[digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting
Well, well. I am new to amateur radio and joined this group to learn something about the many digital modes ham was using on radio. I was not expecting to be jammed down with for me an uninteresting quarrel concerning: The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is whether we SHOULD. 73 de LA5VNA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting
You have only seen healthy discussion. Perhaps not interesting to you, but discussion never the less. Jump in there and start a thread on a topic that you are interested in. Granted, some of us are grumpy, but there is a wealth of knowledge and experience out there, perhaps more than in any other discussion group. Hank KI4MF _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of radionorway Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:46 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting Well, well. I am new to amateur radio and joined this group to learn something about the many digital modes ham was using on radio. I was not expecting to be jammed down with for me an uninteresting quarrel concerning: The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is whether we SHOULD. 73 de LA5VNA --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com 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 [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
There is always lot of emphasis on getting signals out of the noise. From my 9-months hands on experience using pskmail over a 1500 Mile path from Spain to Sweden and from Montenegro to Sweden, noise is not the problem on the amateur bands, as there is always a frequency you can use which gives you fair signal/noise performance. The problem is QRM. Consisting of PACTOR, MFSK, OLIVIA, PSK31, and on 30 meters also SSB signals coming on frequency during your qso. Normally that qrm is stronger than the server I am working. FEC does nothing to cure that. MFSK e.g. is inferior to PSK63 in that case, provided I use a 100 Hz filter. The only answer is ARQ. Pskmail will wait until the intruder is gone and finish the transfer when the qrm goes away within a certain time frame. My experience has also shown that it is very difficult to keep a frequency for more than say 30 minutes. Normally it won't take more than 10 minutes before a deaf, dumb and blind operator will spoil your fun with a 9+20 signal on top of you. 73, Rein PA0R -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 24.08.06 18:24:46 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: 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 http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
Movements toward standardization are fraught with risk. Standardization forced VHS vs the superior BETA because those with superior market clout had their way. REPLY FOLLOWS This canard needs to be put to rest once and for all. The market makes choices based on many factors, not just some supposed superiority. For example, the Apple computer folks have bragged on the superiority of Macs for years, yet actual customers avoid them in droves, even IT professionals. If Beta had really been better in the overall picture, we'd have all bought it. Bill, W6WRT Nonsense, people buy inferior products all the time based on price, availability, and popularity. The *history* is that those pushing the VHS standard outnumbered Sony's allies thus the VHS standard won in the consumer marketplace. Where quality mattered, the professional broadcast industry, they used BETA. Consumers rarely do their technical homework. Another example is that I suspected the source for the cheap computer hardware SAMS was selling when they were first growing. I would see CD drives and other components for sale there really cheap. I went online and started to read the reviews and in every case the models SAMS was selling to gullible non-technical consumers were the models informed computer folks had rejected as inferior. As for Apple vs MS vs Linux. Each has its strengths, Apple has always been the most user friendly and the more graphics-optimized, MS has always been the best marketed, and Linux the most powerful for the user to customize. Apple was poorly marketed and managed and almost failed until they hired a Pepsi exec. to fix things. Apple used more costly proprietary hardware and their OS was often not backwards compatible from release to release, yet they have continued to grow because they fill a need that MS does not -- same as BETA vs VHS. Informed consumers, rare, are not lemmings. Linux is a fragmented community lacking the shared marketing, market clout, and shared core apps of the others. It is amazing that Linux does so well keeping up with the others under the circumstances. Given the billion dollar advantage MS has over its competition it is pitiful how hard they have to work to interfere with their competition to defend their market share. There is nothing MS does that Apple and Linux cannot do better with fewer resources. So much for people buying the best -- they don't even know what the best is! -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications
