Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[Mark Miller]

At 10:33 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
>I am not very knowledgeable on CRF (Crest Factors). Can you give us an
>idea of converting peak power/average power into CRF?


Using powers, crest factor = Peak Instantaneous Power / Average Power.  A 
more piratical way of measuring crest factor is (PEP/Average Power) + 3dB.

I agree that ARQ has its benefits, but we still have to rely on the modem 
scheme.  This was my point earlier, that we reach a limit because we are 
power and bandwidth limited.  Because we are using HF frequencies, we pay a 
coding penalty.  Also if we look at the broadcast nature of non-ARQ modes, 
it is apparent that they are much more efficient than ARQ modes.  This does 
not mean that ARQ does not have its place, it certainly does.  The more 
tools in the tool box the better.

BTW I am an AMTOR OT myself.  I remember when APLINK was used before 
unattended operation was allowed on HF.  I miss keyboarding with 
AMTOR/PACTOR and CLOVER.

73,

Mark N5RFX




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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[KV9U]

Hi Mark,

The ARQ is really important. You really should have this for serious 
messaging via RF and must have it if you want to interface with a 
mailbox system or internet. Even one bad character trashes everything 
when negotiating a menu. Those who are OT's with Amtor know what I mean. 
I used to be so frustrating trying to use Amtor even though signals were 
still fairly good but you could not get anywhere with a message storage 
bbs as there were slight errors at the edges of what Amtor could still 
operate. Amtor was not a very good ARQ mode when condx got a bit bad. 
Pactor I did not seem to have this problem. It would just fail, even 
with signals still observable by ear.

With ARQ, you can work deeper into the noise and still get some traffic 
through. My preference is to have modest FEC and then the ARQ. It amazes 
me that hams and especially developers are not truly excited about this. 
Rick, KN6KB has shown the way to get a pipelined ARQ method and 
eliminate the bottleneck that everyone claimed made ARQ not possible on 
PC's. I realize that there are only a few dozen hams who have the 
knowlege and can actually do this, but it only takes one to make it happen.

I can not describe the thrill I got when using the beta SCAMP software. 
It is just so cool to watch something work so well from a soundcard at 
modest signal strengths. All we need is a bit lower (-5?) S/N mode that 
can scale upwards when condx are good enough and yet scale downwards 
when you have to in order to get  some throughput.

I am not very knowledgeable on CRF (Crest Factors). Can you give us an 
idea of converting peak power/average power into CRF?

My understanding is that Pactor 2 has a CRF of 1.45 and if I understand 
things correctly, many of the raised cosine modulation schemes are 
similar. Am I correct that the rectangular waveforms have a CRF of 1 
since square waves have a crest factor of 1?

I understand that Pactor 3 has quite a variable CRF depending upon the 
number of tones:

1DBPSK = 1.9
3 DBPSK = 3.1
6 DBPSK = 5.7

Meanwhile, MT-63 has a large ratio between peak and average power. So 
that means it has a very high crest factor?

73,

Rick, KV9U




Mark Miller wrote:

>>Note also in Figure 6, the real world test by using distance on 80
>>meters daytime. The worst performance was by Amtor, followed by Pactor 1
>>and closely by PSK31. The best performer was RTTY at these slow speeds
>>and he gives his explanation as why he believes this occurs. It sounds
>>reasonable to me.
>>
>>And also note that the non-ARQ modes always had some errors and the ARQ
>>modes were error free.
>>
>>
>
>
>Rick,
>
>If I boil your argument to 2 points it would be that the advantages of the 
>Pactor modes are ARQ and low crest factors?
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX
>
>
>  
>



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] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data

[expeditionradio]

We have plenty of oddball ham-only HF methods for hams to play hobby
with. But very little attention is being paid to interoperation with
other radio services, for initial calling, voice, image, or data. 

I support the "5066" standard in amateur radio. It is time for hams to
step up to the plate, and to unite behind useful baseline standards
that are compatible with the rest of the HF world for emergency
interoperation. The best way we can be prepared for communications
emergencies is to have a compatible ubiquitous system and use it on a
daily basis.

Picture yourself in the following scenario: 
You and your home survived the disaster that came suddenly in the
middle of one night. But all the internet and telephone has been down
for several weeks in your area. A local emergency worker comes to you
with a request to contact the disaster headquarters with an important
5000 word emergency message. 

What would you do next? 
How would you call them? 
Where would you start? 
Are you prepared to assist? 

Here at my QTH in California, we await just such an impending disaster
scenario. We don't know when it will happen, but we certainly know it
indeed will happen. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and huge fires are part of
California's recent history... they will continue in the future. Even
during the "relatively small" Loma Prieta Earthquake I experienced in
1989, the power went off for a long time (9 days at my home, and
several weeks in some areas). The cellphone, landline telephone,
electronic banking, and most of the repeaters went down over a wide
area within a few minutes or hours after the quake shaking stopped.
The gas stations shut down when their tanks ruptured or infra-
structure was damaged. The grocery store shelves were rapidly depleted. 

That earthquake was not the one we Californians call "the Big One". 

You may not have earthquakes or tsunamis in your area. Perhaps you may
have tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, floods, (or maybe a pandemic)
instead. 

Let us put aside our petty squabbling, and not worry about whether any
particular digital method was "not invented here" by hams. Let us
unite behind a common HF standard and actually achieve interoperable
digital communications capability with the rest of the HF world for
when "The Big One" comes to your hometown.

Bonnie KQ6XA 

.


---original message---
>Steve N2CKH wrote:  
> FYI - Open5066 has begun, see:
http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> 
> FYI - The NPHRN has a mandate of September 2007 that will 
> drive those that support it and that it supports, see: 
> http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/coopagreement/pdf/fy06guidance_qa2.pdf
> 
> Just what will take place within the Amateur Radio Service WRT STANAG 
> 5066 is unknown at this time, in the U.S. nothing will take place 
> until the FCC bring the rules up to date and even then it will depend 
> on just how much they update the rules as to just what can be 
> accomplished on HF. Other countries do not suffer the same 
> limitations and then some other countries suffer worst limitations, 
> it an age old story in that regard.
> 
> What is obvious to me and many if not all is that for the Amateur 
> Radio Service to really be effective as a "Service" and not just a 
> way to have fun with radio, we need to have a full blown 
> radio-to-radio e-mail (or automated radio relay if you prefer) system 
> in place worldwide to meet the demands of the Amateur Radio Service, 
> be it based on STANAG 5066 or whatever and it needs to be done use 
> the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) and before anyone laughs at that, 
> STANAG 5066 is already being done via the PCDSM commercially, refer 
> to: http://www.skysweep.com/binaries/doc/SkySweepMessenger.pdf
> 
> P.S. - ALE is at the Physical Level of STANAG 5066 


.





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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[Mark Miller]

>Note also in Figure 6, the real world test by using distance on 80
>meters daytime. The worst performance was by Amtor, followed by Pactor 1
>and closely by PSK31. The best performer was RTTY at these slow speeds
>and he gives his explanation as why he believes this occurs. It sounds
>reasonable to me.
>
>And also note that the non-ARQ modes always had some errors and the ARQ
>modes were error free.


Rick,

If I boil your argument to 2 points it would be that the advantages of the 
Pactor modes are ARQ and low crest factors?

73,

Mark N5RFX




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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[Mark Miller]

At 04:29 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:

>It in deed would. That is the reason Pactor and Amtor
>work so well. It's the AQR - even with the hi S/N needed.

There is some value to ARQ, I wonder how we would quantify the 
advantage?  In a point to point link I think it would be easy, but in a 
point to multipoint network, I think the value is significantly 
diminished.  From an efficiency standpoint, broadcast modes like soundcard 
modes are very efficient.  Point to point modes can be very reliable and 
very accurate, but very inefficient.  I am not sure how one quantifies 
these differences.  When it comes to speed and or throughput, we have the 
bandwidth, power, and coding barrier with which we much deal.

73,

Mark N5RFX 



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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[Harold Aaron]

Hi Bill.  Thanks for bringing that to my attention.  Was unaware.
 
Best,
 
Hank

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bill Aycock
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:59 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO





Hank- your posts seem to ALWAYS come through with a "high Priority"
Symbol 
in the header. Do you Think the post below rates immediate attention
over 
others? Or is this an overlooked feature?
Bill

At 06:36 PM 8/22/2006 -0500, you wrote:

>Or perhaps, ping-pong? As long as we never lose our sense of humor the
>hobby will prosper...
>
>Hank
>KI4MF
>
> _

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama 



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[KV9U]

To be onest, Walt, I don't see Rick's claim of such a good performance 
level for MT-63. If you look at his presentation on comparing several 
modes with Pactor, at:

http://winlink.org/Presentations/RFfootprints.PDF

he seems to suggest that all the non-ARQ sound card modes (e.g, PSK-31, 
MT-63) will only work down to about 0 db S/N. He also claims that P1, 2, 
and 3 all go to about -5 before they shut down. I am not as pessimistic 
as his data shows, but real world (not necessarily simulator) tests seem 
to put P modes well into the noise.

