[digitalradio] 1200 baud modem SC
I have developed kits of sound card interface MX614 based 1200baud modem. Please check-out details at http://foxdelta.com Regards/Dinesh Gajjar 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
How does the crest factor relate to the mean power vs the peak power? It doesn't seem correct to add 3 to that figure to come up with the crest factor. Patrick has the peak and mean power for the various modes listed in the documentation for Multipsk, but I am not clear how to convert them to crest factor. My understanding is that the peak power and average power of a rectangular wave is 1. It can't be correct to add 3 to that value to come up with 4, can it? And MT-63 which has a peak to average of 10 times has a crest factor of 13? If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ system. If Clover II would have worked better, I would have considered keeping my HAL P-38 board. But it was not that good with weak signals. Also, the P-38 had serious problems with Pactor back then. I remember someone later criticizing me for not using a 386 computer for the card. But at that time the 386 was barely even invented and 286 machines were state of the art. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: 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 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
See my comments inserted... Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment Importance: High 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 ATT or whoever they are now. I would say that the Internet is 99.9% reliable. However, its the 1/10 percent thatbothers me because it could take down the Internet for days or even weeks. 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. I don't reference physical damage to the Internet; rather, software damage to the applications that operate the Internet. Most ISPs and backbone providers have backup power sufficient to run their facilities for many days...even weeks. However as CEO of one very large ISP told me, if I lose power Ican still operate for 6 weeks off our own generators. But, if the Internet goes down, after 6 weeks I may not be able to order the fuel for by aux. power system. 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. And consider if the Internet goes away, even for just a few days. What commerce is affected? Probably 60-70% of the just-in-time deliveries are made over the Internet... certainly this is true for all the large box stores and most food chains and suppliers for those food chains. How will suppliers know who needs what, when and where to deliver it. I am guessing that 95% of all automobile fuel is delivered based on automatic delivery sales using the Internet...and most of us use a credit card to purchase fuels for our automobiles over the Internet. The three gas stations that I use cannot sell gas...even for cash if they lose connection to the Internet. This is why they use asatellite connection to the Internet so that local ISP loss will not affect their operations. Is amateur radio going to replace this Internet need? No and fuel distributors ARE making or have taken steps to not depend on the Internet should it go away. However, this is not a flip of the switch process. It might be several hours or days before they could sell fuel without connection to the Internet. 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. The thing to remember is that the President has issued Executive Orders which have not been overturned by Congress, nor are they likely going to be, that makes DHS (FEMA is under the DHS) the play caller in any declared Federal emergency. Amateur radio then must play by their rules. In WWI and WWII amateur radio operations were controlled by what was called the War Department in WWII. If we want to be a player during a declared Federal emergency, we need to start playing their game else we stand to lose our standing during non-emergency conditions and those who will play might well be given the opportunity to play amateur radio during non- emergency conditions. This is an unsavory possibility but one which certainly is within the realm of possibility. 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
RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
### My comments below... Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment 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? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. 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. ### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it is very possible according to experts that the Internet could be attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local area does not have connectivity outside the local area. ### Local law enforcement and governments might not be able to contact their state counterpart and states might no be able to contact the federal government. And in many cases, local governments and law enforcement need contact at the federal level. Thus there is a need for the local area to connect to the entire Internet. If the Internet does not exist, how do a local area connect to the state of federal government? 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? ### Not at all. I am saying that it is the software that is attacked not the hardware. And that the software is attacked because it is running on the Internet. ### Speaking of hardware, if you are aware of the public documents on the Internet that show the physical location of major backbone hubs...physical connections, then you would realize that 21 well placed and well times explosive events (attacks) on those physical locations could disconnect the Internet for several days, perhaps weeks, until the connections could be rerouted. 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. ### It approaches the problem in that it can be a small part of the solution. THe DHS had envisioned using an amateur radio national messaging system for delivery of critical loss of life and properity messages to various NGOs (non-govermental organizations). Where information from one remote Zipcode could be delivered to another Zipcode (large area not specifically individual Zipcodes) and then the USPS would deliver the messages. ### One of the most critical areas was message delivery from the D.C. area (Beltway) to the Boston area. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL
Let me know if you find a U.S. distributor. I really would like to purchase a couple or three of them. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:40:37 -, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [stuff deleted] 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 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] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
