transmission period. 


The only situations which would be truly helped would be those where the 
automatic station can hear ALL stations in the QSO on the frequency of use.


If SCAMP stops operation upon busy detection, even after a session is 
established,  it is likely that the system would come to a screeching halt 
during busy times of the day. Since it is likely this is when long distance 
propagation may be at its best, system throughput could be drastically 
impacted. 


It would appear that the *only* way to minimize impacts of the automatic 
stations is to maintain automatic subbands. Other operations who want to 
venture into these areas should understand that protections against QRM are 
not what they are in other areas. 


For those who think that restricting automatic operations to small subbands is 
not fair to operations like Winlink, I would be happy to lay out changes in 
operation that would let Winlink pass all of its traffic on five 500hz 
channels. That's not five channels per band but five total, and Pactor II at 
that.


To those discussing email content. It is my opinion, for whatever that is 
worth, that it is *not* the content of a specific communication that is the 
problem, per se, but the *regularity* of third party communications. Regular 
communications with third parties are specifically mentioned in the Part 97 
rules. It would seem to be axiomatic that for one time use or even 
non-regular use, almost any content could be allowed, even it is not what 
most would consider acceptable. When the use is for third-party 
communications on a regular basis, especially the *same* third party all the 
time, the use enters a different realm. 


For instance, I keep getting the issue of weather reports thrown out when the 
subject comes up. These are *important* to ships at sea. 


Well, what would happen if I started broadcasting the local NWS system on 
3920khz or 146.52Mhz during times of bad weather? Wouldn't those weather 
reports be important to people on the road during periods of snow and 
freezing weather? If I were to do this on a regular basis, e.g. 24/7, does 
anyone on here think it would take more than a few days for me to get a 
letter from Riley? 


Would the Winlink people support having this type of operation on the ham 
bands? 


Just as there are other radio services providing this service (i.e. the NWS), 
there are other radio services providing for regular, third party email from 
ships, yachts, and boat

RE: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?

Title: RE: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?







In dieaster relief communications being able to send E-Mail type messages to another station on HF with or without their ability to forward it to the Internet is very valuable.  Being able to automatically forward a HF radio received message/E-mail and forward it to the internet makes it a valuable disaster relief communications tool.

As in Katrina, some locations did not have even cellphone service for 3-4 weeks and POTS for 4-8 weeks (some areas six months later still do not have POTS service) and no Internet access for 4-6 weeks and still not high speed internet service makes E-Mail service bewtween stations and forwarding to the internet a valuable service. 

Unless you have been there, you can't appreciate the service of E-Mail via amateur radio.


Walt/K5YFW
 


 -Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:19 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] email to Internet without a PC ?




I'm intrigued by all the email software that radio amateurs have produced, including PSKMAIL.  What these programs do is allow someone with a computer to enter in a message, then use a PC and radio to transmit the message to a server.  I'm still not convinced that this is of use to anyone other than those in extremely remote locations.  It would seem to me that the ideal application would allow radio amateurs to send email to the Internet but not require the operator to have a computer.  A revamped NTS-type of radio net would work , check in to the net and have the net members pick up traffic for a simple "popping it in to the Internet"  . Other than that crude method, what other way could we achieve this .  Tranceivers with built in software that would allow composition of a message for transmission to a amateur mail server?  Hmmm, maybe some VHF transceivers already do that via APRS messages.  Something! a little more functional than APRS messages would help.  


-- 
Andy 








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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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: NTS and traffic handling and digital

Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital







Jim wrote...


"The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't be
able require CW be used for this purpose.  You'll also have folks that
are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose."


Some commercial repeaters (those in the Land Mobile Radio Service) and  some governmental services use CW at 20 WPM to identify their repeaters/base stations and some even have it identifying mobiles because its very inexpensive.  But I'll bet that 99% or their radio technicians can't read a word of CW even at 2-3 WPM.

Walt/K5YFW








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
  
  

   
  







  
  
  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.

[digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

2006-02-22 Thread ken


If you normally avoid HF for forwarding, I doubt that anyone 
will set up and maintain stations capable of doing so for 
the rare times they are needed.

IMO, if a system is using the internet to pass routine 
traffic , then why is ham radio involved at all?  I think 
this idea substitutes efficiency for the entire purpose of 
ham radio.  If we want "efficiency", there is no need for 
ham radio 99.9% of the time.  Of course, very few people 
will set up the capability to handle the "well maybe 
someday" 0.1% of the time.

Besides, complex systems need to be exercised daily to 
ensure they work when they are needed.

As for taking up crowded bandspace, the ham bands are empty 
today compared to what they were 30 and 40 years ago. 20m 
used to be crowded anytime it was open.  Most of today's 
operators apparently don't even know what real crowding is.

73, Ken WA8JXM (since 1963)

===original message follows===


  From: KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  From everything I have been discovering, there is very 
little support
(or even knowledge of ) the NTS/D. The current direction 
seems to be to
move toward the internet as the solution for handling e-mail 
traffic
with minimal ham activity. This is partially due to the 
desire for
timely traffic handling (one hour maximum delivery time that 
can not be
done by NTS/D) and partially due to the desire to reduce the 
number of
automatic stations operating on HF.

This is the basic philosophy of the Winlink 2000 system: 
only use ham
radio for  a short distance to bridge a gap in the internet, 
(unless
longer distances are needed for wide spread disasters or for 
isolated
stations such as boaters),  keep HF stations off the air as 
much as
possible to avoid HF forwarding due to the lack of bandspace 
as it is,
and handle most of the short distance traffic via VHF/UHF 
packet to
further keep messages off of HF, and also because an 
increasing number
of new entrants do not have HF capability.

For casual types of operation, I think this is a good thing. 
I do not
consider such systems true emergency communications systems 
because with
certain single point failures, the system becomes 
inoperative. The
decentralized NTS system can still get through, albeit with 
inaccuracies
in the information and not necessarily in a timely manner. 
Sometimes
that is still better than nothing getting through at all.



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] email to Internet without a PC ?