I wish the RSGB would have another series of tests with some additional 
new modes and compare with P modes.

I believe that if you check the baud rates of MT-63, you will find them 
to be even lower than 31 baud. MT-63 1K at only 10 baud and MT-63 2K at 
20 baud. So I agree that it should be able to work quite well at 40 baud 
and 80 baud and even 160 baud under good conditions. I asked about this 
in the past and got the impression that this would be hard to do. But 
then again, Patrick was able to take PSK31 and increase the baud rate a 
great deal for a faster mode.

A pipelined ARQ MT-63 mode (or something along those lines) running at 
several speeds that can auto switch on the fly would be a major coup for 
amateur radio.

When word throughput is used, I consider the following:

cps (characters per second) is about equal to wpm (words per minute) 
times 10

so 10 cps ~ 100 wpm

This is because one uses an average of 5 character words and a space 
which comes to six total characters per word and it also makes it easy 
to calculate in your head.

73,

Rick, KV9U


DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:

>Rick,
>
>You asked..."Why do the Pactor modes work so well? They have the same 
>bandwidth, power, and fairly similar coding to sound card modes. Is their 
>coding something that can not be 
>implemented on current sound cards in terms of the modulation?"
>
>Here may be part of the answer...
>
>Measurements made by Rick, KN6KB, when working on SCAMP measured PI/II/III 
>with the KC7WW HF Channel Simulator found that PIII at a -10 dB SNR had a 
>slightly better throughput than MT63.  MT63-2K has been measured by KC7WW 
>using the same simulator that he sold KN6KB and found that MT63 needed a about 
>a 5 dB better SNR than Pactor III to have the same throughput.
>
>The problem with MT63 is that it does not change its modulation dynamically as 
>the SNR changes but Pactor III does.  So when conditions are good, Pactor III 
>screams.  But when conditions are very poor, Pactor III is not that much 
>better than MT63.  
>
>Another thing is that MT63 doesn't use ARQ and Pactor does.  Also, the 
>modulation rate is lower than optimum for all of the HF bands...31 Hz.  
>Research for the past 30 years has reveiled that a 45-50 baud modulation rate 
>works very well on HF.  Thus if MT63 kicked up its modulation rate and added 
>ARQ, it might very well outperform Pactor III and low SNRs.  If you added 
>dymanic modulation changes to MT63, you might very well have a throughput of 
>400-800 WPM.  A typed page is about 720 words.  
>
>Copy some E-Mail into your word processor some time and do a word count...you 
>might be surprised.
>
>73,
>
>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)

 
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] Amateur ALE: Interoperable with Gov/Mil/NGO/Nato/etc (Re:IC-F7000; VX-1700)

[expeditionradio]

Hi Walt,
 
> Can you purchase the IC-F7000 from anyone in the U.S.
?

IC-F7000 ALE transceiver has not been released by Icom in USA yet, 
but it has been available in the rest of the world for several 
years. A few hams have imported them to USA.

VX-1700 ALE transceiver is available from Vertex dealers in USA 
and the rest of the world.

> But if you desire is to be able to contact or even lock-on to 
> DHS/FEMA/DoD/NATO ALE signals, then follow what DHS/FEMA/DoD use.

Yes, amateur ALE is using the same ALE that US Gov't, Mil, Nato, 
and other systems are using. It is based on 
"FED 1045" standard also known as "MIL STD 188-141(a)(b)"

> MARS may choose to use what they please.  

Yes, MARS already uses the same MIL STD 188-141 ALE system 
that gov, mil, and hams use. 

> The Executive Order, which Congress has let stand and now has 
> the affect of Public Law, says that DHS/FEMA/DoD and other 
> Federal Agencies will have inter-operable HF systems.  
> That means all of these will be using the SAME ALE standard.

Amateur ALE is MIL STD 188-141, compatible and interoperable 
with all those gov systems. The gov standard has driven many 
other non-governmental organizations to use it also.
More info on amateur ALE interoperability with gov/ngo systems:
http://www.hflink.com/interoperation/

> Does the IC-F7000 and VX-1700 use the DHS/FEMA/DoD 
> (Fed-STD/Mil-Std)?

Yes, IC-F7000 and VX-1700 both use the same ALE standard as 
the gov "FED 1045" and mil "MIL STD 188-141" ALE system.  

> The IC-F7000 and the VX-1700 are both in the "under $1500" 
> price range. 
> 

73 Bonnie KQ6XA 






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: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications

[Dave Bernstein]

Walt's suggestion is to replicate the internet's worldwide email 
transport capability. After getting beyond "because we can", his 
rationale is "to protect against cyber-attack", though he has yet to 
reveal why a system constructed by amateurs would not be equally 
vulnerable to cyber-attack, or why whatever attack-prevention 
technique he has in mind for this amateur-built system couldn't be 
applied to the internet's email transport system.

You're suggesting that we should replicate the internet's worldwide 
email transport capability because the internet is unreliable for 
emergency communications. What emergency scenario would justify 
complete replication, Steve?

>From an emergency services perspective, a quixotic "replicate 
internet email" project would compete for scarce development 
resources with useful applications that could compensate for internet 
outages during emergencies. 

Changing a thread's title and then editing someone else's response 
generally does not indicate the presence of a strong argument.

  73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> You go it.
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 
> At 01:17 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
> >Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently
> >reliable
>







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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[KV9U]

Mark,

If what you say was true, it would be easy to have sound card modes that 
compete with Pactor modes. From studies that I have seen, Amtor can work 
down around zero db S/N. Same with Pactor I. Some claim a bit below 0 
db. In fact one recent test claimed that RTTY was better than PSK31 for 
a special case. These modes all run about 50 or so wpm. See Figure 7 at:

http://ecjones.org/pactor.html

Note that the test claims that Pactor 2 runs at around 1000 wpm down to 
about -10 db. Pactor 3 is only slightly better at that noise level at 
around 1500 wpm. Of course Pactor 3 scales up so that it can run at 
around 3000 wpm at 0 db and over 6000 wpm at very high signal levels (> 
30 db).

Those are magnitudes of difference. The weak signal ability of Pactor 2 
and 3 converge around -12 db,  when the other modes were inoperative, 
but are still close to 1000 wpm.

Note also in Figure 6, the real world test by using distance on 80 
meters daytime. The worst performance was by Amtor, followed by Pactor 1 
and closely by PSK31. The best performer was RTTY at these slow speeds 
and he gives his explanation as why he believes this occurs. It sounds 
reasonable to me.

And also note that the non-ARQ modes always had some errors and the ARQ 
modes were error free.

But the P2 and P3 modes are so far ahead of anything else, even with 
weak signals. And others who have compared the modes in real life also 
make similar claims.

Some of this is due to tweaking techniques such as compression, but it 
is only part of the explanation.

73,

Rick, KV9U










>
>I am not sure I quite follow you Rick, I am not sure that the Pactor modes 
>have any higher throughput vs. s/n ratio than the sound card modes.  I have 
>not performed the testing myself, but my gut tells me that the PACTOR modes 
>require a fairly high S/N ratio to move data at their highest rates.  I 
>think the only limitation in implementing these modes in the Windows 
>environment is timing.  The other limiting factor is licensing.
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX
>  
>



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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[Bill Aycock]

Hank- your posts seem to ALWAYS come through with a "high Priority" Symbol 
in the header. Do you Think the post below rates immediate attention over 
others? Or is this an overlooked feature?
Bill

At 06:36 PM 8/22/2006 -0500, you wrote:

>Or perhaps, ping-pong?  As long as we never lose our sense of humor the
>hobby will prosper...
>
>Hank
>KI4MF
>
>   _

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama 




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: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications

[Steinar Aanesland]

Nice Steve ;)

73 de LA5VNA



Steve Hajducek skrev:
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> You go it.
>
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
>
> At 01:17 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
> >Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently
> >reliable
>
>  






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: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL

[chasm]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:40:37 -, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>The IC-F7000 and the VX-1700 are both in the "under $1500" price range. 

http://www.icomamerica.com/brochures/ic-f7000.pdf

hmmm

>PENDING FCC TYPE ACCEPTANCE
>THIS DEVICE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED
>BY THE F.C.C. THIS DEVICE IS NOT,
>AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE,
>OR LEASE, OR SOLD OR LEASED.

too bad, sounds interesting.  guess I need to call the Tech and try to get a
WAG as to when it will be available for sale in the USA.

thanks
chas
73/chas
--
K5DAM  Houston  EL29fuAAR6TU
http://tinyurl.com/df55x (BPL Presentation)


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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC 
CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What was the motivation for a man to try and circumnavigate the 
globe in a hot air balloon?

Why do individuals enter a triathlon or climb a high mountain?  

Because its there to do.

>>>We're discussing a technical initiative that would require the 
concerted effort of a team of developers and operators, Walt -- not 
a display of personal courage, stamina, or initiative.


