date:20060225

Doc,

I would like to operate no differently than the SSTV folks currently do. 
Just like what MARS has done and maybe still does.  This would not take 
a major restructuring of the bands/bandwidths. Just allow any mode to 
operate in the current voice area or at the very least, in a small area.

And like you say, you could then meet someone on voice and try many 
different modes. I honestly believe that this would have helped others 
see the value of digital modes. As it is now, I have not been able to 
find any hams within a 100 miles of my QTH who even want to try digital 
modes and part of it is that they are not set up for it or feel 
uncomfortable with having to learn something new.

73,

Rick, KV9U

doc wrote:

> Is it your perspective that a single HF Net frequency
> combining multiple modes is preferred or a set of
> frequencies close by each using a specified mode?
>
> I am thinking through my experience with Nets and
> one major problem, other than Lids tuning up on freq.,
> is congestion.
>
> Perhaps trying to manage multiple modes on the same
> freq for a Net or emergency comms is a bad idea.
>
> (This does not stand as an argument for any mode
> anywhere or for chopping up the spectrum into tiny
> CB-like channels for competing modes -- mode competition
> is best resolved via required busy-mode detection and
> aggressive enforcement of anti-QRM regs.)
>
> There would be a central voice calling freq. (during
> propagation-challenged periods also monitoring a second
> freq. for a couple of different weak-signal effective
> digital modes).
>
> Voice-cw-digital-sstv would all be used in parallel.
>
> No single mode is the best mode for all purposes all
> the time!
>
> This would not require major changes to band plans,
> other than establishing the cluster of freqs reserved
> for emergency comms during declared emergencies and
> for testing and training on a weekly basis.
>
> This would equip the EOC's to take advantage of the
> strengths of each of the modes rather than trying to
> force one or the other to do its best and to also
> try to do what it is not designed for.
>
> WDYT?
>
> 73, doc kd4e

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

Howard,

Hours to get back on the air?

You still don't get it, do you? These systems are made to be mounted on top of 
*MOVING* platforms and remain aligned!!

Why you think this won't work at temporary shelters and non-permanent 
locations is beyond me. 

There's no "hours to get back on line". You might have some downtime if the 
whole installation is knocked on it's side and someone has to go out and 
stand it back up!! How long would that take?

I've never heard of smoke causing anything more than a temporary outage but I 
have heard of intense thunderstorms with lots of moisture causing problems. 
Unless you have an earthquake at the same time as you have massive forest 
fires long with heavy rain type thunderstorms I fail to see your concern with 
these systems. I might point out, however, that intense thunderstorms also 
wreaks havoc with Winlink throughput so I don't believe that would be an 
answer either.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the amateur service does not and 
should not have a role as a telecom common carrier. Not only is it beyond the 
scope of what the service is allowed to be by rule, the technology available 
in the telecom industry is far beyond what we can provide - largely because 
of cost. When the amateur community can put up birds with the capacity of 
these satellite links, maybe we can meet what the telcom industry offers, not 
before. 

The longer the ARRL and the amateur community focuses on trying to compete 
with services like DirectWay the less the amateur service will have to offer. 
What a waste.

tim ab0wr

On Saturday 25 February 2006 18:33, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Tim:
>
> Please stay where you are.. we already have enough people in California...
>
> California has started equiping EOC's with self aligning antennas...because
> in previous major earthquakes. it took several days to manually realign the
> antennas...
>
> In the last major quake, those equiped with self aligning antennas, while
> no where near instantaneous, were able to get back on the air in a few
> hours.
>
> During the period that they were off the air, Ham systems have a role to
> play...
>
> However when you get to the problems of shelters and outlying areas...
> there are no permanent installations so the satellite connection with
> self aligning antennas is just not available..   ... plus during our 2003
> Fires.. we found that both that 800 MHz Public Safety Systems and the
> satellite coverage had reliability problems getting through the dense smoke
> which blocked or refracted the signals..
>
> Here Ham Systems .. of which Winlink is just one tool in our
> arsenal...usually have a major role to play for the duration of the
> disaster... __
> 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: Tim Gorman
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:41 PM
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital
>
>
>   If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to God I am never
> in the area they are responsible for when a disaster occurs.
>
>   With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit rates up and
> down that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an EOC without
> one is just being penny-wise and pound foolish.
>
>   And if you come back and say that the EOC's are located where there is no
>   satellite access, then I'll repeat, I hope to God I am never in the area
> they are responsible for when a disaster occurs. Such idiocy in site
> location and management is totally unacceptable.
>
>   Nobody minds you being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that
>   Winlink should be a tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out
> such totally unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the
> people in charge of the EOC function in your county or state.
>
>   I'm sure they appreciate you doing that.
>
>   tim ab0wr
>
>   On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
>   > Obviously you are not interested in a simple statement of fact...
>   >
>   > The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment + Winlink.  The
>   > usual systems failed to connect because there was no direct propagation
>   > between the EOC's.   Winlink  because of its ability to automatically
>   > take advantage of relay connections was able to connect and pass the
>   > traffic when all else failed in this situation.   The beauty of Winlink
>   > is that one can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as
>   > propagation changes there is usually a PMBO within range making for a
>   > fairly reliable means of communications.
>   >
>   > Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but when all else
>   > failed.. Winlink came to the