Bonnie, What radio services are we going to interoperate with? Normally this would be illegal operation. Even under emergency conditions, you need to be very careful about transmitting outside the ham bands. Even if the FCC says it could be legal, it may not be legal under other entities rules. At best we sometimes will cross band operate such as with military stations under special events. And the SHARES system may have some MARS operators, who happen to be amateur radio operators, but they are not operating on amateur frequencies. Our local hams would have a very limited role to play, but we would try and help as best we can. We have long term emergency power to our local repeater and we have long term emergency power at the Emergency Management HQ. With satellite links we are pretty much covered for outside communication as well. What does the STANAG 5066 standard have to do with any of this? It is quite a stretch to imagine an emergency worker coming to me to send a message to the EM Office, but if it happened, I would have him tell them whatever he wanted to tell them via voice. I have no way of getting on police frequencies and I would never want to do this ... EVER! Why would I be using HF for any of this? There will NO computers running at most hamshacks if you had a week without power. I have emergency back up AGM 80 amp hours but only for voice and HF. I could run a laptop but that would use up so much power that it would not be very wise. Are you suggesting that somehow you are going to have computers and rigs on and running PC-ALE and somehow you are going to contact someone outside the ham bands? What petty squabbling are you talking about? Ham radio uses lots of different modes, some invented by hams and some not. Maybe it just me, but many of your ideas don't make any sense. And when you are asked about them, you can't even explain them. KV9U expeditionradio wrote: 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 . 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
I'm not sure that we can quantify ARQ vs. broadcast. One thing which has been over looked is that we think of ARQ as sending a packet(s) and the receiving station sends an ACK. If however each packet is numbered and contains a CRC number, then if the receiving station misses a packet (missing number) or does not resolve the CRC number, only then does it transmit and that is a NAK. In this condition, you could broadcast and only provide fills to those stations for specific packets. If two stations missed the packet, then if the re-transmission to one stations is copied by the second stations...so only one retransmission per packet would be needed even is several stations missed the same packet. ACK is out...NAK is in. Combine varying levels of FEC with ARQ NAKs will increase error free information without utilizing a lot of time with retransmissions. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:17 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF 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 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
Rick, My explanation was for sinusoids not rectangular waves, our radios transmit sinusoids. You are correct about rectangular waves they would have a crest factor of 1 in linear terms or voltage terms, and 0B in non-linear or power terms. Yes MT63 has a crest factor of 13dB. It is very high. Lets deified a few power terms. Average or mean power is what you get when you multiply RMS voltage and current Peak Instantaneous power or peak power is what you get when you multiply peak instantaneous voltage and current. Peak Envelope power or PEP is what you get when you average the peak power over one RF cycle. Crest Factor is normally given in terms of voltage and is equal to the peak amplitude of a waveform divided by the RMS value. In terms of power this is the 10log(peak power/average power). The relationship between peak power and PEP in a sinusoid is 3 dB. This is very easy to prove. The relationship between peak voltage and RMS voltage is the square root of 2. 20 log of the square root of 2 is 3dB. Lets use a more complicated example. Lets say we generate a sinusoid from two equal amplitude tones. A two tone test. On an oscilloscope we observe that the peak voltage is 1 voltage unit for each tone which makes the peak power 1 power unit for each tone. The peak voltage of the envelope is 2 voltage units , so the peak power is 4 power units for the envelope. Each tone's RMS voltage is 1/square root of 2 or approximately .707 voltage units. The average power is the RMS voltage squared or .5 units. The total average power of the two tones is .5 + .5 or 1 unit. When using N tones to produce an envelope, PEP to average power ratio is 1/N. In this case it is .5, which means that the PEP is 2 units. Here are the relationships Peak power of the envelope = 4 PEP of the envelope = 2 Average power of the envelope = 1. PEP to average ratio = 3dB Peak to average ratio = 6 dB Difference = 3 dB This same example can be worked with any number of tones. Patrick used two programs if I remember correctly to calculate the peak and mean power for the various modes listed in the documentation for Multipsk. The two programs were Cool Edit Pro and Sox. In Cool Edit Pro the peak value given in the statistics is PEP. What Patrick is giving you is the PEP to average ratio. I have proven this in Cool Edit Pro using the 2 tone example above. 73, Mark N5RFX At 09:12 AM 8/24/2006, you wrote: How does the crest factor relate to the mean power vs the peak power? It doesn't seem correct to add 3 to that figure to come up with the crest factor. Patrick has the peak and mean power for the various modes listed in the documentation for Multipsk, but I am not clear how to convert them to crest factor. My understanding is that the peak power and average power of a rectangular wave is 1. It can't be correct to add 3 to that value to come up with 4, can it? And MT-63 which has a peak to average of 10 times has a crest factor of 13? If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ system. If Clover II would have worked better, I would have considered keeping my HAL P-38 board. But it was not that good with weak signals. Also, the P-38 had serious problems with Pactor back then. I remember someone later criticizing me for not using a 386 computer for the card. But at that time the 386 was barely even invented and 286 machines were state of the art. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: 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.orgTelnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector :
Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF - peak and mean power