There is no stake holders in amateur radio unless you are a supplier 
of goods or services or in some other way make a livelihood or money 
from it...it is a "hobby".

>>>I strongly disagree. The stakeholders in this case would be the 
developers who construct the system, the operators who deploy and 
maintain it, and the members of the public who benefit from it.


There are always a cost in any hobby.  I have lost many hundreds of 
dollars in radio controlled model airplanes and I understood the 
risk but the risk didn't count.  I stopped when I could no longer 
afford the hobby.  And again, I have owned aircraft but stopped with 
each one when the cost was too high...but I never considered my 
hobby a risk.

The same with amateur radio.  We are involved in it as a hobby and 
for enjoyment unless we are making money in the hobby.  SO being a 
stake holder and looking a cost vs. risk are not applicable.  But 
again, if you view amateur radio as something other than a hobby, 
then yes you might be concerned in the stake holders...those who you 
want to play with and yes, I'm sure you could consider a cost vs. 
risk analysis.

>>>In amateur radio, "opportunity cost" is a significant factor. A 
software developer willing to freely contribute his or her services 
can donate a finite number of hours each week. If those hours are 
applied to project A, then they can't be applied to project B. Few 
developers would contribute their scarce time to a project whose 
only rationale is "because we can". There are plenty of far more 
useful undertakings to which a developer could contribute.

   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/
 

[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

Yes, there's opportunity to use digital radio to augment current 
communication systems to overcome local outages -- but we don't need 
to duplicate the internet to accomplish this. 

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Harold Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agree with you Dave.  About 99% of the time the internet is 
reliable.
> The weak link however, is the ISP.  For example, I live on the 
coast of
> North Carolina along the Pamlico Sound.  We are remote, so there 
are no
> cable modems or any such hardwire connections.  Our high-speed 
provider
> uses microwave shots from multiple towers tied into several T-1 
lines
> provided by AT&T or whoever they are now.
>  
> I can guarantee you the first utility to go is the internet, 
normally
> followed by power, and it does not take a hurricane to do it, just 
a
> good old nor'easter will do.  To keep the radios alive a have a
> whole-house generator good for about 6 days of operation.  From the
> emergency/MARS aspect I can see where the internet would be seen as
> unreliable.  Wasn't too reliable in New Orleans either.
>  
> When the trees start to come down and the water rises you can 
count on
> the landline phones and cells going out as well.  What's left?  Ham
> radio, that's about it.  On the pointed end of the stick our 2-
meter
> repeater systems are most valuable as long as they are up.  
However,
> they too are prone to failure as well, as they are installed on
> commercial towers with limited generator back-up.  After that it is
> simplex FM and HF.
>  
> The one aspect of ALE, and again I speak from AMRS-ALE experience, 
not
> PC, is that is has managed to standardize comms among the many
> government entities involved in disaster support and recovery.  
That is
> no small accomplishment when you consider the territorial toes and
> empires that were stepped on in the progress.  Similar,to a lesser
> extent, as hams complaining about having to take FEMA courses that
> standardize response command and control.  "We don't need no 
stinking
> class!"  I remember my Q codes.
>  
> When comms are available, how do we efficiently handle a large 
volume of
> traffic?  If you have ever worked above 80 meters on voice nets it 
is
> surely not by SSB.  That brings us back to this reflector - digital
> radio.  The most efficient means is via digital modes - FEC error
> correction, PACTOR, GTOR, whatever the protocol, digital provides 
the
> greatest chance of a message being transmitted and received without
> error, and does not waste 5 minutes transmitting call signs and 
fills
> for a voice message under less than ideal conditions.  
>  
> "Robustness" is a good word.  For a poor comm link, (generally 
what you
> "expect on HF) and a signal that is 5 dB below the noise, you 
might not
> expect any signal recovery.  However, there are several digital 
modes
> that can recover almost 100% of the transmitted data under those
> conditions.  This is where ALE comes in by documenting these 
differing
> conditions and providing a link across the frequency with the 
greatest
> probability of success.  Once the link is established, you can 
resort to
> any digital or analog means to convey the information.
> 
> Most interesting to remember that the initial concept of the 
internet
> was for redundancy - survivability of comms following a nuclear 
attack.
> Conceived by the same bureaucrats, but contracted out to the long-
haired
> wizards at AT&T - Bell Labs.
>  
> I guess history repeats if we wait long enough.  What was the 
subject
> again?
>  
> Best,
>  
> Hank
> KI4MF
> NN0BBX

>







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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC 

>Snip<

Sorry Dave, but you aren't reading the same articles and seeing the 
same reports that I am.
 
Cyberassaults reveal China's growing interest in information 
warfare, putting the Pentagon on guard against nation-state attacks.
 
>snip<

>>>Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs 
invulnerable to cyber-attack? 

NO, amateur radio cannot build or operate a messaging network 
anywhere close to what the Internet provides.  That is NOT the 
ideas.  The idea is to provide some level of messaging that could 
assist the federal, state and local governments as well as NGOs who 
would support emergency or disaster recovery if part or all of the 
Internet were rendered unusable.

>>>Several times in this thread, I have agreed that overcoming local 
internet outages would be a reasonable objective. Its your 
insistence that we must cover for the loss of the entire internet 
that remains completely unjustified.

>snip<

Satellites and fiber are hardware and are not affected by cyber-
attacks...its the software that runs over the hardware that is in 
danger.

>>>So are you suggesting that this amateur-built HF world-wide 
messaging system should not employ software?

I'm not Chicken Little.  However, when individuals who know about 
cyber-attacks and the capabilities of the Internet to survive a 
large attack by our enemies, I become concerned.

>>>I agree that there's cause for concern, but I don't see how the 
approach you're suggestion would come anywhere close to addressing 
this problem.

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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

What was the motivation for a man to try and circumnavigate the globe in a hot 
air balloon?

Why do individuals enter a triathlon or climb a high mountain?  

Because its there to do.

There is no stake holders in amateur radio unless you are a supplier of goods 
or services or in some other way make a livelihood or money from it...it is a 
"hobby".

There are always a cost in any hobby.  I have lost many hundreds of dollars in 
radio controlled model airplanes and I understood the risk but the risk didn't 
count.  I stopped when I could no longer afford the hobby.  And again, I have 
owned aircraft but stopped with each one when the cost was too high...but I 
never considered my hobby a risk.

The same with amateur radio.  We are involved in it as a hobby and for 
enjoyment unless we are making money in the hobby.  SO being a stake holder and 
looking a cost vs. risk are not applicable.  But again, if you view amateur 
radio as something other than a hobby, then yes you might be concerned in the 
stake holders...those who you want to play with and yes, I'm sure you could 
consider a cost vs. risk analysis.

I just don't see amateur radio as anything but a past time and something that I 
can enjoy and perhaps be of service to my fellow man from my amateur radio 
knowledge and activities.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:09 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An
Experiment


Walt, you're going to have to do MUCH better than that if you want 
motivate concerted action.

The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is 
whether we SHOULD. Answering this question generally involves 
identifying the value to stakeholders, understanding the costs and 
risks, and comparing these factors to alternative approaches.

With high-value objectives that are well-reasoned and clearly 
articulated, motivating concerted action is actually easy -- and fun! 
Lame objectives with rah-rah rationale usually go nowhere, thankfully.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before 
Transmitting: An
> Experiment
> [stuff deleted]
> ...The question is not "could such a system be created"; it 
certainly could. The question is, "why should we build and deploy 
it?". 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
==
===
> 
> Because we CAN do it.
> 
> 73,
> 
> 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)

 
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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[Harold Aaron]

Or perhaps, ping-pong?  As long as we never lose our sense of humor the
hobby will prosper...
 
Hank
KI4MF

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of expeditionradio
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO



> Say for the moment that 100 Hams are pinging, what happens
> when 10,000 Hams are pinging and they are doing so on the
> same bands they now frequent? 
> doc, KD4E 

At that point, you would call it a RTTY DX contest :)

Bonnie KQ6XA



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Harold Aaron]

Agree with you Dave.  About 99% of the time the internet is reliable.
The weak link however, is the ISP.  For example, I live on the coast of
North Carolina along the Pamlico Sound.  We are remote, so there are no
cable modems or any such hardwire connections.  Our high-speed provider
uses microwave shots from multiple towers tied into several T-1 lines
provided by AT&T or whoever they are now.
 
I can guarantee you the first utility to go is the internet, normally
followed by power, and it does not take a hurricane to do it, just a
good old nor'easter will do.  To keep the radios alive a have a
whole-house generator good for about 6 days of operation.  From the
emergency/MARS aspect I can see where the internet would be seen as
unreliable.  Wasn't too reliable in New Orleans either.
 
When the trees start to come down and the water rises you can count on
the landline phones and cells going out as well.  What's left?  Ham
radio, that's about it.  On the pointed end of the stick our 2-meter
repeater systems are most valuable as long as they are up.  However,
they too are prone to failure as well, as they are installed on
commercial towers with limited generator back-up.  After that it is
simplex FM and HF.
 