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

2006-02-25 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Tim:
Please stay where you are.. we already have
enough people in California...
California has started equiping EOC's with self
aligning antennas...because in previous major earthquakes. it took several days
to manually realign the antennas...
In the last major quake, those equiped with self
aligning antennas, while no where near instantaneous, were able to get back on
the air in a few hours.
During the period that they were off the air, Ham
systems have a role to play...
However when you get to the problems of shelters
and outlying areas... there are no permanent installations so the satellite
connection with self aligning antennas is just not available.. ...
plus during our 2003 Fires.. we found that both that 800 MHz Public
Safety Systems and the satellite coverage had reliability problems
getting through the dense smoke which blocked or refracted the
signals..
Here Ham Systems .. of which Winlink is just one
tool in our arsenal...usually have a major role to play for the duration of the
disaster...
__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:
Tim Gorman
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:41
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to
God I am never in the area they are responsible for when a disaster
occurs. With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit
rates up and down that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an
EOC without one is just being penny-wise and pound foolish.And if
you come back and say that the EOC's are located where there is no
satellite access, then I'll repeat, I hope to God I am never in the area
they are responsible for when a disaster occurs. Such idiocy in site
location and management is totally unacceptable. Nobody minds you
being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that Winlink should be a
tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out such totally
unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the people in
charge of the EOC function in your county or state. I'm sure they
appreciate you doing that. tim ab0wrOn Saturday 25 February
2006 12:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> Obviously you are not
interested in a simple statement of fact...>> The 2 EOC's were
equiped with their usual equipment + Winlink. The usual> systems
failed to connect because there was no direct propagation between> the
EOC's. Winlink because of its ability to automatically
take> advantage of relay connections was able to connect and pass the
traffic> when all else failed in this situation. The beauty
of Winlink is that one> can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic
so as propagation changes> there is usually a PMBO within range making
for a fairly reliable means of> communications.>> Winlink
was not a planned mode for the SET... but when all else failed..>
Winlink came to the rescue..>> In spite of the Winlink Haters
out there... and there were also several in> both EOC's at the time
>> I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink Worked
when all else> available to the EOC's failed>> We, hams,
need to consider Winlink as ONE of our tools in our arsenal for>
EMCOMM __>
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)

Re: [digitalradio] Analog-Digital Emergency Net?

2006-02-25 Thread doc

Is it your perspective that a single HF Net frequency
combining multiple modes is preferred or a set of
frequencies close by each using a specified mode?

I am thinking through my experience with Nets and
one major problem, other than Lids tuning up on freq.,
is congestion.

Perhaps trying to manage multiple modes on the same
freq for a Net or emergency comms is a bad idea.

(This does not stand as an argument for any mode
anywhere or for chopping up the spectrum into tiny
CB-like channels for competing modes -- mode competition
is best resolved via required busy-mode detection and
aggressive enforcement of anti-QRM regs.)

There would be a central voice calling freq. (during 
propagation-challenged periods also monitoring a second
freq. for a couple of different weak-signal effective
digital modes).

Voice-cw-digital-sstv would all be used in parallel.

No single mode is the best mode for all purposes all
the time!

This would not require major changes to band plans,
other than establishing the cluster of freqs reserved
for emergency comms during declared emergencies and
for testing and training on a weekly basis.

This would equip the EOC's to take advantage of the
strengths of each of the modes rather than trying to
force one or the other to do its best and to also
try to do what it is not designed for.

WDYT?

73, doc kd4e

>  I was initially supportive of the regulation by bandwidth because I 
> erroneously thought that it meant that you could have any wide bandwidth 
> mode (especially analog voice) in a wide bandwidth area and switch back 
> and forth.
> 
> While the FCC may (or may not) approve this, the ARRL has stated in an 
> editorial that Dave Sumner wrote a while back that there would still be 
> bandplans and they would not permit that to happen since they would 
> segregate by mode in the bandplan, even if it was not segregated by FCC 
> edict.
> 
> Ever since then I have been much less enthusiastic about the changes.
> 
> 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: Icom - new radio add in QST

Perhaps this is more an indication of what RELIABLE speeds can be
generated in small bandwidth segments.  Keep in mind, ICOM is not
going to put something out that isn't reliable at the speeds they plan
for this protocol.  

Makes you wonder about the claims that high speed digital HF
'experimentation' is being smashed because of current FCC regulations
doesn't it?