Hello Rick, the peak and mean power for the various modes listed in the In Multipsk, you have the ratio between the average power and the peak power. The peak power is obtained if you have no band base windowing and if you are always transmitting one carrier at a given time (RTTY, MFSK16...). If you have one carrier (PSK31, for example) but a windowing or many carriers at a the same time (CMT/HELL for Video ID or MT63), you ratio is less than 1 (close to 1 for PSK31 and close to 0 for CMT/HELL for Video ID or MT63). It means that at the maximum, remaining linear, you cannot transmit much power: for aexample, 10 watts in MT63 for a 100 watts standard transceiver. This supposes that the AF is a sine. The crest factor of a sine is about -3 dB compared to a square wave (AF signal completly saturated). But there is no reason to transmit an AF square wave. There would not be a decoding gain (because the power considered by the decoder would be the one of the fondamental which would be -3 dB compared to the total power) and the signal would be found on all the AF spectrum (fondamental and harmonics). So the ratio to be considered is the one considered by Multipsk (taking into account that the figures are not very precise, but sufficient for comparizons). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF How does the crest factor relate to the mean power vs the peak power? It doesn't seem correct to add 3 to that figure to come up with the crest factor. Patrick has the peak and mean power for the various modes listed in the documentation for Multipsk, but I am not clear how to convert them to crest factor. My understanding is that the peak power and average power of a rectangular wave is 1. It can't be correct to add 3 to that value to come up with 4, can it? And MT-63 which has a peak to average of 10 times has a crest factor of 13? If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ system. If Clover II would have worked better, I would have considered keeping my HAL P-38 board. But it was not that good with weak signals. Also, the P-38 had serious problems with Pactor back then. I remember someone later criticizing me for not using a 386 computer for the card. But at that time the 386 was barely even invented and 286 machines were state of the art. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: 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 [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
Oh my...you are right about the baud rates of MT63...I was going from memory and I have the written down. The only problem with on-the-air testing is that you Never HAVE THE SAME CONDITIONS and you can do that with a simulator...but then the military always has a fly-off or shoot-off. I have no doubt that the sound card modes can work down into the noise. G4HPE(?) did some testing which is on the RSGB site under emergency communications. He used a software simulator and on-the-air testing. MFSK16 worked way down into the noise. KN6KB in this presentation on SCAMP to the DDC in Nov of 2004 showed his simulator measurements of P I/II/III and I believe MT63. I have the chart from the presentation that I will send to anyone interested. I have to agree that MT63 or anything else needs to have further development by knowledgeable individuals. Being more of a project manager type than technical (programmer) type, over the years I have specialized one on tactical HF antennas and overall communications than specific data modes or programming...I know a little C and C++ ;-). I would hope that some hardware mode better then pactor might come along but also would like to see single and multiple soundcard modes develop that might rival Pactor speeds. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:38 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Icom IC-F7000 transceiver with ALE and SELCALL
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:09:00 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me know if you find a U.S. distributor. I really would like to purchase a couple or three of them. just got some education from an elmer with whom I grew up ... he states that comment in the IC website applies to commercial entities. iow, we as amateurs can build anything we want and modify anything we want as long as it meets FCC requirements. So, if you can find someone in China to sell you an F7000 and ship it to you, go get it!! My 736 is apparently dead on SSB output so I am looking at getting another Txcvr and the F7000 looks like a good replacement even for a shack rig. thx 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/
RE: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF
Research done by private research firms have addressed this problem. For medium length messages in the broadcast mode, they suggest heavy FEC. For longer messages they suggest less FEC and NAKs. For critical messages of any length they suggest FEC and ACKs. For many receiving stations, they suggest medium to heavy FEC. Their research grant was for a national/international national command structure type message for many receivers. The length of their message was not revealed. The research done is considered intellectual property. They did find that the number of bits recovered from a single tone carrier that is generally used is less than what can easily be obtained. I do know that the computers they used were all of the single Intel P4 category. The mode(s) they used were all developed on common sound cards as well as special hardware soundcards. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:13 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF [stuff deleted] If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ system. 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] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
Hey Walt. I really enjoyed reading your comments. On the same sheet of music for sure. Thanks, Hank KI4MF NN0BBX _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:45 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment See my comments inserted... Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:54 PM To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment Importance: High 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 ATT or whoever they are now. I would say that the Internet is 99.9% reliable. However, its the 1/10 percent that bothers me because it could take down the Internet for days or even weeks. 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. I don't reference physical damage to the Internet; rather, software damage to the applications that operate the Internet. Most ISPs and backbone providers have backup power sufficient to run their facilities for many days...even weeks. However as CEO of one very large ISP told me, if I lose power I can still operate for 6 weeks off our own generators. But, if the Internet goes down, after 6 weeks I may not be able to order the fuel for by aux. power system. 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. And consider if the Internet goes away, even for just a few days. What commerce is affected? Probably 60-70% of the just-in-time deliveries are made over the Internet... certainly this is true for all the large box stores and most food chains and suppliers for those food chains. How will suppliers know who needs what, when and where to deliver it. I am guessing that 95% of all automobile fuel is delivered based on automatic delivery sales using the Internet...and most of us use a credit card to purchase fuels for our automobiles over the Internet. The three gas stations that I use cannot sell gas...even for cash if they lose connection to the Internet. This is why they use a satellite connection to the Internet so that local ISP loss will not affect their operations. Is amateur radio going to replace this Internet need? No and fuel distributors ARE making or have taken steps to not depend on the Internet should it go away. However, this is not a flip of the switch process. It might be several hours or days before they could sell fuel without connection to the Internet. 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. The thing to remember is that the President has issued Executive Orders which have not been overturned by Congress, nor are they likely going to be, that makes DHS (FEMA is under the DHS) the play caller in any declared Federal emergency. Amateur radio then must play by their rules. In WWI and WWII amateur radio operations were controlled by what was called the War Department in WWII. If we want to be a player during a declared Federal emergency, we need to start playing their game else we stand to lose our standing during non-emergency conditions and those who will play might well be given the opportunity to play amateur radio during non- emergency conditions. This is an unsavory possibility but one which certainly is