The one aspect of ALE, and again I speak from AMRS-ALE experience, not
PC, is that is has managed to standardize comms among the many
government entities involved in disaster support and recovery.  That is
no small accomplishment when you consider the territorial toes and
empires that were stepped on in the progress.  Similar,to a lesser
extent, as hams complaining about having to take FEMA courses that
standardize response command and control.  "We don't need no stinking
class!"  I remember my Q codes.
 
When comms are available, how do we efficiently handle a large volume of
traffic?  If you have ever worked above 80 meters on voice nets it is
surely not by SSB.  That brings us back to this reflector - digital
radio.  The most efficient means is via digital modes - FEC error
correction, PACTOR, GTOR, whatever the protocol, digital provides the
greatest chance of a message being transmitted and received without
error, and does not waste 5 minutes transmitting call signs and fills
for a voice message under less than ideal conditions.  
 
"Robustness" is a good word.  For a poor comm link, (generally what you
"expect on HF) and a signal that is 5 dB below the noise, you might not
expect any signal recovery.  However, there are several digital modes
that can recover almost 100% of the transmitted data under those
conditions.  This is where ALE comes in by documenting these differing
conditions and providing a link across the frequency with the greatest
probability of success.  Once the link is established, you can resort to
any digital or analog means to convey the information.

Most interesting to remember that the initial concept of the internet
was for redundancy - survivability of comms following a nuclear attack.
Conceived by the same bureaucrats, but contracted out to the long-haired
wizards at AT&T - Bell Labs.
 
I guess history repeats if we wait long enough.  What was the subject
again?
 
Best,
 
Hank
KI4MF
NN0BBX

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An
Experiment



Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently 
reliable, despite the multi-billion dollar investments by telecom 
companies and suppliers, governments, and research institutions. Thus 
there's an opportunity for amateurs to build a more reliable means of 
conveying email thats independent of the internet using HF links.

I'm sure there are people on the planet who view the internet as 
insufficiently reliable, but most of them are in uniform, and have 
the multi-billion dollar budgets required to build and maintain 
networks sufficiently reliable for their purposes. My guess is that 
they don't use HF either; they use some combination of fiber and 
satellites, and are researching entangled quantum bits for their next 
generation of capability.

The rest of us think the internet is just fine, except when the power 
goes down or the local ISP runs into trouble. Overcoming such outages 
is a MUCH simpler problem than replacing the internet with an HF-
based system as Walt -- and evidently you -- suggest.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> 
> At 01:59 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
> >Re: "The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise
> >above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common 
goals."
> 
> Amend to that !
> 
> 
> >A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, 
and
> >to have that goal make sense.
> >
> >To me, pronouncements from inept

RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An
Experiment

Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently 
reliable, despite the multi-billion dollar investments by telecom 
companies and suppliers, governments, and research institutions. Thus 
there's an opportunity for amateurs to build a more reliable means of 
conveying email thats independent of the internet using HF links.

I'm sure there are people on the planet who view the internet as 
insufficiently reliable, but most of them are in uniform, and have 
the multi-billion dollar budgets required to build and maintain 
networks sufficiently reliable for their purposes. My guess is that 
they don't use HF either; they use some combination of fiber and 
satellites, and are researching entangled quantum bits for their next 
generation of capability.

The rest of us think the internet is just fine, except when the power 
goes down or the local ISP runs into trouble. Overcoming such outages 
is a MUCH simpler problem than replacing the internet with an HF-
based system as Walt -- and evidently you -- suggest.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

===

Sorry Dave, but you aren't reading the same articles and seeing the same 
reports that I am.

Cyberassaults reveal China's growing interest in information warfare, 
putting the Pentagon on guard against nation-state attacks.

Network intrusions put net-centricity 'at risk'
08/23/06 -- 06:23 AM Army officials believe that more than 60 serious hits on 
networks at 15 bases over the last 10 months were aimed at stealing military 
information.
http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/41768-1.html?topic=defense-technology

RED STORM RISING
A growing band of civilian units inside China is writing malicious code 
and training to launch cyberstrikes into enemy systems. And for many 
of these units, the first enemy is the U.S. Defense Department. 
http://www.gcn.com/print/25_25/41716-1.html 
 
IT AS A PRIME TARGET
An enemy of the United States could launch a cyberattack against a 
communications infrastructure, or initiate an assault on the country's 
banking and finance centers, transportation hubs, nuclear facilities, 
electrical grids and even food supply. If this cyberattack were to 
happen, would the Defense Department get involved? That decision would 
be made by the executive branch of the government. 
http://www.gcn.com/print/25_25/41718-1.html 

NO, amateur radio cannot build or operate a messaging network anywhere close to 
what the Internet provides.  That is NOT the ideas.  The idea is to provide 
some level of messaging that could assist the federal, state and local 
governments as well as NGOs who would support emergency or disaster recovery if 
part or all of the Internet were rendered unusable.

It is those individuals "in uniform" who are most concerned about the Internet 
and the DoD's MilNet capability to survive and all out cyber-attack.  Read the 
URLs above.

Satellites and fiber are hardware and are not affected by cyber-attacks...its 
the software that runs over the hardware that is in danger.

I'm not Chicken Little.  However, when individuals who know about cyber-attacks 
and the capabilities of the Internet to survive a large attack by our enemies, 
I become concerned.

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)

 
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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[John Becker]

It in deed would. That is the reason Pactor and Amtor
work so well. It's the AQR - even with the hi S/N needed.

I got into Amtor in the early days when the KIT BOARD
was over 500 bucks. Ask HB9AVK what he thinks of the
AQR modes and Amtor in general. Or G3GPS. A lot
of us old RTTY'ers played with Amtor way back then.

John, W0JAB

At 03:33 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote in part:
>Thus if MT63 kicked up its modulation rate and added ARQ, it might very 
>well outperform Pactor III and low SNRs.  If you added dymanic modulation 
>changes to MT63, you might very well have a throughput of 400-800 WPM.  A 
>typed page is about 720 words.





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: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Dave,

You go it.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 01:17 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
>Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently
>reliable




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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

Walt, you're going to have to do MUCH better than that if you want 
motivate concerted action.

The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is 
whether we SHOULD. Answering this question generally involves 
identifying the value to stakeholders, understanding the costs and 
risks, and comparing these factors to alternative approaches.

With high-value objectives that are well-reasoned and clearly 
articulated, motivating concerted action is actually easy -- and fun! 
Lame objectives with rah-rah rationale usually go nowhere, thankfully.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before 
Transmitting: An
> Experiment
> [stuff deleted]
> ...The question is not "could such a system be created"; it 
certainly could. The question is, "why should we build and deploy 
it?". 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
==
===
> 
> Because we CAN do it.
> 
> 73,
> 
> 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)

 
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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently 
reliable, despite the multi-billion dollar investments by telecom 
companies and suppliers, governments, and research institutions. Thus 
there's an opportunity for amateurs to build a more reliable means of 
conveying email thats independent of the internet using HF links.

I'm sure there are people on the planet who view the internet as 
insufficiently reliable, but most of them are in uniform, and have 
the multi-billion dollar budgets required to build and maintain 
networks sufficiently reliable for their purposes. My guess is that 
they don't use HF either; they use some combination of fiber and 
satellites, and are researching entangled quantum bits for their next 
generation of capability.

The rest of us think the internet is just fine, except when the power 
goes down or the local ISP runs into trouble. Overcoming such outages 
is a MUCH simpler problem than replacing the internet with an HF-
based system as Walt -- and evidently you -- suggest.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> 
> At 01:59 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
> >Re: "The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise
> >above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common 
goals."
> 
> Amend to that !
> 
> 
> >A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, 
and
> >to have that goal make sense.
> >
> >To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more
> >likely to contain anti-goals then goals.
> >
> >Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of
> >transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building,
> >organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport
> >system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a
> >means of rapidly compensating for  local internet outages is 
obvious,
> >but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more
> >comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not "could
> >such a system be created"; it certainly could. The question 
is, "why
> >should we build and deploy it?".
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> My reply would that a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail system via 
> HF/VHF such as an implementation of STANAG 5066 within the Amateur 
> Radio Service would be just that, "a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail 
> system via HF/VHF", unlike the actual Internet which is not 
reliable, 
> especially during various types of natural and man-made 
> emergency/disaster scenarios.
> 
> FYI - Open5066 has begun, see: 
http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> 
> FYI - The NPHRN has a mandate of September 2007 that will drive 
those 
> that support it and that it supports, see: 
> 
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/coopagreement/pdf/fy06guidance_qa2.pdf
> 
> Just what will take place within the Amateur Radio Service WRT 
STANAG 
> 5066 is unknown at this time, in the U.S. nothing will take place 
> until the FCC bring the rules up to date and even then it will 
depend 
> on just how much they update the rules as to just what can be 
> accomplished on HF. Other countries do not suffer the same 
> limitations and then some other countries suffer worst limitations, 
> it an age old story in that regard.
> 
> What is obvious to me and many if not all is that for the Amateur 
> Radio Service to really be effective as a "Service" and not just a 
> way to have fun with radio, we need to have a full blown 
> radio-to-radio e-mail (or automated radio relay if you prefer) 
system 
> in place worldwide to meet the demands of the Amateur Radio 
Service, 
> be it based on STANAG 5066 or whatever and it needs to be done use 
> the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) and before anyone laughs at that, 
> STANAG 5066 is already being done via the PCDSM commercially, refer 
> to: http://www.skysweep.com/binaries/doc/SkySweepMessenger.pdf
> 
> P.S. - ALE is at the Physical Level of STANAG 5066
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
>






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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Rick,

You asked..."Why do the Pactor modes work so well? They have the same 
bandwidth, power, and fairly similar coding to sound card modes. Is their 
coding something that can not be 
implemented on current sound cards in terms of the modulation?"