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jerry has some good points and questions. The ICOM ad has to be the 
> worst ad I have ever seen in an amateur radio magazine. What were they 
> thinking? They need to produce a quality ad that draws people in rather 
> than push them away. They need to explain why their stuff is the stuff 
> to get. They did not do that.
> 
> Thus far ICOM has been the only company promoting the D-Star open 
> standard that was developed in Japan. You need competition to insure 
> that this equipment is going to be available for the long term and get 
> the prices down to amateur pricing. But in order to have anyone buy
such 
> products, they need to be able to do something that can not be done
now, 
> and for the most part, must be able to at least meet current technology 
> with all other attributes of the product with existing products. I am 
> not sure that D-Star can do this. The speed is not very  fast compared 
> to WiFi and with WiMax type equipment available, I wonder if its time 
> has already come and gone due to the rapid advance of technology?
> 
> The 2 meter and 440 D-Star equipment has very slow digital
capability so 
> it does not seem to be able to improve what we already have. The 1.2
gig 
> equipment can not compete against 2 meter and 440 equipment for range 
> based upon published tests. 






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

If all else available to these EOC's failed then I hope to God I am never in 
the area they are responsible for when a disaster occurs. 

With the self-aligning satellite links that provide mega-bit rates up and down 
that are available today for less than $2500 a year, an EOC without one is 
just being penny-wise and pound foolish.

And if you come back and say that the EOC's are located where there is no 
satellite access, then I'll repeat, I hope to God I am never in the area they 
are responsible for when a disaster occurs. Such idiocy in site location and 
management is totally unacceptable. 

Nobody minds you being a cheerleader, Howard, and I agree with you that 
Winlink should be a tool in our arsenal, but when you start throwing out such 
totally unbelievable stuff, all you do is hurt the credibility of the people 
in charge of the EOC function in your county or state. 

I'm sure they appreciate you doing that. 

tim ab0wr

On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Obviously you are not interested in a simple statement of fact...
>
> The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment + Winlink.  The usual
> systems failed to connect because there was no direct propagation between
> the EOC's.   Winlink  because of its ability to automatically take
> advantage of relay connections was able to connect and pass the traffic
> when all else failed in this situation.   The beauty of Winlink is that one
> can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as propagation changes
> there is usually a PMBO within range making for a fairly reliable means of
> communications.
>
> Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but when all else failed..
> Winlink came to the rescue..
>
> In spite of the Winlink Haters out there... and there were also several in
> both EOC's at the time 
>
> I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink Worked when all else
> available to the EOC's failed
>
> We, hams, need to consider Winlink as ONE of our tools in our arsenal for
> EMCOMM __
> 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] Re: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net

On Saturday 25 February 2006 09:19, KV9U wrote:
> Jason,
>

>
> Needless to say, 300 baud does not work well on HF. At least not with
> conventional two tone packet. For their own reasons, they chose not to
> move toward a far better ARQ mode. I am supportive of the concept of a
> sort of "mesh network" of HF stations but only if they are effective. If
> you tune into their frequenices and watch the retry/retry/retry/ over
> and over again until they often time out, you realize that this is not a
> good system.

I don't think this is true. They have been trying Q15X25 for quite some time 
with significant success. The big problem they are going to face is how to 
get everyone to switch to a new protocol all at once. Changes to existing 
systems don't happen overnight. 

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/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net

I'm sorry, I had a typo.

ARQ modes are NOT conducive to net operations. Most of them are session 
oriented since the terminating end has to provide ARQ messages back to the 
originating station that packets are received correctly. If you have 7 people 
on the net and two miss different data packets how do they signal the 
transmitting station to resend those specific data packets.

For the administrative part of the net, FEC transmissions are much better. It 
maximizes the accuracy of the instructions sent to everyone and everyone is 
able to talk to everyone else. 

Use ARQ for the actual sending of traffic - not the admin functions of a net.

tim ab0wr

On Friday 24 February 2006 20:36, Jason Hsu wrote:
> < The biggest problem you'll find is that ARQ session oriented modes
> are conducive to net operations. >
>
> Why aren't ARQ modes conducive to net operations?
>
> < FEC modes, on the other hand, are. >
>
> Why are FEC modes good for passing traffic?
>
> Jason Hsu, AA0II
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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] Re: QOTD

2006-02-25 Thread Rein Couperus


They could e.g. post it by using pskmail, which uses open text and sends id's 
every 10 minutes 
automatically :) - I update my blog that way...

Rein EA/PA0R/P

digitalradio@yahoogroups.com schrieb am 25.02.06 18:57:41:
> 
> 
> Maybe the approach at fancy (a/k/a expensive) mode use should be changed.
> Rather than requiring CW ID -- which only lets the world know who's
> talking -- how about requiring posting of all message to a web page for
> some short period of time?  For example, messages must be posted to a
> common website within 24 hours and kept available for review for 72 hours?
> 
> The page could be userid/password protected with reasonable restrictions
> on access (licensed hams, SWL's, etc. with verified identity)
> 
> Require message posting for all modes for which there is not a FREE program
> available which will allow reception on an above-average, but not high-end
> system. (At this time, that would probably be a 1 GHz Pentium and Win2K).
> 
> In other words, if everybody with a modern receiver and modern computer can't
> read it for free, post it.
> 
> Who knows? Maybe the PACTOR II and III folks might come up with a
> FREE receive-only sound-card demodulator?
> 

-- 
http://pa0r.blogspirit.com


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] Analog-Digital Emergency Net?