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
*** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. 2. If it were possible to pinpoint the source of a cyber-attack in realtime, the internet's routers could dump packets from that source into the bit bucket. The problem is that attack payloads are very difficult to distinguish from valid payloads. The use of RF links in no way simplifies this problem, and could well make it harder. snip 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. ### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it is very possible according to experts that the Internet could be attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local area does not have connectivity outside the local area. ***Your proposed solution -- an independent message passing network based on HF links -- would be every bit as vulnerable as the current internet, as I've pointed out above. What attacker would be foolish enough to reveal itself by bringing down the internet but leave its backup running? We're not talking script kiddies here, Walt. ### Local law enforcement and governments might not be able to contact their state counterpart and states might no be able to contact the federal government. And in many cases, local governments and law enforcement need contact at the federal level. Thus there is a need for the local area to connect to the entire Internet. If the Internet does not exist, how do a local area connect to the state of federal government? ***That's a fine question, Walt, but your proposed solution does not answer it. If attackers bring down the internet, they will also bring down its backup. snip So are you suggesting that this amateur-built HF world-wide messaging system should not employ software? ### Not at all. I am saying that it is the software that is attacked not the hardware. And that the software is attacked because it is running on the Internet. ***The software on your proposed backup network would be equally vulnerable to attack. RF links have no magical ability to separate attack payloads from valid payloads. ### Speaking of hardware, if you are aware of the public documents on the Internet that show the physical location of major backbone hubs...physical connections, then you would realize that 21 well placed and well times explosive events (attacks) on those physical locations could disconnect the Internet for several days, perhaps weeks, until the connections could be rerouted. ***Yes. It would be far more practical and less expensive to mitigate this risk by replicating these installations -- perhaps in hardened sites -- than to assemble an HF-based backup network. Doing so would would have the side benefit of increasing overall internet capacity; in contrast, why would anyone use your proposed backup network if the internet was running? snip 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. ### It approaches the problem in that it can be a small part of the solution. THe DHS had envisioned using an amateur radio national messaging system for delivery of critical loss of life and properity messages to various NGOs (non-govermental organizations). Where information from one remote Zipcode could be delivered to another Zipcode (large area not specifically individual Zipcodes) and then the USPS would deliver the messages. ***So in 24 hours, Walt, your rationale for a concerted effort to build a worldwide HF message-passing system has gone from because we CAN do it to this will provide backup message-passing in the event of a cyber- attack that brings down the entire internet to it can be a small part of the solution. If you're having trouble getting developers excited about this mission, it should be obvious why. 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:
[digitalradio] Too much fighting
I am leaving this group. Too much fighting. Goodbye de LA5VNA 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
$$$ Comments to comments Hi Hi. Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment *** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. $$$ I'm not talking about new protocols. A cyber-attack on the Internet comes over a hard connection that everyone with Internet connectivity has access to. $$$ Using RF and non-internet protocols, specifically the Ethernet protocol(s) then you limit first the access to the network initially to those individuals who are already using HF data modes and then to those who will start using that method of communications...friend or foe. $$$ Remember cyber-space is not RF. We cannot run RF over an hard wire Internet network...RF just doesn't run on DSL, cable, WiFi like it does on HF using an antenna. If you run Pactor III on 13cm it doesn't mean that a WiFi signal can copy your signal any more than a Pactor III modem connected to a 13cm receiver can copy a WiFi signal. $$$ I suppose you could call Pactor III or MT63, etc. a protocol; but again, they don't run on the same media as the Internet. $$$ Therefore use of RF (HF) data modes on a network that is not connected by any media to the Internet isolates it from current cyber-attacks. You must first build a message system and operate it before someone can attack it...and then they must be able to attack it with a high degree of anonymity. 