Here may be part of the answer...

Measurements made by Rick, KN6KB, when working on SCAMP measured PI/II/III with 
the KC7WW HF Channel Simulator found that PIII at a -10 dB SNR had a slightly 
better throughput than MT63.  MT63-2K has been measured by KC7WW using the same 
simulator that he sold KN6KB and found that MT63 needed a about a 5 dB better 
SNR than Pactor III to have the same throughput.

The problem with MT63 is that it does not change its modulation dynamically as 
the SNR changes but Pactor III does.  So when conditions are good, Pactor III 
screams.  But when conditions are very poor, Pactor III is not that much better 
than MT63.  

Another thing is that MT63 doesn't use ARQ and Pactor does.  Also, the 
modulation rate is lower than optimum for all of the HF bands...31 Hz.  
Research for the past 30 years has reveiled that a 45-50 baud modulation rate 
works very well on HF.  Thus if MT63 kicked up its modulation rate and added 
ARQ, it might very well outperform Pactor III and low SNRs.  If you added 
dymanic modulation changes to MT63, you might very well have a throughput of 
400-800 WPM.  A typed page is about 720 words.  

Copy some E-Mail into your word processor some time and do a word count...you 
might be surprised.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF


Mark,

Why do the Pactor modes work so well? They have the same bandwidth, 
power, and fairly similar coding to sound card modes. Is their coding 
something that can not be implemented on current sound cards in terms of 
the modulation?

P2 is a variable DPSK mode and P3 is OFDM are they not?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Mark Miller wrote:

>You have pointed out a basic principle with respect to data 
>throughput.  Throughput is a function of bandwidth, power, and 
>coding.  With amateur HF we are power, and bandwidth limited.  The nature 
>of the media we are opening in makes forward error correction a must, thus 
>we suffer a loss of throughput because of coding.  The very robust modes 
>like MT63 and Olivia require interleaving and convolutional 
>coding.  Compare MT63 and Olivia with RDFT or amateur DRM.  RDFT and DRM 
>are great modes, but requires a fairly high S/N ratio.  The challenge is 
>there, but the solution is far from easy.
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX 
>
>
>  
>



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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

I agree that an application that convey can convey email to the 
internet via HF would be handy during emergencies or other 
disruptions, and during portable operation (though 3G cellular and 
WiMax are beginning to reduce the need for the latter). Enabling it 
exploit a direct internet connection when available would not be 
difficult. 

This is a very different objective than the one Walt suggested, which 
if I understood it correctly is to provide reliable worldwide 
conveyance of email via HF links with no reliance on the internet 
whatsoever.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I might point out that the Winlink system is a total HF solution 
and 
> operated for many years. The owners of the system felt that this 
system 
> was too slow and wanted a system that would operate primarily with 
> e-mail connectivity. This developed into Winlink 2000 and removed 
much 
> of the HF traffic off the ham bands and unto the internet. Of 
course 
> such a system doesn't work if the internet fails, but the 
assumption is 
> that can never happen except over a small area at any one time.
> 
> The Winlink system (some call it Winlink Classic) which evolved 
from the 
> earlier Aplink system is used for some MARS activity, or was at one 
> time, and it is also the same software that is used for the ARRL 
NTS/D 
> system. The software is no longer maintained and the Winlink 2000 
folks 
> no longer want it used by anyone and have made some rather forceful 
> comments to put it mildly.
> 
> Therefore, there is a vacuum at the moment for a system that will 
work 
> RF when needed and still can send via the internet for e-mail in 
those 
> cases where you want increased speed and the ability to deliver to 
> non-amateur radio addresses. Ideally, it would work in a similar 
manner 
> to a decentralized system such as PSKmail which is not dependent 
upon 
> one system run on the internet. Some would say that the downside of 
> PSKmail type systems is that it can not be controlled by a few hams 
and 
> would be available to anyone to set up as they chose to do so. This 
> would be less structured along the lines of open software, however, 
my 
> view is that is much closer to the tradition of ham radio.
> 
> 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/
 

Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[Mark Miller]

>Why do the Pactor modes work so well? They have the same bandwidth,
>power, and fairly similar coding to sound card modes. Is their coding
>something that can not be implemented on current sound cards in terms of
>the modulation?
>
>P2 is a variable DPSK mode and P3 is OFDM are they not?
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U


I am not sure I quite follow you Rick, I am not sure that the Pactor modes 
have any higher throughput vs. s/n ratio than the sound card modes.  I have 
not performed the testing myself, but my gut tells me that the PACTOR modes 
require a fairly high S/N ratio to move data at their highest rates.  I 
think the only limitation in implementing these modes in the Windows 
environment is timing.  The other limiting factor is licensing.

73,

Mark N5RFX




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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:59 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An
Experiment
[stuff deleted]
...The question is not "could such a system be created"; it certainly could. 
The question is, "why should we build and deploy it?". 

73,

Dave, AA6YQ
=

Because we CAN do it.

73,

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)

 
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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[KV9U]

Mark,

Why do the Pactor modes work so well? They have the same bandwidth, 
power, and fairly similar coding to sound card modes. Is their coding 
something that can not be implemented on current sound cards in terms of 
the modulation?

P2 is a variable DPSK mode and P3 is OFDM are they not?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Mark Miller wrote:

>You have pointed out a basic principle with respect to data 
>throughput.  Throughput is a function of bandwidth, power, and 
>coding.  With amateur HF we are power, and bandwidth limited.  The nature 
>of the media we are opening in makes forward error correction a must, thus 
>we suffer a loss of throughput because of coding.  The very robust modes 
>like MT63 and Olivia require interleaving and convolutional 
>coding.  Compare MT63 and Olivia with RDFT or amateur DRM.  RDFT and DRM 
>are great modes, but requires a fairly high S/N ratio.  The challenge is 
>there, but the solution is far from easy.
>
>73,
>
>Mark N5RFX 
>
>
>  
>



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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Dave,


At 01:59 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
>Re: "The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise
>above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals."

Amend to that !


>A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, and
>to have that goal make sense.
>
>To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more
>likely to contain anti-goals then goals.
>
>Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of
>transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building,
>organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport
>system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a
>means of rapidly compensating for  local internet outages is obvious,
>but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more
>comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not "could
>such a system be created"; it certainly could. The question is, "why
>should we build and deploy it?".
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ

My reply would that a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail system via 
HF/VHF such as an implementation of STANAG 5066 within the Amateur 
Radio Service would be just that, "a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail 
system via HF/VHF", unlike the actual Internet which is not reliable, 
especially during various types of natural and man-made 
emergency/disaster scenarios.

FYI - Open5066 has begun, see: http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

FYI - The NPHRN has a mandate of September 2007 that will drive those 
that support it and that it supports, see: 
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/coopagreement/pdf/fy06guidance_qa2.pdf

Just what will take place within the Amateur Radio Service WRT STANAG 
5066 is unknown at this time, in the U.S. nothing will take place 
until the FCC bring the rules up to date and even then it will depend 
on just how much they update the rules as to just what can be 
accomplished on HF. Other countries do not suffer the same 
limitations and then some other countries suffer worst limitations, 
it an age old story in that regard.

What is obvious to me and many if not all is that for the Amateur 
Radio Service to really be effective as a "Service" and not just a 
way to have fun with radio, we need to have a full blown 
radio-to-radio e-mail (or automated radio relay if you prefer) system 
in place worldwide to meet the demands of the Amateur Radio Service, 
be it based on STANAG 5066 or whatever and it needs to be done use 
the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) and before anyone laughs at that, 
STANAG 5066 is already being done via the PCDSM commercially, refer 
to: http://www.skysweep.com/binaries/doc/SkySweepMessenger.pdf

P.S. - ALE is at the Physical Level of STANAG 5066

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve, N2CKH





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] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

And we must do more research and testing.

The latest research from university and private research institutions and 
industry indicates that high data throughputs in a wide channel, such as a 10 
KHz data channel, can be substantially more than the collective throughput of 
five 2 KHz channels.

Additionally, recent research indicates that on one wide channel, there is the 
possibility of having more than just one specific data stream.  