 I was initially supportive of the regulation by bandwidth because I 
erroneously thought that it meant that you could have any wide bandwidth 
mode (especially analog voice) in a wide bandwidth area and switch back 
and forth.

While the FCC may (or may not) approve this, the ARRL has stated in an 
editorial that Dave Sumner wrote a while back that there would still be 
bandplans and they would not permit that to happen since they would 
segregate by mode in the bandplan, even if it was not segregated by FCC 
edict.

Ever since then I have been much less enthusiastic about the changes.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Howard  wrote:

> Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to have regulation by bandwidth like 
> most of the rest of the world and not have to be concerned with 
> regulatory barriers to your net?

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

2006-02-25 Thread Dr. Howard S. White

Obviously you are not interested in a simple
statement of fact...
The 2 EOC's were equiped with their usual equipment
+ Winlink. The usual systems failed to connect because there was no direct
propagation between the EOC's. Winlink because of its ability
to automatically take advantage of relay connections was able to connect and
pass the traffic when all else failed in this situation. The beauty
of Winlink is that one can connect to any Winlink PMBO to pass traffic so as
propagation changes there is usually a PMBO within range making for
a fairly reliable means of communications.
Winlink was not a planned mode for the SET... but
when all else failed.. Winlink came to the rescue..
In spite of the Winlink Haters out there... and
there were also several in both EOC's at the time
I know you do not want to hear it... but Winlink
Worked when all else available to the EOC's failed
We, hams, need to consider Winlink as ONE of our
tools in our arsenal for EMCOMM
__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:
doc
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:48
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and
traffic handling and digital
> Dr. Howard S. White wrote:> All other Modes
(including several Weak Signal> Digital modes) Failed to Connect the
San Diego> EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the
SET.*All*? Every possible mode was tested?Really?
Do we have documentation of what wastested and what variables were changed
frommode to mode?The realities of propagation and the
competenciesof other digital modes raise serious doubts aboutthe
efficacy of such an assertion.Same power, same antennas, equally
competent opsat both ends?Or, token efforts with known-inferior
digital modesand/or inferior hardware at one end or both?Given the
history of hype one is required to becynical.IMHO, YMMV ... 73,
doc kd4e

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)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QOTD

2006-02-25 Thread doc

It would make FCC-mandated self-policing possible.

Right now it is impossible.

QRM is not the only challenge, improper and/or
illegal use of Ham spectrum is also a legitimate
concern.

 > John Becker wrote:
> This would be a unjust burden.
> In no way would it reduce QRM.

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: QOTD

2006-02-25 Thread John Becker

This would be a unjust burden.
In no way would it reduce QRM.



At 10:49 AM 2/25/06, you wrote:
>Maybe the approach at fancy (a/k/a expensive) mode use should be changed.
>Rather than requiring CW ID -- which only lets the world know who's
>talking -- how about requiring posting of all message to a web page for
>some short period of time?  For example, messages must be posted to a
>common website within 24 hours and kept available for review for 72 hours?
>
>The page could be userid/password protected with reasonable restrictions
>on access (licensed hams, SWL's, etc. with verified identity)
>
>Require message posting for all modes for which there is not a FREE program
>available which will allow reception on an above-average, but not high-end
>system. (At this time, that would probably be a 1 GHz Pentium and Win2K).
>
>In other words, if everybody with a modern receiver and modern computer can't
>read it for free, post it.
>
>Who knows? Maybe the PACTOR II and III folks might come up with a
>FREE receive-only sound-card demodulator?
>
>Just something to think about...



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: QOTD

2006-02-25 Thread Paul L Schmidt

Maybe the approach at fancy (a/k/a expensive) mode use should be changed.
Rather than requiring CW ID -- which only lets the world know who's
talking -- how about requiring posting of all message to a web page for
some short period of time?  For example, messages must be posted to a
common website within 24 hours and kept available for review for 72 hours?

The page could be userid/password protected with reasonable restrictions
on access (licensed hams, SWL's, etc. with verified identity)

Require message posting for all modes for which there is not a FREE program
available which will allow reception on an above-average, but not high-end
system. (At this time, that would probably be a 1 GHz Pentium and Win2K).

In other words, if everybody with a modern receiver and modern computer can't
read it for free, post it.

Who knows? Maybe the PACTOR II and III folks might come up with a
FREE receive-only sound-card demodulator?

Just something to think about...

> Next up is the self policing monitoring issue, if we follow the above 
> identification guidelines, we'll know both the 'who', and the mode.  So 
> what's left is to make it possible for the average ham with a desire to 
> 'read the mail' to be able to do so.  The soundcard modes and free 
> distribution of the software, seems to solve this quite nicely.  The 
> real fly in the ointment, is the existing 'standardized' 
> infrastructure, which is largely based on PACTOR I, II, and III.  While 
> it's no great burden to decode PACTOR I (lots of surplus tnc's have 
> this capabiility, as well as a linux based soundcard solution).  The 
> fact remains that it is a big financial burden to decode PACTOR II and 
> III, and our own organization is pushing this as the preferred 
> solution.  Perhaps this was understandable back in the pre-soundcard 
> mode days, but I would say that with all the work done on digital modes 
> that don't require a large single use proprietary hardware expense, its 
> seriously time to make a 'course correction'.  We should suggest in the 
> strongest terms that our 'standard' infrastructure not be based on 
> proprietary hardware, and should hold our own organization to task to 
> make that change happen.  I wonder if the Winlink2000 crowd wouldn't do 
> themselves a great service by abandoning PACTOR for a mode that anyone 
> with a computer could decipher.  How much of the resistance in the ham 
> community is because it is seen as an 'exclusive' club for those with 
> the dedicated hardware as a requirement for membership.  One might also 
> wonder if they might not have a larger support and user base, if anyone 
> could 'play' without joining the '$1,000 club'.