Hello All, Argue it as you may, the Internet is unreliable on many levels to due normal loading at those levels and vulnerable to targeted attacks, it is well documented, for the latest visit: http://www.cert.org/ It is targeted daily and will be the target in any major conflicts, its just a fact of the world in which we live. The Amateur Radio Service (ARS) is about RADIO, yes we can tie into the Internet, its been done in various for years in countries where it is legal to do so, however its only a bridge, its not the RADIO to RADIO communications system that the ARS requires regardless of what system one wants to make mention. Making use of the Internet for a delivery medium as part of the system is smart, for when its working it is fast, but we can not rely on it as the delivery system. The ARS requires its own Radio to Radio HF e-mail system, wether it be based on STANAG 5066 or other, be it proven or new technology developed by the ARS for the ARS, it does not matter, what matter's is making it happen. Also, the Amateur Radio Service is a World Wide Service, where many languages are spoken, digital communications in many ways overcomes those language barriers, I do not subscribe to SSB in English and English is the only language that I speak fluently, if I in someone's opinion I am even fluent in English. Looking at STANAG 5066 as it does exist and provides all that the Internet provides if one wanted to implement and take advantage of all that, sophisticated high MIL-STD-188-110x modem core's now exist on the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) a.k.a. Sound Card and are being used daily Commercially, by various Governments and some Militaries as well as by Amateur's (PC-ALE) in parts of the world were it is legal (not under present FCC Rules) and by the U.S. MARS program (MARS-ALE) as well. The first Commercial PCSDM based STANAG 5066 MIL-STD-188-110 offering to go public is from SkySweeper Technology, it will not be the last. The PCSDM has been in use for SIGINT tools for years now for decoding sophisticated digital waveforms, the CPU speed and OS reliable has arrived where the use of the PCSDM for two-way communications with this level of modem and sophisticated waveform has arrived. Here in the U.S. FCC Part 97 stands in the way of progress on these technical fronts at present as we need robust waveforms and speed, we need 3Khz channels (the big boys use 2ALE and 4ALE 3khz channels for their 19kb+ raw speed) to get somewhere in the range of 2400 to 9600bps raw data rate speed. I really do NOT believe that we need more than HF e-mail and file attachments, we do not need to be using HTML, which means if all we can achieve is 2400bps raw speed, that will be fine, its fast, I use it daily in MARS with FS-1052 DLP in both BRD, ARQ and FTP via MARS-ALE as the tool. The standard MIL-STD-188-110 serial tone modem calls for an 1800hz PSK carrier and 2400bps symbol rate which equates to 300-3300hz or 3Khz BW, as most MARS members do not have 3khz IF filtering, I added both optional PSK carrier selection and symbol rate selection, thus we can go from a 2khz BW to a full 3Khz BW, we made the selection of 1200hz PSK carrier and 1600bps symbol rate our MARS-to-MARS standard for that 2Khz BW, which is 200-2200hz, all radios filtering handles this, but the symbol rate still exceeds FCC Part 97 symbol rate by nearly 2:1 at present. The choices we have with all this at 2, 2.25, 2.5Khz BW and our raw data rate selections up to 2400bps ( our adaptive data rates are 75, 150, 300, 600, 1200 and 2400bps along with Short/Long Interleave selection ) places the use of FS-1052 DLP using the ARQ protocol in the same basic raw speed as PACTOR III and via the PCSDM, just compare it to 5 speeds of PACTOR III. If the FCC would bump the symbol rate to double, then the 1600bps symbol rate would then be legal. In comparing MT-63 to FS-1052 DLP BRD on the MIL-STD-188-110 modem vs the MT-63 FSK modem, the symbol rate is lower, the BW is kept at 2Khz max, the data rate is kept at 200 baud or 600bps, the FEC used is very similar to that or BRD, MT-63 could be beefed up with an Adaptive ARQ protocol and transport layer along with adaptive data rates and become the ARQ protocol for the ARS service, as a matter of fact we are looking at doing just this with MARS-ALE. Sincerely, /s/ Steve, N2CKH/ARR2EY 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
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 06:31 PM 8/24/2006, kd4e wrote: and Linux the most powerful for the user to customize. REPLY FOLLOWS That's funny! Reminds me of the ad for a old car that is a rusted out pile of junk with the comment ready for restoration. Made my day. 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
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 06:31 PM 8/24/2006, kd4e wrote: Nonsense, people buy inferior products all the time based on price, availability, and popularity. REPLY FOLLOWS You have totally missed the point. You are considering only one factor - technical superiority - in deciding what is best. That's not how people make buying decisions, otherwise we would all be driving a (fill in the blank) car. Beta had a fair shot at the market and failed. Let it rest in peace. 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: Too much fighting