Thus, if you could have a throughput of 128 Kbps in a 10 KHz channel, you might 
only be able to pass 9.6 Kbps in five 2 KHz channels (48 Kbps total).  
Additionally, depending on the actual total data throughput per epoch, it is 
probably that 6 or 8 "QSOs" might well all share the same 10 KHz space without 
QRMing each other and still obtain and aggregate of 128 Kbps throughput.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:52 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF



>If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose was 
>developing communications technology...or the technology officer for 
>amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data 
>protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications 
>developed. None are really as robust as the should/could be, none of the 
>sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there are is no 
>really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the capability of operating 
>"stand-alone" without using the Internet.

Walt,

You have pointed out a basic principle with respect to data 
throughput.  Throughput is a function of bandwidth, power, and 
coding.  With amateur HF we are power, and bandwidth limited.  The nature 
of the media we are opening in makes forward error correction a must, thus 
we suffer a loss of throughput because of coding.  The very robust modes 
like MT63 and Olivia require interleaving and convolutional 
coding.  Compare MT63 and Olivia with RDFT or amateur DRM.  RDFT and DRM 
are great modes, but requires a fairly high S/N ratio.  The challenge is 
there, but the solution is far from easy.

73,

Mark N5RFX 



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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[KV9U]

Hi Dave,

I might point out that the Winlink system is a total HF solution and 
operated for many years. The owners of the system felt that this system 
was too slow and wanted a system that would operate primarily with 
e-mail connectivity. This developed into Winlink 2000 and removed much 
of the HF traffic off the ham bands and unto the internet. Of course 
such a system doesn't work if the internet fails, but the assumption is 
that can never happen except over a small area at any one time.

The Winlink system (some call it Winlink Classic) which evolved from the 
earlier Aplink system is used for some MARS activity, or was at one 
time, and it is also the same software that is used for the ARRL NTS/D 
system. The software is no longer maintained and the Winlink 2000 folks 
no longer want it used by anyone and have made some rather forceful 
comments to put it mildly.

Therefore, there is a vacuum at the moment for a system that will work 
RF when needed and still can send via the internet for e-mail in those 
cases where you want increased speed and the ability to deliver to 
non-amateur radio addresses. Ideally, it would work in a similar manner 
to a decentralized system such as PSKmail which is not dependent upon 
one system run on the internet. Some would say that the downside of 
PSKmail type systems is that it can not be controlled by a few hams and 
would be available to anyone to set up as they chose to do so. This 
would be less structured along the lines of open software, however, my 
view is that is much closer to the tradition of ham radio.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Dave Bernstein wrote:

>An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the 
>internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area 
>internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. Either 
>its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their nodes 
>(transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or some 
>subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain "super 
>nodes" that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either 
>approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, Walt?
>
>   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/
 

[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

Re: "The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise 
above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals."

A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, and 
to have that goal make sense.

To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more 
likely to contain anti-goals then goals.

Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of 
transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building, 
organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport 
system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a 
means of rapidly compensating for  local internet outages is obvious, 
but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more 
comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not "could 
such a system be created"; it certainly could. The question is, "why 
should we build and deploy it?". 

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> 
> What you say is mostly true.
> 
> However, the actual infrastructure, network design has been made.
> 
> The major, regional, district and in some cases local HF node 
owners/operators (and their backups for redundancy) would have to 
agree to maintain an almost 100% on-the-air operational capacity.  
Additionally, some nodes would likely maintain "watch" on 2 or 3 
frequencies.  In other locations, their might need to be 2 or 3 
stations serving the area (region, district or local) that might only 
be able to watch one frequency.  
> 
> Down at the local level, it would be expected that messages would 
be "dumped off" to V/UHF systems using the same E-Mail/messaging 
format/protocol.  BTW, an open source server and client E-
Mail/messaging protocol exist...there is simply the need to interface 
it to a ubiquitous modem.
> 
> There should be no need for a mesh network as it would not be 
expected that stations would be mobile.  The network does however 
consider portable operations.
> 
> I think the motivation is there in the individuals who now handle 
traffic on the NTS and perhaps even more would join if the system 
used only a currently available HF or V/UHF transceiver system and 
PC...no additional hardware required.
> 
> This is what FEMA and DHS desired when they joined in with the ARRL 
in an MOA back a few years ago.
> 
> We have come a long way since the AX.25 SkipNet on HF and TCP/IP 
NOS systems operating on 2M and 70cm.  And most of that experience or 
rather lessons learned can be and will be applied to any new 
national/international messaging system.
> 
> All that is needed is for some to present a 
requirements/specifications document (a specific goal) that the 
amateur radio community will accept and work toward in a concerted 
manner.  Thus far, there has been no concerted amateur radio effort 
to accomplish a like task.  Rather a few individuals who pursue their 
own ideas what a few others follow...much like the "clans" of 1000+ 
years or more ago.  
> 
> Society has seen the need for concerted efforts in accomplishing 
common goals, yet today there is still much clannish movements in all 
corners of the of society.  The technical world, and especially 
amateur radio should rise above that in concerted efforts to 
accomplish desired common goals.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:00 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before 
Transmitting: An
> Experiment
> 
> 
> An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the 
> internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area 
> internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. 
Either 
> its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their 
nodes 
> (transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or 
some 
> subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain "super 
> nodes" that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either 
> approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, 
Walt?
> 
>73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC 
CONS/LGCA" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate.
> > 
> > WinLink is a messaging application.
> > 
> > SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard "modes" are modem/data 
protocol 
> implementations.
> > 
> > We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a 
> like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application.  As far as data 
> modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early 
PSK31 
> days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems.
> > 
> > If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's 
purpose 
> was developing communications technology...or the technology 
officer 

[digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[Mark Miller]

>If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose was 
>developing communications technology...or the technology officer for 
>amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data 
>protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications 
>developed. None are really as robust as the should/could be, none of the 
>sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there are is no 
>really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the capability of operating 
>"stand-alone" without using the Internet.

Walt,

You have pointed out a basic principle with respect to data 
throughput.  Throughput is a function of bandwidth, power, and 
coding.  With amateur HF we are power, and bandwidth limited.  The nature 
of the media we are opening in makes forward error correction a must, thus 
we suffer a loss of throughput because of coding.  The very robust modes 
like MT63 and Olivia require interleaving and convolutional 
coding.  Compare MT63 and Olivia with RDFT or amateur DRM.  RDFT and DRM 
are great modes, but requires a fairly high S/N ratio.  The challenge is 
there, but the solution is far from easy.

73,

Mark N5RFX 



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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

You're right that neither ALE nor Beacons scale to 600,000 amateurs 
transmitting.  But I think it is wrong to say hams shouldn't use ALE and 
should use more beacons.  Every time I have tried to answer a beacon, I 
always get the same RST of 000.  People scan with ALE when they want to 
talk and are ready, and don't when they aren't.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 7:49 am, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> IMHO, an larger number of Beacon Stations would be more beneficial to 
> propagation forecasting than any individual station or stations 
> "pinging".
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:45 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO
>
>
> I think when propagation improves people will do more talking and less
> looking.  ALE helps looking, especially when propagation is poor.
> 73,
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 3:31 pm, expeditionradio wrote:
>>>   Say for the moment that 100 Hams are pinging, what happens
>>>   when 10,000 Hams are pinging and they are doing so on the
>>>   same bands they now frequent?
>>>   doc, KD4E
>>
>>  At that point, you would call it a RTTY DX contest :)
>>
>>  Bonnie KQ6XA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Dave,

What you say is mostly true.

However, the actual infrastructure, network design has been made.

The major, regional, district and in some cases local HF node owners/operators 
(and their backups for redundancy) would have to agree to maintain an almost 
100% on-the-air operational capacity.  Additionally, some nodes would likely 
maintain "watch" on 2 or 3 frequencies.  In other locations, their might need 
to be 2 or 3 stations serving the area (region, district or local) that might 
only be able to watch one frequency.  

Down at the local level, it would be expected that messages would be "dumped 
off" to V/UHF systems using the same E-Mail/messaging format/protocol.  BTW, an 
open source server and client E-Mail/messaging protocol exist...there is simply 
the need to interface it to a ubiquitous modem.

There should be no need for a mesh network as it would not be expected that 
stations would be mobile.  The network does however consider portable 
operations.

I think the motivation is there in the individuals who now handle traffic on 
the NTS and perhaps even more would join if the system used only a currently 
available HF or V/UHF transceiver system and PC...no additional hardware 
required.

This is what FEMA and DHS desired when they joined in with the ARRL in an MOA 
back a few years ago.

We have come a long way since the AX.25 SkipNet on HF and TCP/IP NOS systems 
operating on 2M and 70cm.  And most of that experience or rather lessons 
learned can be and will be applied to any new national/international messaging 
system.