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: ARRL Move To 1807.500 KC

2006-02-25 Thread Thomas Giella KN4LF

Here is my email request to Joe Carcia concerning the ARRL plan to QSY from 
1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc. It's the last post I'm going to make on the 
subject. Either you take the initiative to try and stop the move or when it 
occurs don't complain. I suspect that the response from the digital 
community will be anemic as most don't operate on 160 meters. However if the 
QSY was to 14070 kc there would be more of an uproar.

Joe,

As an ARRL member in good standing I'm advising you that it is a very bad 
idea to QSY W1AW operations from 1817.500 kc to 1807.500 kc beginning on 
April 3rd, 2006. 1807.500 kc +/- 3 kc is a main and very active frequency 
slice for weak signal PSK31, MFSK16, OLIVIA MFSK and RTTY digital 
operations. W1AW operation there would wipe out this main meeting frequency 
and more.

On 160 meters the ARRL band plan calls for digital modes between 1800-1810 
kc and CW between 1800-2000 kc, so it makes no sense to begin operation on 
1807.500 kc. If you do the math it's 10 kc for digital modes and 200 kc for 
CW.

I'm an avid CW operator too and I'm aware of the pressure the 160 meter CW 
DX community has been putting on your 1817.500 kc operations. But the 
solution to that issue is not to QSY down to 1807.500 kc. Please reconsider 
your frequency choice.

--... ...--,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
Grid Square EL97AW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com
KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006



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: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC

Thomas,

I am not following your concerns here. If you look up ARRL's bulletin 
schedule for 160 meters, it shows voice tx on 1855. Are they moving the 
voice tx down to 1807.5? This is not shown as a change on their web site 
information. There are no listed 160 meter teleprinter frequencies and 
cw is 1817.5.

What I truly don't understand is why ARRL has a different bandplan from 
the IARU Region 2 bandplan. The information that I have is that digital 
modes are recommended in the 1800 to 1840 segment. By placing digital 
modes down at the bottom of the band, it does not work with the other 
regions that have digital modes higher up.

Region 1 = 1838 - 1842

Region 2 = 1800 - 1840

Region 3 = 1830 - 1834 (RTTY)

Seems like the ARRL bandplan should at least include 1830 to 1840 for 
digital so it can match up with the other regions. Otherwise one will 
lose respect for inappropriate recommendations. This really needs to be 
addressed by ARRL.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:

> Bob et all,
>
> One of the issues concerns band plans. The ARRL proposed a 160 meter
> bandplan a few years ago which included 1800-1810 kc for digital 
> modes. Just
> a few nights ago W3UR Bernie McClenny who has the "How's DX" column in 
> QST
> appointed himself ARRL band policeman by complaining on the OH2AQ DX spot
> that U.S. hams were violating the ARRL band plan, which says no SSB
> operation below 1843 kc. There were hams working SSB DX on 1840 kc during
> the best band opening on 160 meters since the bottom of cycle 22 more 
> than
> ten years ago.
>
> But now the ARRL has decided to violate their own plan by QSYing to 
> 1807.500
> kc. While at the same time they propose to use band plans to control the
> madness and mayhem that will occur if their segregation by bandwidth
> proposal is accepted by the FCC. It's hypocricy period.
>
> --... ...--,
> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
> Lakeland, FL, USA
> Grid Square EL97AW
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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] MULTIPSK Version 3.13 is out!

2006-02-25 Thread Steinar Aanesland

http://www.hamsoft.co.uk/multipsk/

de LA5VNA Steinar





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

2006-02-25 Thread doc

 > Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
 > All other Modes (including several Weak Signal
 > Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego
 > EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the SET.

*All*?  Every possible mode was tested?

Really?  Do we have documentation of what was
tested and what variables were changed from
mode to mode?

The realities of propagation and the competencies
of other digital modes raise serious doubts about
the efficacy of such an assertion.

Same power, same antennas, equally competent ops
at both ends?

Or, token efforts with known-inferior digital modes
and/or inferior hardware at one end or both?