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 03:21 AM 8/25/2006, radionorway wrote: It seems to me that some of you are more interested in fighting about the political aspect around the ham radio and not the technical. And I couldn't care less. This is my final. 73 de LA5VNA REPLY FOLLOWS The political aspect of ham radio is important too. If you are not interested, move on to something else. Bill, W6WRT p.s. You are misusing the word fighting. All I have seen is a spirited discussion. 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
and Linux the most powerful for the user to customize. REPLY FOLLOWS That's funny! Reminds me of the ad for a old car that is a rusted out pile of junk with the comment ready for restoration. Made my day. Bill, W6WRT You miss the reality -- one of the two largest makers of animated movies uses Linux. Why? Because they can write customized apps. They said that neither MS or Apple could keep up with their needs and that licensing was a nightmare. Linux set them free and they are at the top of their industry as a result. Your perspective is like criticizing McGuyver for making something work instead of surrendering because he could not buy what he needed off a store shelf. A majority, or close to it, of the servers in the world run on Linux. Even MS was caught using a Linux server! If a race care team only bought their cars off the consumer lot they'd lose every time -- they customize! In the Ham digital realm when a Ham does not find an existing mode that does what he thinks it should he/she may choose to write their own. BTW: Some of them are actually in Linux. Imagine that! -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
Hi Bonnie, Several points to ponder: -Is this cross banding something that can be done whenever the two parties wish to do so so? I am not familiar with this except for special temporary type authorization by the FCC based upon 97.111(a) such as for Armed Forces Day and certain RACES stations (which may not even be done anymore). - The technology you recommend requires considerable extra equipment (computers/interfaces/frequency agile antennas and band hopping) which is fairly complicated to set up and requires several levesl of expertise above standard CW and analog voice transmissions. While the equipment might possibly be easy to use once it is set up, someone has to have that higher expertise level. We are now finding that with newer hams, there is less interest than ever in anything beyond VHF and maybe UHF voice. Even packet radio and related digital techniques are beyond what many new hams desire to do. I have watched this unfold since around 1980 when packet came and later became almost completely discontinued except for APRS and some DX Spotting links. - With complicated technology you would need a great deal of promotion and training to attract many hams toward using this new technology and there has to be some kind of payback for them or it will never happen. I know three hams within 50+ miles who have a long term interest in HF digital. Only one has a slight interest in emergency use and he is in MARS. All of us have been licensed for many years (typically licensed in the late 1950's, early 1960's) so it is not the new entrants who are doing this. - If you do not use this technology on a frequent basis, it will not be there when the emergency occurs. We used to use VHF packet for major tests of emergency prepardness of a nuclear power site with FEMA providing the exercise scenario. When the facilitator announced that all phone lines were dead and we needed to send a message to the state capital, the only communications was via ham radio packet VHF links. Twenty years later, none of this infrastructure remains. Even our state ham leaders discontined an HF Pactor I system and moved it to SHARES. The plan is to force everyone else to go to Winlink 2000 for a total digital solution for messaging. Because they have very few HF hams anymore, and almost none who are interested in digital, they are trying to move everything toward VHF/UHF and also developing a duplicate interlinked repeater system. - If you want to sell a system, you would need to clearly spell out what it can do and why hams would want it. I have not seen anything that compelling thus far and have read much of the items on your web site. Being able to (maybe) set up a station to contact someone outside the ham bands in an emergency seems very tenuous to most of us if we don't do this on a regular basis and have some practical use. - In a real emergency it won't be necessary to notify anyone on HF. It will be very obvious. Our emergency plans would activate the hams in the affected areas and we would be working with those agencies we have current agreements with. For example, in our immediate area, we do not have very good interoperability with ambulances brought in from different areas should we have a large scale incident. Amateur radio fills that interoperability now with standard VHF voice. We also are part of the EM HQ and if needed, part of the mobile ICP. All of this is tactical voice, but we could do some digital packet. HF would rarely be used, but if all other means failed, including sat phones, I can see where it might be needed to contact the state level. I am not so sure about needing to directly contact higher levels since they would not normally bypass the chain of command. May I suggest that you come up with some real world scenarios where your ALE/5066 systems would be vital. Then come up with some standard equipment implementation that an interested ham could put together including cost, etc. This is not really all about the technical aspects as some have suggested. It is a combination of the technical with the practical. It is not unlike the attempt to use TCP/IP over radio on VHF/UHF. Maybe it has some technical value, but since it was not very practical it never developed very far due to low interest. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: The assigned channel interoperation problem already has a solution that neither requires hams to transmit outside the ham bands, nor gov/ngo/agency stations to transmit in the ham bands. See: http://www.hflink.com/interoperation/ 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. A standard battery-operated transceiver like the FT-897 or a mobile or car battery running almost any other ham rig would
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications
Hi Steve, I agree that the intenet can very unreliable. Of course so can HF communications:( Even the Winlink 2000 users have found that because of the design of the system, there are times that messages get hung up on one of the major servers and can be delayed hours or even days. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen. This kind of situation is not tolerable for a serious emergency messaging system (but great for casual RV and remote ham users for non critical situations and I am very supportive of Winlink 2000 for such purposes because it keeps forwarded traffic off of HF frequencies). What you are often describing seems to be a very similar (but much more sophisticated) to the existing Winlink system that is used for NTS/D and perhaps some MARS use. This was an all RF world wide messaging system that did not rely on the internet. For one thing the internet was not really used by that many when Winlink was developed. Because of the extreme shortage of HF spectrum, they completely discontinued HF forwarding and moved it to the internet when they developed Winlink 2000. Unfortunately, they also run the entire system through the internet (albeit with several mirroring servers) so the system has limitations for serious emergency applications. Even local communications fails through the system if the internet to that site fails:( How do you see STANAG 5066 getting around the problem of extreme congestion on the HF bands for the HF forwarding needed? Or is this system going to be used for only a few test messages to keep alive between emergencies that might need HF messaging. How does this interface with regular e-mail, or is that not a part of the equation? You surely understand that for HF, speeds faster than 100 or 200 baud will rarely work well. Typically you want to keep it under 50 baud when conditions get difficult. With heavy FEC and ARQ, it is true that 100 baud will work fairly well too as proven by Pactor. But even if the FCC makes the minor changes to the existing rules, I don't see this making much of a difference from what we can do now. Unless I am mistaken, you could currently run very wide digital signals on HF, so I am not clear about your concerns of running at 3 KHz signal now. If the new rules come about, the proposals would limit digital signals to a bit over 3 KHz. Personally, I support that as we have a very limited resource with our bands as it is. But the new rules would be more limiting than the current ones. What do you see as the major difference other than the desire to run faster baud rates? Could you comment what equipment you are currently using on MARS? Or is it strictly a sound card based software program that you use? Either way, if you are using 300 baud now, (and want to use 600 baud), are you finding that this actually works on normal HF channels? What kind of S/N ratio do you need to make it work? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Hello All, Argue it as you may, the Internet is unreliable on many levels to due normal loading at those levels and vulnerable to targeted attacks, it is well documented, for the latest visit: http://www.cert.org/ It is targeted daily and will be the target in any major conflicts, its just a fact of the world in which we live. The Amateur Radio Service (ARS) is about RADIO, yes we can tie into the Internet, its been done in various for years in countries where it is legal to do so, however its only a bridge, its not the RADIO to RADIO communications system that the ARS requires regardless of what system one wants to make mention. Making use of the Internet for a delivery medium as part of the system is smart, for when its working it is fast, but we can not rely on it as the delivery system. The ARS requires its own Radio to Radio HF e-mail system, wether it be based on STANAG 5066 or other, be it proven or new technology developed by the ARS for the ARS, it does not matter, what matter's is making it happen. Also, the Amateur Radio Service is a World Wide Service, where many languages are spoken, digital communications in many ways overcomes those language barriers, I do not subscribe to SSB in English and English is the only language that I speak fluently, if I in someone's opinion I am even fluent in English. Looking at STANAG 5066 as it does exist and provides all that the Internet provides if one wanted to implement and take advantage of all that, sophisticated high MIL-STD-188-110x modem core's now exist on the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) a.k.a. Sound Card and are being used daily Commercially, by various Governments and some Militaries as well as by Amateur's (PC-ALE) in parts of the world were it is legal (not under present FCC Rules) and by the U.S. MARS program (MARS-ALE) as well. The first Commercial PCSDM based STANAG 5066 MIL-STD-188-110 offering to go public is from SkySweeper Technology, it will not be the last. The PCSDM has been in