All that is needed is for some to present a requirements/specifications 
document (a specific goal) that the amateur radio community will accept and 
work toward in a concerted manner.  Thus far, there has been no concerted 
amateur radio effort to accomplish a like task.  Rather a few individuals who 
pursue their own ideas what a few others follow...much like the "clans" of 
1000+ years or more ago.  

Society has seen the need for concerted efforts in accomplishing common goals, 
yet today there is still much clannish movements in all corners of the of 
society.  The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise above 
that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:00 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An
Experiment


An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the 
internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area 
internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. Either 
its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their nodes 
(transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or some 
subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain "super 
nodes" that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either 
approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, Walt?

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate.
> 
> WinLink is a messaging application.
> 
> SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard "modes" are modem/data protocol 
implementations.
> 
> We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a 
like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application.  As far as data 
modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early PSK31 
days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems.
> 
> If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose 
was developing communications technology...or the technology officer 
for amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data 
protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications 
developed.  None are really as robust as the should/could be, none of 
the sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there 
are is no really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the 
capability of operating "stand-alone" without using the Internet.
> 
> Surely amateur radio can do better.
> 
> Let me mention that a chat mode, while certainly the basis of so 
much amateur radio operations, and rightly so, should not be our 
ultimate goal in developing data modes and messaging systems...we 
should have and have always had higher goals.
> 
> If we stop developing the chat modes, we risk losing the "fun" in 
amateur radio and the avocation itself.  But still we need to look 
our purpose in society.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:36 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
> Transmitting: An Experiment
> 
> 
> Hopefully, there 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and VHF

[KV9U]

Harold,

While I have heard of FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum) and 
similar concepts of spreading out the modulation over a number of 
frequencies for security reasons (type of encryption), that is not what 
I referred to. Actually, many of us use SS technology for some of our 
non-amateur technologies.

Bonnie says that hams don't use frequency hopping now on ALE but was not 
able to explain it.

However, I am coining the term frequency hopping, as meaning jumping 
from one frequency to another for short periods and it well describes 
what ALE actually does.

I reject any references to the use of the term channel as this is 
Bonnie's attempt to try and move amateur radio toward channelization. We 
have a band of frequencies except on the 60 meter band where we have 
some spot frequencies.

I parked on one of the 20 meter "ALE frequencies" for a short time today 
and periodically heard some ALE signals. Sometimes for quite a few 
seconds, perhaps as long as 10 seconds? If many were doing this, it 
would be very annoying as it would obviously interfere with a busy 
channel with a hidden transmitter.

The emergency use of this mode is rather limited on amateur radio since 
we rarely would call up a region or even a state, but it could 
theoretically happen if there were a number of hams actively monitoring. 
You will not find many of us setting up an all call 24/7 due to the 
inevitable pranksters. I can see where it would work OK on MARS and 
commecial circuits. If it does catch on with some hams, it will very 
likely be a selcal type of mode for friends to connect like we do now 
for skeds.

It can be especially useful for the less technically astute who are not 
that knowledgeable about propogation. Which is why it is used for 
commercial/military where the operators (really the users) don't have to 
know anything other than to push this button. I have a friend in the 
business who has set up commercial full duplex HF ALE links and it is 
very humorous hearing about the users performance expectations, or lack 
thereof. You would not believe the cost of these systems paid for with 
our tax dollars!

To somehow equate a minor technology such as ALE with the sea change of 
SSB is unwarranted. I was first licensed in 1963 and was an SWL and 
experiementer from age 12 when I was exposed to the "virus" in the form 
of Popular Electronics Magazine:) You could say that some hams were not 
infatuated with SSB even then. But a few had the add on Heath SSB 
adapter and would demo it and most wanted it but had difficulty 
affording it then.

Eventually, almost all hams went to SSB due to its superiority over most 
(but not all) of the characteristics of AM, and the eventual lower cost. 
ALE is likely going to be a subset of amateur radio and that is OK. Just 
like QRP, AM, ESSB, high end contesters, EME enthusiasts, etc.

But because of the way amateur radio works ... not dissimilar to fishing 
... I am willing to bet that most hams will opt for that approach for 
most of their operating.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Harold Aaron wrote:

>I think there is some confusion over frequency hopping, so I will throw
>my 2 uneducated cents into the discussion.  My limited experience is
>with MARS-ALE, and I have been using it for only a month or so.  The
>term frequency hopping as I understand it, relates to changing
>frequencies very quickly while transmitting and receiving - hence a link
>is already established between stations and some form of synchronization
>allows them to hop - rate and frequency.  This requires some serious
>technology, and started as a secure and jam-proof means of
>communications within the DOD.
>
> 
>
>According to the definition above, ALE is not a frequency hopper.  ALE
>is more of a channel hopper (scanner).  A list of previously entered
>frequencies is "scanned."  The issue of whether or not to send a
>sounding is operator controlled.  Therefore, ALE can be scanning and not
>transmitting at all.  This would most likely be used in an attended
>mode.
>
> 
>
>When soundings are enabled, transmissions are sent out periodically
>identifying the sending station in order to build a database for lack of
>a better term of stations within range, signal strengths and such.  A
>sounding period - time in which transmissions occur on each programmed
>channel is normally one hour. The main thing to gather from this is that
>sounding transmissions on an individual frequency or channel are
>infrequent, and are very short in duration - 2-3 seconds.  Also, normal
>power outputs are in the order of 25 - 50 watts, and most antennas are
>NVIS - hence limited propagation.
>
> 
>
>A Voice Detect option is built into the software and the purpose is to
>detect voice activity on a channel to prevent transmission it the
>channel is in use. 
>
>The main purpose of ALE is to establish communications between different
>stations.  The database I referenced earlier logs stations and their
>signal strengths for each channel.  A

[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[Dave Bernstein]

An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the 
internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area 
internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. Either 
its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their nodes 
(transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or some 
subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain "super 
nodes" that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either 
approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, Walt?

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate.
> 
> WinLink is a messaging application.
> 
> SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard "modes" are modem/data protocol 
implementations.
> 
> We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a 
like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application.  As far as data 
modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early PSK31 
days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems.
> 
> If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose 
was developing communications technology...or the technology officer 
for amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data 
protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications 
developed.  None are really as robust as the should/could be, none of 
the sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there 
are is no really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the 
capability of operating "stand-alone" without using the Internet.
> 
> Surely amateur radio can do better.
> 
> Let me mention that a chat mode, while certainly the basis of so 
much amateur radio operations, and rightly so, should not be our 
ultimate goal in developing data modes and messaging systems...we 
should have and have always had higher goals.
> 
> If we stop developing the chat modes, we risk losing the "fun" in 
amateur radio and the avocation itself.  But still we need to look 
our purpose in society.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:36 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
> Transmitting: An Experiment
> 
> 
> Hopefully, there will be a shift toward more open software which 
would 
> be more in line with amateur radio tradition.
> 
> The Winlink 2000 folks keep everything proprietary up to this 
point. 
> That even includes the old software such as Winlink. From what we 
can 
> tell, Winlink 2000 has one main programmer who is very 
accomplished, but 
> one person can only do so much. There may be one other person 
working 
> with them but it is not clear and they are not open to discussion.
> 
> SCAMP actually uses components from Linux and uses GPL'd software 
such 
> as RDFT. But it is hard to tell what future software would be used. 
It 
> has been a year or two since any development was done on SCAMP that 
has 
> been openly discussed.
> 
> The one ARQ mode currently available for sound card use is the 
Linux 
> based PSKmail.  Even Linux sound card Pactor I may not work as well 
as 
> hardware versions, although I wonder if the much more powerful 
computers 
> of today might help remediate that.
> 
> The huge breakthrough that SCAMP provided  in addition to the busy 
> channel detect capability, was the "pipelined" ARQ which eliminated 
the 
> computer timing issues. After all it worked fabulously well (with a 
good 
> signal) on Windows XP.
> 
> Pipelining also means that when you ARQ a mode, it doesn't 
appreciably 
> slow down the throughput, although it will increase latency 
somewhat 
> since the software is working on the last packet of data while the 
next 
> packet is being received.
> 
> It is my view that the amateur radio community can best benefit 
when we 
> have cross platform products that interoperate.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> kd4e wrote:
> 
> >Given that the developers have little or no motivation
> >nor spare resources to bring SCAMP into the light the
> >task must fall to an proprietary-app independent team.
> >
> >Are there elements of SCAMP that are controlled by the
> >proprietary Winlink2000 licensing that make independent
> >work impossible or improbable?
> >
> >Linux developers wrestle past the efforts of MS and Adobe
> >and others to prevent interoperability of Linux with their
> >apps and have succeeded magnificently.
> >
> >Perhaps the solution to the SCAMP/Winlink2000 protocol
> >bottleneck will be found in the Linux world?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 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 po

RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate.

WinLink is a messaging application.

SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard "modes" are modem/data protocol 
implementations.

We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a like or perhaps 
better HF E-Mail application.  As far as data modes/protocols go, look at where 
we have gone since the early PSK31 days...there are dozens of soundcard data 
protocols/modes/modems.