Given the history of hype one is required to be
cynical.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e

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: Linux for Windows addicts

2006-02-25 Thread Harv Nelson




if you are having trouble with the dowblad tryordering from
cheapbyts...about $5.00.
http://cart.cheapbytes.com/cgi-bin/cart/0070011152.html

harv, ai9nlOn 2/25/06, Odd Kristian Auestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have used VMWare Player (http://www.vmware.com/products/player/).Download and install the Player, then download a complete pre-builtvirtual machine like Ubuntu Linux, and you have a Linux PC on your
Windows machine.VMWare has also released a beta of VMWare Server. With this you canmake your own virtual machines.For Windows users, I think this is an even better solution than abootable CD - you stay in Windows at all times, but can switch to
Linux when you want to.You can also do it the other way round - run Windows or any other OSfrom inside Linux.73 Chris LA8UU--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
, Kristoff Bonne<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Gegroet,>> Kristoff Bonne schreef:>> > In addition to the hints given by some other people, you can alsotake
> > 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.>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)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.

Re: [digitalradio] Soundcard mystery

Mel,

I am not sure that pictures of digital modes will help much. I assume 
you mean pictures of waterfall displays. What I found the most helpful 
was to listen to the different modes to hear the sounds they make. In my 
case, I would boot up a multi digital mode program such as MultiPSK, and 
turn down the power output as low as it would go (could use a dummy 
load), and listen to the various modes when monitoring my transmissions 
either with a separate receiver or if the rig has self monitoring.

Then I would listen for on-air digital mode signals and would see how 
they looked on the screen as well as the sound. Also, using the markers 
built in to Multipsk, I could often determine the speed of the mode (for 
those adjustable ones such as Olivia) by trying different combinations 
of speeds so that the markers would properly match the on-screen bandwidth.

I still can not do it 100%, but it is better. I would ask that more 
stations use the waterfall ID when calling CQ so that we can more easily 
tell what mode you are using. This is available in Multipsk.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Mel wrote:

>
> I did ask the group if anyone knew of a site where I could see some
> pictures of the latest digital modes but as yet no response. Any
> suggestions ?
>
> Kind 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] Re: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC

2006-02-25 Thread Thomas Giella KN4LF

Bob et all,

One of the issues concerns band plans. The ARRL proposed a 160 meter 
bandplan a few years ago which included 1800-1810 kc for digital modes. Just 
a few nights ago W3UR Bernie McClenny who has the "How's DX" column in QST 
appointed himself ARRL band policeman by complaining on the OH2AQ DX spot 
that U.S. hams were violating the ARRL band plan, which says no SSB 
operation below 1843 kc. There were hams working SSB DX on 1840 kc during 
the best band opening on 160 meters since the bottom of cycle 22 more than 
ten years ago.

But now the ARRL has decided to violate their own plan by QSYing to 1807.500 
kc. While at the same time they propose to use band plans to control the 
madness and mayhem that will occur if their segregation by bandwidth 
proposal is accepted by the FCC. It's hypocricy period.

--... ...--,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
Grid Square EL97AW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com
KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
 guess the problem is that there are so many facets of
HAM radio that just about any transmission by some
is QRM to somone else.  My experience is that there
is no benefit in HAM radio to declarations that someone
elses transmissions are not useful and are QRM.  Better
to live-and-let-live.  Some people think DX is an absolute
waste of RF, others think rag chewing is a waste of
time.  Some think nets are a waste, etc.  So my only
point was that in HAM radio usually nothing is accomplished
by trying to declare some other operation as useless.
There is always someone who likes it.

Glad to hear the band is being used by so many...
that it is an issue.   Bob

___
Keep in mind that only registered email addresses can post in the list.
Psk31 WWW Site at http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
Psk31 list info at: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006



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: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net

Jason,

There was an STA (Special Temporary Authorization) that ARRL got from 
the FCC, many years ago to test the concept of unattended HF packet 
stations to form a network. There are a few hams who continue to attempt 
to operate this system on at least 20, 30, and 40 meters.

Needless to say, 300 baud does not work well on HF. At least not with 
conventional two tone packet. For their own reasons, they chose not to 
move toward a far better ARQ mode. I am supportive of the concept of a 
sort of "mesh network" of HF stations but only if they are effective. If 
you tune into their frequenices and watch the retry/retry/retry/ over 
and over again until they often time out, you realize that this is not a 
good system.

The NTS later on created the NTS/D (National Traffic System/Digital) 
which primarily runs on Pactor modes using the Winlink system and is 
much more effective in traffic handling. MARS also uses Winlink. These 
both use the original Winlink system that connects amateur radio 
stations to each other and does not go through the internet.

Most of these nets are not something that the average ham can hook into 
and send traffic as they tend to be closed unless you join them and not 
many hams have the interest to do so. It is so bad now in Region 9 where 
I live that there are no longer any NTS/D stations at all!