2. If it were possible to pinpoint the source of a cyber-attack in realtime, the internet's routers could dump packets from that source into the bit bucket. The problem is that attack payloads are very difficult to distinguish from valid payloads. The use of RF links in no way simplifies this problem, and could well make it harder. $$$ Again you have missed the point. The proposed system (as you call it) is NOT associated with or connected to the Internet by any media. You can plug you RJ-45 Ethernet plug into my IC-746 mic jack all you want but it isn't going to modulate the rig. If I don't connect my amateur radio station to the Internet, nothing on the Internet is going to hurt my transmissions. I have eliminated anything on the Internet from my network. snip Several times in this thread, I have agreed that overcoming local internet outages would be a reasonable objective. Its your insistence that we must cover for the loss of the entire internet that remains completely unjustified. ### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it is very possible according to experts that the Internet could be attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local area does not have connectivity outside the local area. ***Your proposed solution -- an independent message passing network based on HF links -- would be every bit as vulnerable as the current internet, as I've pointed out above. What attacker would be foolish enough to reveal itself by bringing down the internet but leave its backup running? We're not talking script kiddies here, Walt. $$$ Again you are missing the point...the network has NO connection to the Internet. The Internet is irrelevant.. Nothing on the Internet affects the radio network. Is that so hard to understand? ### Local law enforcement and governments might not be able to contact their state counterpart and states might no be able to contact the federal government. And in many cases, local governments and law enforcement need contact at the federal level. Thus there is a need for the local area to connect to the entire Internet. If the Internet does not exist, how do a local area connect to the state of federal government? ***That's a fine question, Walt, but your proposed solution does not answer it. If attackers bring down the internet, they will also bring down its backup. $$$ I don't see how that an attack on the Internet could possibly bring down the proposed network if the two are NOT connected in any way? They could of course but the likely hood is not likely because as you say the packets that cause the
Re: [digitalradio] Too much fighting
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 10:56 AM 8/24/2006, Steinar Aanesland wrote: I am leaving this group. Too much fighting. Goodbye de LA5VNA REPLY FOLLOWS This is one of the politest groups around. You need to get out more, Steinar. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT 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
I understand that your proposed HF system would be entirely independent of the internet, Walt. My points are 1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving target. 2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use them to inject his attack. 3. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but synchronized attacks. 4. My suggestion that internet backbone hubs be replicated and hardened was in response to your mentioning their vulnerability to physical attack. I made no claim that such hardening would render the internet less vulnerable to a cyber-attack. A parallel email system implemented with the same software technology used in today's internet would provide no increase in protection from a committed attacker. None of the amateur protocols in use today were designed to resist intentional attack. Inspecting these applications with static analysis tools would likely reveal long lists of vulnerabilities. The redundancy from multiple identical systems approach only works when you can deploy so many independent systems that an attacker cannot hope to disable them all, and is thus deterred from attacking any. This may work with strategic weapons, but no one remotely understands how to manage thousands of independent worldwide email systems. I do believe there is a role for an RF-based email system that would complement the internet's email delivery system by supporting portable operation and by standing ready to compensate for local outages. The boil the ocean approach that you've been advocating can only delay the development and deployment of this far more practical application. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $$$ Comments to comments Hi Hi. Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment *** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA walt.dubose@ wrote: snip Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. $$$ I'm not talking about new protocols. A cyber-attack on the Internet comes over a hard connection that everyone with Internet connectivity has access to. $$$ Using RF and non-internet protocols, specifically the Ethernet protocol(s) then you limit first the access to the network initially to those individuals who are already using HF data modes and then to those who will start using that method of communications...friend or foe. $$$ Remember cyber-space is not RF. We cannot run RF over an hard wire Internet network...RF just doesn't run on DSL, cable, WiFi like it does on HF using an antenna. If you run Pactor III on 13cm it doesn't mean that a WiFi signal can copy your signal any more than a Pactor III modem connected to a 13cm receiver can copy a WiFi signal. $$$ I suppose you could call Pactor III or MT63, etc. a protocol; but again, they don't run on the same media as the Internet. $$$ Therefore use of RF (HF) data modes on a network that is not connected by any media to the Internet isolates it from current cyber- attacks. You must first build a
RE: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
BTW Dave...if I come up to your neck of the woods, I'll take you out to some place that you can recommend that serves good crab cakes, New England Clam Chowder and lobster. See me comments *** Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:13 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment I understand that your proposed HF system would be entirely independent of the internet, Walt. My points are 1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving target. *** I would disagree because DNS, routers, switches, network management software, load balancing, firewall, filters all are virtually not seen by the human eye and sometimes when there is an automatic notification of a problem or new hack is used, its days before its known. If you don't what the attack is going to look like, you have a hard time defending against it. That's it...for every measure there is a counter-measure. For every counter-measure there is a measure. Its a FAST moving target. And this is the reason I think a scaled down simple network would be less of a target. The attacker would first have to get on the air, establish their credentials and be accepted to the network. Even my encrypted signature mail folder on occasion gets SPAM. If I restrict my incoming E-Mail to only one known valid domain, I have no SPAM unless messages from my network control center are considered SPAM. I wanna use the KISS theory. 2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use them to inject his attack. *** Its really to install a bot or any malware if your system is 90% text based. Before MIME E-Mail, malware was unknown. We take a GIANT leap backwards. KISS. Hi Hi. *** If you try to join my system and I can't authenticate your call sign, you ain't gettin in. With no hard feelings to non-U.S. amateur radio operators, I talking about only U.S. amateur radio operators. Any tribal contacts would be between only specific authorized stations. (BTW tribal is the international politically correct name to be used for sovereign nation.) 3. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but synchronized attacks. *** Ok...understand and that is true but again we have made it more complicated to the enemy...and the society that enemy comes from is not know for a large scale amateur radio contingent or operational capability nor is their government know for its RF capability. They are well known for their Internet capability. Know your enemy. 4. My suggestion that internet backbone hubs be replicated and hardened was in response to your mentioning their vulnerability to physical attack. I made no claim that such hardening would render the internet less vulnerable to a cyber-attack. *** Ok...understand. I think the reason we haven't replicated them is because the threat of a cyber-attack is stronger than a physical attack. A parallel email system implemented with the same software technology used in today's internet would provide no increase in protection from a committed attacker. None of the amateur protocols in use today were designed to resist intentional attack. Inspecting these applications with static analysis tools would likely reveal long lists of vulnerabilities. *** Agree and I don't propose using current E-Mail software, amateur radio or commercial. One other thing, and I know this is very controversial, but we can use encryption for network control and transmission control which the Internet as a whole doesn't do...except for VPNs. And I might mention that there is some assumption by Internet gurus that some VPN circuits might well be able to withstand a cyber-attack. I know the VPN that I run for my office use isn't even hackable by our network gurus. The redundancy
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
AA6YQ comments --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW Dave...if I come up to your neck of the woods, I'll take you out to some place that you can recommend that serves good crab cakes, New England Clam Chowder and lobster. You're on, Walt! I'm giving a DXLab presentation at the ARRL New England Division Convention in Boxborough MA on Saturday morning; if you happen to be around, stop by. snip 1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving target. *** I would disagree because DNS, routers, switches, network management software, load balancing, firewall, filters all are virtually not seen by the human eye and sometimes when there is an automatic notification of a problem or new hack is used, its days before its known. If you don't what the attack is going to look like, you have a hard time defending against it. That's it...for every measure there is a counter-measure. For every counter-measure there is a measure. Its a FAST moving target. All true. That's why increasingly, these network components can be rapidly updated to deal with new threats. And this is the reason I think a scaled down simple network would be less of a target. The system you propose would not be simple, Walt. On how many versions of how many different operating systems would it run? What other applications would also be installed on these systems, downloaded from who knows where? How would you ever establish initial security, much less maintain security in the face of new installs and upgrades initiated by the user and the constantly changing threat environment? The attacker would first have to get on the air, establish their credentials and be accepted to the network. This is trivial; if any US amateur can authenticate, anyone can authenticate. But even without this, a user-operated node could be penetrated by a bot embedded in software downloaded from the internet months or even years earlier. Even my encrypted signature mail folder on occasion gets SPAM. If I restrict my incoming E-Mail to only one known valid domain, I have no SPAM unless messages from my network control center are considered SPAM. I wanna use the KISS theory. You'll have no control over what the user loads on the PC that's running your HF messaging application, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) won't help you. 2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use them to inject his attack. *** Its really to install a bot or any malware if your system is 90% text based. Before MIME E-Mail, malware was unknown. We take a GIANT leap backwards. KISS. Hi Hi. As I point out above, the message isn't the only entry point -- there's other's whatever else the end user has installed on his or her node. I don't think your point regarding MIME being the enabler for malware is accurate. And without MIME or something similar, how will your system deliver attachments? *** If you try to join my system and I can't authenticate your call sign, you ain't gettin in. With no hard feelings to non-U.S. amateur radio operators, I talking about only U.S. amateur radio operators. Any tribal contacts would be between only specific authorized stations. (BTW tribal is the international politically correct name to be used for sovereign nation.) Penetrating this sort of system would be all too easy, Walt. It happens thousands of times each day. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but synchronized attacks. *** Ok...understand and that is true but again we have made it more complicated to the enemy...and the society that enemy comes from is not know for a large scale amateur radio contingent or operational capability nor is their government know for its RF capability. They are well known for their Internet capability. Know your enemy. A committed adversary will locate all weak points, and attack
Re: [digitalradio] Too much fighting
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:49:16 -0700, Bill Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is one of the politest groups around. You need to get out more, Steinar. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT obviously he was not around for the FLAME WARS on both BBS and Fidonet in the early 80s!!! back when I first started running discussion groups. hi hi needless to say, I am flabbergasted at his comment. oh well, something about a closing door comes to mind... fwiw 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] free security auditing tool
If any digital radio software authors here would like to check their code for vulnerabilities, RATS is available via https://securesoftware.custhelp.com/cgi- bin/securesoftware.cfg/php/enduser/doc_serve.php?2=Security This is a primitive static analysis tool compared to commercial products from Secure Software, Ounce Labs, Fortify, and Coverity, but it will get you started. RATS will scan C, C++, Python, Perl and PHP code. 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: Too much fighting
Well, this is one very good, hearty, polite, technical discussion. 73... Jon W1MNK 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 H
KV9U writes:
If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only
practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large
amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a
bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have
accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ
system.
A protocol for sending email messages over HF could have the
following behavior:
1. Sending station sends the message in packets of a specified or
negotiated size.