Re: [digitalradio] Very low cost computer
Although this computer might not be powerful enough to run much amateur software, it might be a harbinger of what could be done for *very* low power consumption computers that would have emergency and portable applications. It certainly could be used with as a terminal for interfacing with a digital tnc. 73, Rick, KV9U I missed the link for this very low cost computer. A version of Puppy Linux has been optimized for use on small, low cost, minimalist computers yet will still do most common computing tasks. The generic version of Puppy Linux including Internet and office apps is only 70MB. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Very low cost computer
Yes, this has to be the one. http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6828123924.html kd4e wrote: I missed the link for this very low cost computer. A version of Puppy Linux has been optimized for use on small, low cost, minimalist computers yet will still do most common computing tasks. The generic version of Puppy Linux including Internet and office apps is only 70MB. 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] Very low cost computer
The problem with low cost computers is that they are only low cost if your time is free. By definition, if your time is free, you are not smart enough to do anything sophisticated with computers. The learning curve on any unorthodox computer cannot be justified by saving money on the computer, unless you are going to use many identical ones. Rick N6RK 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] Very low cost computer
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Rick Karlquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By definition, if your time is free, you are not smart enough to do anything sophisticated with computers. REPLY FOLLOWS Would that include retired people? How about retired IT people? -- 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] MULTIPSK 4.1 / CLOCK 1.5.3 / MULTIDEM 1.0 (USB/LSB/AM demodulator for direct conversion receivers)
New release (4.1) of MULTIPSK RX/TX: PSK10/BPSK31-63-125/QPSK31-63-125/CHIP (64/128)/PSKFEC31/PSKAM10-31-50/PSK63F - PSK220F + DIGISSTV Run/CW/CCW/CCW-FSK/THROB/THROBX/MFSK8/ MFSK16 (+ SSTV)/OLIVIA/CONTESTIA/RTTYM/VOICE/DominoF DF/DominoEX/MT63/RTTY 45/75/ RTTY 50+SYNOP+SHIP/ASCII/AMTOR FEC/ PACKET 300-1200 + APRS+ DIGISSTV Run/ PACTOR 1-FEC/PAX+PAX2 + APRS/FELD HELL/PSK HELL/FM HELL (105-245)/HELL 80/ HF-FAX/SSTV/ RX only: AMTOR ARQ/NAVTEX/RTTY 100/ DSP: Filters + CW binaural reception PSK Panoramic (BPSK31/BPSK63/PSKFEC31): RX 23 channels simultaneously CW Panoramic: RX 8 or 23 channels simultaneously RTTY Panoramic: RX 8 RTTY QSO decoded simultaneously on 22 channels Programmation of Multipsk reception TCP/IP digital modem CLOCK 1.5.3 (FRANCE-INTER, DCF77, HBG, RUGBY, WWVB, WWV, WWVH, GPS) Hello to all Ham and SWL, The new release of MULTIPSK (4.1) is in my Web site (http://f6cte.free.fr) and, also, the 1.5.3 of Clock (improvement of the GPS decoding). The main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.org/index.html Another mirror site isTerry's: http://www.hamsoft.co.uk/ Multispk associated to Clock are freeware programs but with functions submitted to a licence (by user key). The main modifications of MULTIPSK 4.1 are the following: 1) addition of the Contestia and RTTYM modes. See specifications further on. Main frequencies: For 1000 Hz bandwidth sub-modes, with an AF frequency of 1000 Hz, frequency displayed on the transceiver: 14103.5 Khz For 500 and 250 Hz bandwidth: 7039.5, 14075.5 Khz The Contestia and RTTYM modes are directly derived from the Olivia mode (Pawel Jalocha SP9VRC) but with a different compromise between speed and robustness. * CONTESTIA is a bit less sensitive than Olivia (+1.5 dB on minimum S/N). It is a also a bit less robust (due to a smaller block size) but it is twice more rapid (with a reduce set of characters). This mode is an excellent chat mode (because sensitive and rapid). * RTTYM is a less sensitive than Olivia (+3 dB on minimum S/N). It is also less robust (due to a small block size and due to the RTTY problem of random shift from letters to figures or reversely, on an error) but it is almost four times more rapid (with the RTTY set of characters). This mode is interesting for very quick QSO. 2) addition of the SSTV mode SC2 180. This mode gives very good SSTV pictures (the SSTV transmission lasts 3 minutes) 3) addition of a digital dual trace spectrum analyzer (+ waterfall) 0-20 KHz 4) addition of an interface to a direct conversion receiver through the Multidem program, the Multidem