The internet has pretty much taken most of the traffic, either directly, 
or through hybrid systems such as the Winlink 2000 system that primarily 
uses the internet to handle traffic and connects to amateur radio via 
various HF and VHF portals.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Jason Hsu wrote:

> < There is at least one official ARRL Skipnet operation on 10.147, but
> it is fair to say that few use the band for digital links other than
> Winlink 2000.>
> What is Skipnet?
>

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] Soundcard mystery

2006-02-25 Thread Danny Douglas

I dont know of such a site, but why not make a do it yourself test.  Use one
of the programs that has the signals you are interested in, and get on and
transmit and watch your own signals to see what they are like.  Back off on
your audio considerably, so you can see the small lines in the waterfall,
and not just a big bright splurge on the screen.  I dont know if this will
work with all the programs, but there are some that will do that.
Danny

- Original Message - 
From: "Mel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Soundcard mystery


> Hello Ron W4LDE,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion, I did try that but it didn't make any
> difference. Its quite peculiar because I can go to any other band and
> make the required adjustments without any difficulty. On 20 metres
> its a real pig and on some settings I just cannot remove the ALC
> markers, they just won't go, its crazy !
>
> Not that there was much happening on 20 yesterday, I got so b.
> cheesed off, 17 was dead, so I moved to 40 metres.
>
> I did ask the group if anyone knew of a site where I could see some
> pictures of the latest digital modes but as yet no response. Any
> suggestions ?
>
> Kind 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
>
>



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] Digitalradio Number QSO Exchange?

2006-02-25 Thread Danny Douglas






Ill take one.  Not particularly interested in 
the certificates myself, but willing to give out numbers to those who 
are.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Andrew 
  O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:42 
  AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Digitalradio 
  Number QSO Exchange?
  
  Spinning off an idea I had in the previous thread (about a digital 30M 
  net).  I wonder if members here would be interested in the development of 
  a Digitalradio Reflector  assigned number system?  I could assign 
  interested members of this reflector,  a number that they could exchange 
  with other members during digital QSOs.  I'm thinking something like :" 
  DRR number".   Maybe something less so self-promoting (of this 
  reflector) , perhaps a DME number (Digital Modes Enthusiasts)  From these 
  number exchanges we could develop some awards , via certificates,  that 
  would encourage hams to try digital modes, especially the more experimental 
  ones.  As an example, 100 RTTY QSOs with DRR numbers might be a good 
  accomplishment but so would just 10 THROB or PAX QSOs . This number could also 
  be part of a contest exchange if we developed any future contests. 
   
  Stupid , or an idea with potential?  I would welcome comments and 
  also anyone interested in designing potenial awards certificates.-- Andy  K3UK
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 
  2/24/2006





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)










  
  
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] Icom - new radio add in QST

Jerry has some good points and questions. The ICOM ad has to be the 
worst ad I have ever seen in an amateur radio magazine. What were they 
thinking? They need to produce a quality ad that draws people in rather 
than push them away. They need to explain why their stuff is the stuff 
to get. They did not do that.

Thus far ICOM has been the only company promoting the D-Star open 
standard that was developed in Japan. You need competition to insure 
that this equipment is going to be available for the long term and get 
the prices down to amateur pricing. But in order to have anyone buy such 
products, they need to be able to do something that can not be done now, 
and for the most part, must be able to at least meet current technology 
with all other attributes of the product with existing products. I am 
not sure that D-Star can do this. The speed is not very  fast compared 
to WiFi and with WiMax type equipment available, I wonder if its time 
has already come and gone due to the rapid advance of technology?

The 2 meter and 440 D-Star equipment has very slow digital capability so 
it does not seem to be able to improve what we already have. The 1.2 gig 
equipment can not compete against 2 meter and 440 equipment for range 
based upon published tests. Also, I understand that the audio quality is 
"digital" sounding and not quite as good as conventional analog. The 
repeaters and controller equipment are out of sight for cost and don't 
really do a lot more than we can already do with IRLP and Echolink using 
conventional equipment for nearly no cost at all.

One of the methods that I use to roughly gauge the popularity of various 
modes/equipment is to observe the number of reviews on eham. The 
WIRES-II system appears moribund since it tries to do something already 
done with existing systems.

D-Star has all 5 ratings but only three reviews and the last review was 
1 and 1/2 YEARS ago! That pretty much tells you how popular this system 
... isn't.

For new technologies to succeed in the market place, they have to have 
clear advantages over existing systems with no down sides. As an 
example, when packet radio came along, it was so much better than VHF 
RTTY running through a regenerative repeater that it was adopted 
quickly. Not to mention it was very low cost too. It had so many 
advantages, such as digipeating, mailboxes, etc.

What are the advantages of D-Star? For those of us who like to be just 
back of the knee of the curve of the "bleeding edge" it does not seem to 
offer many benefits that we don't already have and it has some inferior 
characteristics compared to existing technologies. I can not imagine 
ever using it in our area for mobile voice since it would not work 
anywhere near as well as what we have now.