2. Each packet begins and ends with reserved control characters
and is followed with a CRC-16 of the packet.
3. Receiving station keeps track of which packets were received with
good CRC and which were garbled.
4. Upon receiving end-of-message, or at a pause after a defined or
negotiated number of bytes or packets have been sent, the
receiving station acknowledges all, or all up to a certain packet,
or requests repeats of those packets which were received in error.
It sends a complete ack only after all the packets have been
received successfully.
5. The sending station resends the failed packets then continues with
send further packets of this message, or starts the next message
using a higher packet number, or whatever.
This is analogous to CW/voice traffic handling, where the receiving
station either acknowledges receipt or sends ?wa, ?aa, say
again {word|all} after, or the like.
This suggestion has at least one disadvantage compared to ARQ modes:
the sending station does NOT get feedback after each packet telling it
that it can switch to a faster and less robust submode, or that it
should switch to a slower and more-robust one. Therefore, it may take
longer than necessary to get the message through, whether due to
repetitions that wouldn't have been necessary with prompt feedback, or
by sending more slowly than necessary. On the other hand, it
eliminates the ACK turnaround timing problems that prevent both some
radios and some PC OSes from working well for ARQ comms.
In essence, we are moving the reliability issue from the transport
layer to the application layer. Such an email system could sit on top
of anything from unchecked BPSK31 to FEC'ed MFSK-16 or MT-63, though
of course many more retransmissions would be needed with the former
than with the latter. Our choice of mode may depend partly on the
band, BPSK-31, -63, or even -125 on 20M meters and up, but MFSK16 or
MT63 on 160, 80, and 40, for example.
It might be better to establish a separate layer between transport and
application that could be shared by applications such as email, SSTV,
and file transfer.
This is a very old idea: IP sends packets which may get lost; TCP uses
IP but retries until the data gets through, or gives up and tells the
application layer that it failed; SMTP uses TCP's reliable data stream
to deliver email. It's just that a reliable delivery layer for
half-duplex HF radio is quite different from one for a full-duplex
terrestrial WAN or a full-duplex satellite relay, or even PTP which
carries TCP/IP, IPX, etc over landline modems or ISDN. Between half
duplex with longish turnarounds, and such joys as QSB and QRN, the
HF case is much more challenging.
I'm sure that other hams are working on such ideas already, and we may
be able to borrow techniques developed for commercial or military HF
datacomm at small or no monetary cost. PCALE and Open5066 are
examples, though I don't yet know much about the latter, and so have
no opinion as to whether it will prove fit for ham use. Obviously,
the people working on it think it is, and they know much more about it
than I, so I'm hopeful.
--
73 DE AE6VW Chris JewellGualala, CA, USA
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 H
Chris,
There are several amateur radio to e-mail systems available now and they
all use ARQ.
For sending a shared resource, such as is done all the time on SSTV, the
stations are often using WinDream or Hampal which allow you to send out
replacements for bad segments. It can be time consuming, but it will
allow for perfect copy on the receiving end without repeating the entire
data stream.
The timing issue for ARQ has been solved for the PC side. And most any
rig would be able to handle it easily. The one exception was Amtor and
that is pretty much obsolete as an ARQ mode as it only transmitted three
characters on each chirp.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Chris Jewell wrote:
KV9U writes:
If you want to broadcast a message from one to many, then the only
practical alternative is to use a non-ARQ mode, typically with a large
amount of FEC. While this is done on amateur frequencies for sending a
bulletin, calling CQ, and having a roundtable, if your goal is to have
accurate messaging, then I don't see any option other than a good ARQ
system.
A protocol for sending email messages over HF could have the
following behavior:
1. Sending station sends the message in packets of a specified or
negotiated size.
2. Each packet begins and ends with reserved control characters
and is followed with a CRC-16 of the packet.
3. Receiving station keeps track of which packets were received with
good CRC and which were garbled.
4. Upon receiving end-of-message, or at a pause after a defined or
negotiated number of bytes or packets have been sent, the
receiving station acknowledges all, or all up to a certain packet,
or requests repeats of those packets which were received in error.
It sends a complete ack only after all the packets have been
received successfully.
5. The sending station resends the failed packets then continues with
send further packets of this message, or starts the next message
using a higher packet number, or whatever.
This is analogous to CW/voice traffic handling, where the receiving
station either acknowledges receipt or sends ?wa, ?aa, say
again {word|all} after, or the like.
This suggestion has at least one disadvantage compared to ARQ modes:
the sending station does NOT get feedback after each packet telling it
that it can switch to a faster and less robust submode, or that it
should switch to a slower and more-robust one. Therefore, it may take
longer than necessary to get the message through, whether due to
repetitions that wouldn't have been necessary with prompt feedback, or
by sending more slowly than necessary. On the other hand, it
eliminates the ACK turnaround timing problems that prevent both some
radios and some PC OSes from working well for ARQ comms.