signal being transmitted to Multipsk via a TCP/IP link. MULTIDEM 1.0 is a USB/LSB/AM demodulator for direct conversion receivers available from my WEB site. This program (freeware) permits to: - extract any USB, LSB or AM transmission present in the AF band of a direct conversion receiver, up to 20 Khz, - to band-pass filter the received signal, - afterwards, to forward it to amplified loudspeakers and to Multipsk (for decoding) through a TCP/IP link. 5) APRS: Multipsk becoming compatible with UI-VIEW (about GIF pictures and .INF format description files), all the maps and .INF files of the UI-VIEW MAPS folder can be copied to the Multipsk MAPS folder and be used, 6) improvement of the recording function. The modifications 3 and 6 are about functions submitted to a licence. Note 1: all the modifications are given in the bottom of the Configuration screen. Nota 2: the software APRS-SCS version 1.29 (John KB2SCS) can connect to Multipsk through the TCP/IP link. For information, for all the Multipsk exotic modes (PSKFEC31, PSK10, PSKAM, PSK63F, PSK220F (+DIGISSTV), CCW-FSK, MFSK8, THROBX, DominoF, DominoEX, PAX, CHIP, Voice...), I propose the QRP frequency: 14075 Khz USB (AF around 1000 Hz), at 17h00 UTC. 73 Patrick Contestia/RTTYM specifications Here is a comparison board between Olivia, Contestia and RTTYM: Parameters OLIVIA CONTESTIA RTTYM Block size (symbols) 64 32 16 Scrambling pseudo-random sequence 0xE257E6D0291574EC 0xEDB88320 0xEDB88320 Scrambling shift (in number of bits of sequence right rotation) 13 5 5 Characters set 7 bits (ASCII) 6 bits char - decimal code 0 (remplissage)- 0 Space - 59 CR - 60 CHR(33) to CHR(90) - 1 to 58 Multipsk specificity: BS (--- key) - 61 Small letters are transformed in capital letters 5 bits Same set of characters as for standard RTTY, except that the letters character is the CHR(0) instead the CHR(31) one The idling character is the CHR(31) character. Multipsk specificity: Bell is coded as @ (second ' in Mixw) Characters transmission speed x1 x2 almost x4 Minimum S/N / Olivia for same the sub-mode +1.5
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting
don't be afraid to ask questions, there are others who can copy through all the QRM from the US brothers John VE5MU - Original Message - From: radionorway To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:46 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting Well, well. I am new to amateur radio and joined this group to learn something about the many digital modes ham was using on radio. I was not expecting to be jammed down with for me an uninteresting quarrel concerning: The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is whether we SHOULD. 73 de LA5VNA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/06 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur RadioService Emergency Communications
I agree that the intenet can very unreliable. Of course so can HF communications: If the Internet is so unreliable, how come all that spam gets to me? 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
It's not just funny, it's HILARIOUS!! (see below) Bill At 07:09 AM 8/25/2006 -0700, you wrote: ORIGINAL MESSAGE: At 06:31 PM 8/24/2006, kd4e wrote: and Linux the most powerful for the user to customize. REPLY FOLLOWS That's funny! Reminds me of the ad for a old car that is a rusted out pile of junk with the comment ready for restoration. Made my day. 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 Bill Aycock - W4BSG Woodville, Alabama Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
Hi Rick, You bring up some good points. Rick, KV9U wrote: - The technology you recommend requires considerable extra equipment (computers/interfaces/frequency agile antennas and band hopping) which is fairly complicated Actually, it requires nothing more than the usual ham radio rig and a laptop. As for the ALE to initialize the contact, you can now buy an HF radio in the US$1000 to US$1500 cost range that has ALE built in. We are now finding that with newer hams, there is less interest than ever in anything beyond VHF and maybe UHF voice. In USA, that is almost entirely due to an antiquated licensing, testing, and band control structure that has unwisely relegated most new hams to VHF and UHF. Most of them do not survive the boredom of VHF/UHF repeaters, and rapidly fade away from the ham community. Hopefully, that will change soon, as it already has in many other countries of the world, and more hams will join HF operation. - If you do not use this technology on a frequent basis, it will not be there when the emergency occurs. I agree completely with you on that point. For that to work, there needs to be a good reason for hams to use such systems in normal everyday operation. Having fun is a good reason :) HF email and messaging that is internet-connected provides one motivation, but it should not stop there. It needs to have each station be able to function on a stand-alone basis, de-centralized, peer-to-peer, and seamlessly internet-independent when it is required to function in that manner. It should be On Demand and not require complex operator start up sequences, scheduled nets, manual operator monitoring, or phone calls to friends. It should provide the whole gamut, a variety of desirable normal ham activity such as instantaneous real-time propagation analysis to real ham stations, status and activity reporting, DXing, locating, and casual QSOs. - In a real emergency it won't be necessary to notify anyone on HF. It will be very obvious. Agreed, disasters are often obvious, but the fact that they are obvious doesn't necessarily provide the communications. The Katrina disaster was an excellent example of obviousness without responsiveness. Amateur radio fills that interoperability now with standard VHF voice. In a disaster scenario, I don't believe VHF can be relied upon to fulfill anything but strictly local comms. The repeaters go down in many kinds of disasters. And the ones that remain are for voice traffic. Bonnie KQ6XA . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Rick, KV9U wrote: - The technology you recommend requires considerable extra equipment (computers/interfaces/frequency agile antennas and band hopping) which is fairly complicated Actually, it requires nothing more than the usual ham radio rig and a laptop. Isn't an antenna also required? What sorts of antennas and matching systems are required for ALE between amateurs, and for ALE between amateurs and non-amateur organizations? As for the ALE to initialize the contact, you can now buy an HF radio in the US$1000 to US$1500 cost range that has ALE built in. Just above you say, it requires nothing more than the usual ham radio rig but here you imply that for the ALE to initialize the contact, one must purchase a radio with ALE built in. What does for the ALE to initialize the contact mean? We are now finding that with newer hams, there is less interest than ever in anything beyond VHF and maybe UHF voice. In USA, that is almost entirely due to an antiquated licensing, testing, and band control structure that has unwisely relegated most new hams to VHF and UHF. Most of them do not survive the boredom of VHF/UHF repeaters, and rapidly fade away from the ham community. Hopefully, that will change soon, as it already has in many other countries of the world, and more hams will join HF operation. If an asteroid struck earth, Bonnie, you'd blame it on antiquated licensing, testing, and band control structure. Your real agenda is that you want more amateur band space allocated to ALE and other automatic modes. You'd make more progress being straightforward about this position rather than with this constant spinning. 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] Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
Amateur radio began with the randomness of chance QSOs -- you remember CQ, don't you? Its not exactly honest to claim that amateur radio is devolving from the style with which it began, has used during all of its existence, and remains dominant to this day. No one is saying you can't use ALE if you want to Bonnie, but don't imply that anyone who doesn't is a dope. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? 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] Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
Bonnie, You know what the answer to your post is. I have to agree with another post that said really all you want to do is make more room for ALE. Now as for ALE scanning several bands and frequencies is really for the birds. There needs to be frequencies on each band for ALE just like all the other modes. Also if the conditions are not there you are not going to get through no matter what software or how much power you run. Yes some software are better that others, but you are not going to beat mother nature. Also using ham radio as an e-mail service is also for the birds. It is great for emergency communities, but just how much emergency communications is needed over long distances (coast to coast). No government agency is going to load up planes, truck and what ever else and start out across the country just because some ham says we need this or that supplies. They are going to have to have some type of confirmation as to what, who and where things are needed. I visited your web page (QRZ) and what all you are involved in is great and I admire you for that. I know it is time consuming and a lot of hard work. What I am saying is that you should not have to scan many bands and frequencies to establish contacts with other ALE stations. It is just QRMing too many frequencies. Most any ham that operates on HF should know what bands are open to any part of the country at any given time of day or night. It is 11:30pm here local time and 20 meters is just about dead, now why would I want to try using that band when I already know it is useless? Same is true about 80 meters during the daytime it is only good for a few hundred miles. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:29 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now? Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:29:17 -, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? REPLY FOLLOWS Amateur Radio is neither the telephone nor the internet. Our hobby is about generating, transmitting and receiving RF energy. It is a hobby of technical and operating expertise. It is not a substitute for other, more user-friendly modes of communication, nor are they a substitute for Amateur Radio. Each has its place. -- 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/