By the way, considering all the new technician class hams, why is there 
such a minimal use of repeaters? Clearly, the new entrants can not be 
using their license and this greatly concerns me. Also, considering the 
huge numbers of VHF only hams, and the proliferation of rigs with 
multimode/VHF/UHF capabilities, how can it be that there is almost no 
activities on these frequencies?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Jerry W wrote:

> In QST March 2006, pages 129 to 136 Icom is promoting their new
> radios.  The ad starts on page 129 with a Vulture sitting on a
> tombstone (R.I.P.) and titled "Some say this is the future of amateur
> radio." (Scare tactics?)
>
> The Icom IC-7000 looks like a remake of the IC-706 series, it might sell?
>
> The PRC1500 receiver looks interesting with either remote head or PC
> interface.
>
> The D-STAR series, 1.2 GHz voice repeater, 1.2 GHz data repeater, 2
> meter digital voice repeater, 70 cm digital voice repeater.  Of course
> one would also need new mobile transcievers to work with D-STAR
> repeaters.  That could be quite an expensive undertaking. I wonder how
> many clubs and individuals will be considering converting over to
> D-STAR? Soon or will it take some years to fully implement or will
> this die due to cost of purchasing new repeaters and radios?
>
> Have heard of one local club considering D-STAR but they would also
> like to keep the current two meter and 70 cm FM repeaters going for
> some years which are in need of replacement. A large amount of funds
> would be needed to implement both.  There are 32 two meter repeaters
> listed for the twin city Minnesota area.  Not very many are actively
> used.  Some repeater clubs also have 70 cm repeaters, very rare that
> any one of those are used.  Think the 3M club has a 1.2 GHz repeater,
> but do not know of very many users. There are about four 220 repeaters
> that I hear. I have called and called on them, I can "kerchunk" them
> but no one comes back to me, never hear anything other than the CW ID
> on them, why are they there?
>
> Then localy Radio City, Inc. has WIRES-II with a Yaesu radio set up
> going in the store. So that would mean one would need another new
> radio besides D-STAR.  Is the

[digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital

As I mentioned above, if the HF bands were open so you could make a
connection between San Diego and Texas, I simply don't understand why
a 200 - 300 mile connection could not have been established on either
80m or 40m.  I've been a ham for a long time, and understand
propagation on these two bands.  With NVIS, the mountain range should
make no difference.  

I could understand not making a direct connection if only 30m or 20m
was tried.  One of these bands was obviously used if a connection to
Texas was made during the daytime.  If these were the only bands
tried, it is obvious why a direct connection wasn't made.  

And, if nothing else, a connection from San Diego to Texas on 20m
would only be good for a very few hours each day.  Not exactly, what I
would call good reliable service.  

There just isn't enough info here for me to to accept that the
conclusion 'hurrah, Winlink was the only mode that would work on HF'
is correct.  

I get the sneaking suspicion that not enough preparation was done to
insure a reliable NVIS 'direct' connection on 80m or 40m could be
made, consequently, the "All other Modes Failed to Connect" statement.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All other Modes (including several Weak Signal Digital modes) Failed
to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC during the SET.  
> 
> Doc:
> 
> You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis that you missed the
point
> 
> Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation path directly between
the two EOC's during the test.  Plus the path is difficult at best of
times due to intervening mountain ranges.  They had hoped HF Sideband
and HF Digital would bridge the gap...but the propagation gods were
against them...
> 
> Winlink was not planned to be included in the SET.  Winlink was
tried as a total afterthought (because like you the EOC managers were
very skeptical of Winlink and strongly resisted its installation) when
all other modes failed.  I have been lead to believe that the EOC
Managers were hoping to use this as an opportunity to prove that
Winlink would also be useless in the SET Scenario.
> 
> Winlink worked by connecting on HF through a node over a thousand
miles away in Texas that was able to AUTOMATICALLY relay the messages
to the Imperial County EOC.  
> 
> As I was out in the field at the time, and do not have first hand
knowledge, but I believe that Imperial County EOC was connecting
through a different Winlink Node.
> 
> Frankly.. the EOC managers were shocked that Winlink was the only
mode that worked when all else failed...as they had expected Winlink
to fail... and frankly the real world success has made a number of
them into Winlink converts.
> 
> Doc:
> 
> I loved your theoretical analysis of the situation.. 
> 
> but the Bottom Line Real World results in the Simulated Emergency
Test which was designed by the EOC Managers to simulate the effects of
a 7.9 earthquake as realistically as they possibly could...
> 
> ... showed that Winlink Worked...
> __
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6  ex-AE6SM  KY6LA
> Website: www.ky6la.com 
> "No Good Deed Goes UnpuAmanished"
> "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/

[digitalradio] Re: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net

Amateur ARQ modes are 'session' oriented.  That means one and only one
connection at a time can be made between stations.  Each station
checking in would have to 'make' a connection with the net control
station and then send callsign, etc.  A 'disconnect' would then have
to be done to allow the next station to log in.  

With ARQ there is no way to either send information to a station or to
respond without making an actual connection.  In order for the net
control to dispatch stations off frequency to handle traffic, he/she
would have to 'connect/disconnect' with each station to send them this
information and to get a positive response that the dispatch was
received.  All the 'connect/disconnect' messaging really slows down
net operation.

As far as I know, none of the FEC modes require the
'connect/disconnect' operations to send and receive information which
makes it much quicker and easier to control net operations.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Hsu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> < The biggest problem you'll find is that ARQ session oriented modes
> are conducive to net operations. >
> 
> Why aren't ARQ modes conducive to net operations?
> 
> < FEC modes, on the other hand, are. >
> 
> Why are FEC modes good for passing traffic?
> 
> Jason Hsu, AA0II
>

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: QOTD