In essence, we are moving the reliability issue from the transport
layer to the application layer. Such an email system could sit on top
of anything from unchecked BPSK31 to FEC'ed MFSK-16 or MT-63, though
of course many more retransmissions would be needed with the former
than with the latter. Our choice of mode may depend partly on the
band, BPSK-31, -63, or even -125 on 20M meters and up, but MFSK16 or
MT63 on 160, 80, and 40, for example.
It might be better to establish a separate layer between transport and
application that could be shared by applications such as email, SSTV,
and file transfer.
This is a very old idea: IP sends packets which may get lost; TCP uses
IP but retries until the data gets through, or gives up and tells the
application layer that it failed; SMTP uses TCP's reliable data stream
to deliver email. It's just that a reliable delivery layer for
half-duplex HF radio is quite different from one for a full-duplex
terrestrial WAN or a full-duplex satellite relay, or even PTP which
carries TCP/IP, IPX, etc over landline modems or ISDN. Between half
duplex with longish turnarounds, and such joys as QSB and QRN, the
HF case is much more challenging.
I'm sure that other hams are working on such ideas already, and we may
be able to borrow techniques developed for commercial or military HF
datacomm at small or no monetary cost. PCALE and Open5066 are
examples, though I don't yet know much about the latter, and so have
no opinion as to whether it will prove fit for ham use. Obviously,
the people working on it think it is, and they know much more about it
than I, so I'm hopeful.
--
73 DE AE6VWChris JewellGualala, CA, USA
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 digital throughput challenge on H
If messages to N recipients are converted to N messages to 1 recipient, under what circumstances would a message transport layer require one-to-many transmission? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, There are several amateur radio to e-mail systems available now and they all use ARQ. For sending a shared resource, such as is done all the time on SSTV, the stations are often using WinDream or Hampal which allow you to send out replacements for bad segments. It can be time consuming, but it will allow for perfect copy on the receiving end without repeating the entire data stream. The timing issue for ARQ has been solved for the PC side. And most any rig would be able to handle it easily. The one exception was Amtor and that is pretty much obsolete as an ARQ mode as it only transmitted three characters on each chirp. 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] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
WELL SAID --- BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING?? BOB, K2CRR - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data 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 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: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
In case of a serious disaster as Bonnie mentioned a battery pack wil not last enough. I have stand by a HW-8 tranceiver a battery pack (solar powered). And I use the only digital mode that a human understand without using technology. So I'm qrv for months maybe for years. Hoping there will be an other station in the universe martin pa3dsc 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] Too much fighting
OhSteinar, toughen up! This isn't fighting. These are just brothers in a bit of a family disagreement. OK? Hang in there. They'll agree to disagree, soon. PS - If you want to see fighting then just drop me a line, and I will show you a few links that are written in blood! (HI) 73, John - K8OCL From: Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Too much fighting Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:56:43 +0200 I am leaving this group. Too much fighting. Goodbye de LA5VNA 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: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
The message you cite provides no reference to an amateur implementation of the 5066 standard in amateur radio. I Googled it, but the only hits were to commercial manufacturers of milspec equipment. We have indeed amassed collection of soundcard digital mode implementations over the last few years, but I for one don't appreciate these being labeled oddball. Advancing the state of the art is an important component of amateur radio; the lively debates here and elsewhere over technique and policy are hardly petty squabbling, they are the crucible in which progress is forged. KN6KB's advancement of busy detection in SCAMP was encouraged by discussions here, for example. If someone seriously wants to stimulate concerted action toward a unified approach, then a clear exposition of technical vision and mission would be a far more effective starting point. And when followup questions are posed, straight answers would be appreciated. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WELL SAID --- BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING?? BOB, K2CRR - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data 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 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] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 05:24 AM 8/24/2006, rws wrote: 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. REPLY FOLLOWS I could not agree more, but the standard already exists and it is Upper Side Band, spoken in English. I should point out that I am speaking of true emergencies i.e. people are dying and we need help now, not the health and welfare stuff that can wait i.e. Tell mom that Joan and the kids are ok. 100 watts, a dipole in the trees and a car battery, with the correct choice of bands, will do the true emergency work just fine, day or night. The stuff about achieving interoperable digital communications capability with the rest of the HF world is a complete waste of time, IMO. Better to spend your time and energy on educating people about emergency preparedness such as stocking food and water, first aid and CPR, etc, etc. Everyone wants to be the heroic radio operator on the sinking ship. Those days are all but gone, folks, especially in the USA. Focus on what is *really* needed in a *real* emergency. What you want is to stay alive for a few hours till the professionals arrive, which they will very quickly. This is not the 1930's. Bill, W6WRT 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: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
My station is also solar powered... From: martin beekhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:08:27 - In case of a serious disaster as Bonnie mentioned a battery pack wil not last enough. I have stand by a HW-8 tranceiver a battery pack (solar powered). And I use the only digital mode that a human understand without using technology. So I'm qrv for months maybe for years. Hoping there will be an other station in the universe martin pa3dsc 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/