If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose was 
developing communications technology...or the technology officer for amateur 
radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data protocols/modes/modems 
produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications developed.  None are really as 
robust as the should/could be, none of the sound card modes have the throughput 
that they should and there are is no really good HF E-Mail program that is 
based on the capability of operating "stand-alone" without using the Internet.

Surely amateur radio can do better.

Let me mention that a chat mode, while certainly the basis of so much amateur 
radio operations, and rightly so, should not be our ultimate goal in developing 
data modes and messaging systems...we should have and have always had higher 
goals.

If we stop developing the chat modes, we risk losing the "fun" in amateur radio 
and the avocation itself.  But still we need to look our purpose in society.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:36 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
Transmitting: An Experiment


Hopefully, there will be a shift toward more open software which would 
be more in line with amateur radio tradition.

The Winlink 2000 folks keep everything proprietary up to this point. 
That even includes the old software such as Winlink. From what we can 
tell, Winlink 2000 has one main programmer who is very accomplished, but 
one person can only do so much. There may be one other person working 
with them but it is not clear and they are not open to discussion.

SCAMP actually uses components from Linux and uses GPL'd software such 
as RDFT. But it is hard to tell what future software would be used. It 
has been a year or two since any development was done on SCAMP that has 
been openly discussed.

The one ARQ mode currently available for sound card use is the Linux 
based PSKmail.  Even Linux sound card Pactor I may not work as well as 
hardware versions, although I wonder if the much more powerful computers 
of today might help remediate that.

The huge breakthrough that SCAMP provided  in addition to the busy 
channel detect capability, was the "pipelined" ARQ which eliminated the 
computer timing issues. After all it worked fabulously well (with a good 
signal) on Windows XP.

Pipelining also means that when you ARQ a mode, it doesn't appreciably 
slow down the throughput, although it will increase latency somewhat 
since the software is working on the last packet of data while the next 
packet is being received.

It is my view that the amateur radio community can best benefit when we 
have cross platform products that interoperate.

73,

Rick, KV9U


kd4e wrote:

>Given that the developers have little or no motivation
>nor spare resources to bring SCAMP into the light the
>task must fall to an proprietary-app independent team.
>
>Are there elements of SCAMP that are controlled by the
>proprietary Winlink2000 licensing that make independent
>work impossible or improbable?
>
>Linux developers wrestle past the efforts of MS and Adobe
>and others to prevent interoperability of Linux with their
>apps and have succeeded magnificently.
>
>Perhaps the solution to the SCAMP/Winlink2000 protocol
>bottleneck will be found in the Linux world?
>
>
>  
>



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] FH ALE Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and VHF

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Actually its been that way a while...I just think they wording was bad and no 
one noticed it.

Of course DSSS and OFDM are used on 13cm under Part 15 and DSSS and OFDM are 
not considered FHSS.

I would wonder why anyone would want use FHSS on 13cm when DSSS and OFDM are 
allowed.

Walt/K5YFW



-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:41 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] FH ALE Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and
VHF


Thanks for pointing this out Walt.

At this time the FCC has amended
rules to allow FHSS systems in the
unregulated 2.4Ghz band.



At 09:09 AM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
>"frequency hopping" and "frequency hopping spreas spectrum" (FHSS) are two 
>different technical terms.  ALE may use "frequency hopping" or "channel 
>scanning" or "changing frequency at some pre-determined or un-determined 
>rate"; but, this IS NOT FHSS.
>
>Let's not mix terms.
>
>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)

 
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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[kd4e]

 > DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> IMHO, an larger number of Beacon Stations would 
> be more beneficial to propagation forecasting 
> than any individual station or stations "pinging".

I agree that a bunch of independent Hams pinging
all over the place looking for better propagation
is a needle-in-the-haystack/shotgun approach,
though there are circumstances where the conditions
are changing so rapidly that such may become necessary.

Hams rarely if ever have a genuine *need* to find the
best possible path to communicate using ALE or the like,
that is mostly a mission-critical disaster or military
context.

ALE may be fun for some but should the mode grow in
use beyond a small group the negative consequences
to most, as is being observed in the realm of digital
modes (esp. the great Pactor debates), could be great.

If we are to argue for ALE as a tool in Ham disaster
communications support than small slivers of bands
for testing and training would be sufficient for
preparedness vs pinging across huge swaths of every
band -- 14.150 is not likely to differ in propagation
from 14.315.

A network of beacons does seem a superior alternative.

The interesting challenge becomes balance.

If too many stations decide to run beacons on a given
band then terrible and unnecessary clutter would exist.

ALE is something like a momentary-beacon but useful only
to another ALE station and then only if they happen to
be the same place at the same moment.

In many cases reference beacons or broadcast stations
exist on nearby non-Ham frequencies which may serve as
effective reference points.

Perhaps it would make a valuable exercise for someone
to map out non-Ham beacons/broadcasters and their
reasonable coverage and look for the gaps -- which then
a tiny number of Ham beacons could fill.

Using mostly existing non-Ham stations reduces the
noisy clutter of pinging on Ham bands and would appear
to be a more reliable modality.

WDYT?

-- 

Thanks! & 73,
doc, KD4E
... somewhere in FL
URL:  bibleseven (dot) 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] FH ALE Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and VHF

[John Becker]

Thanks for pointing this out Walt.

At this time the FCC has amended
rules to allow FHSS systems in the
unregulated 2.4Ghz band.



At 09:09 AM 8/23/2006, you wrote:
>"frequency hopping" and "frequency hopping spreas spectrum" (FHSS) are two 
>different technical terms.  ALE may use "frequency hopping" or "channel 
>scanning" or "changing frequency at some pre-determined or un-determined 
>rate"; but, this IS NOT FHSS.
>
>Let's not mix terms.
>
>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)

 
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] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

IMHO, an larger number of Beacon Stations would be more beneficial to 
propagation forecasting than any individual station or stations "pinging".

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:45 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pinging Re: Inititating a QSO


I think when propagation improves people will do more talking and less 
looking.  ALE helps looking, especially when propagation is poor.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 3:31 pm, expeditionradio wrote:
>>  Say for the moment that 100 Hams are pinging, what happens
>>  when 10,000 Hams are pinging and they are doing so on the
>>  same bands they now frequent?
>>  doc, KD4E
>
> At that point, you would call it a RTTY DX contest :)
>
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>
>
>
> 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



 




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] FH ALE Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and VHF

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

"frequency hopping" and "frequency hopping spreas spectrum" (FHSS) are two 
different technical terms.  ALE may use "frequency hopping" or "channel 
scanning" or "changing frequency at some pre-determined or un-determined rate"; 
but, this IS NOT FHSS.

Let's not mix terms.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:27 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] FH ALE Re: Multiband Scanning ALE on HF and VHF


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> For some reason I am not understanding clearly what you have 
> been saying. Previously you said that ALE is not being used to 
>  frequency hop.  

Hi Rick,

I'm not quite sure why you are talking about frequency hopping. 
Frequency hopping is not part of the current HF amateur radio ALE 
method. I don't know of any hams who are using Frequency Hopping ALE. 

Perhaps it is better if you do a little reading on your own on 
the subject of FH and ALE at this point so that you can understand 
it better, since I have tried to explain it the best I can.

Bonnie KQ6XA





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: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Can you purchase the IC-F7000 from anyone in the U.S.

I believe that DHS/FEMA and DoD will stay with the Fed-Std/Mil-Std/STANAG for 
ALE.  Other civilian and NGOs may choose another HF ALE standard.

But if you desire is to be able to contact or even lock-on to DHS/FEMA/DoD/NATO 
ALE signals, then follow what DHS/FEMA/DoD use.

MARS may choose to use what they please.  

The Executive Order, which Congress has let stand and now has the affect of 
Public Law, says that DHS/FEMA/DoD and other Federal Agencies will have 
inter-operable HF systems.  That means all of these will be using the SAME ALE 
standard.

Does the IC-F7000 and VX-1700 use the DHS/FEMA/DoD (Fed-STD/Mil-Std)?

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:41 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and
SELCALL


Hi Chas,

The IC-F7000 and the VX-1700 are both in the "under $1500" price range. 

Bonnie KQ6XA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>My personal interest is MARS.  If I had a spare $5kUS, I
> would likely buy the Codan or the Harris.  but to me, that is simply
> disgraceful or... bordering on obssessive behaviour to spend that
much on such
> a radio.   
> K5DAM  Houston  EL29fuAAR6TU 






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: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL

[expeditionradio]

Hi Chas,

The IC-F7000 and the VX-1700 are both in the "under $1500" price range. 

Bonnie KQ6XA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>My personal interest is MARS.  If I had a spare $5kUS, I
> would likely buy the Codan or the Harris.  but to me, that is simply
> disgraceful or... bordering on obssessive behaviour to spend that
much on such
> a radio.   
> K5DAM  Houston  EL29fuAAR6TU 






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/