[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal

[Dave Bernstein]

The documentation in http://hflink.com/ recommends that a station 
transmit a 20-30 second sounding hourly on each frequency. 

Below, Bonnie says "In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot 
channel per ham band where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens 
on a regular basis."

How many stations can be sounding a band's pilot channel before it 
saturates? Lets assume the best case, which is that each stations 
sounds for 20 seconds each hour. If the channel is perfectly 
utilized, it can handle (60*60)/20 = 180 independent stations 

180 non-synchronized stations attempting to sound one frequency for 
20 seconds each hour would produce nearly continuous collisions. I 
have yet to find any reference to collision detection and/or 
collision avoidance on an ALE pilot channel. Does ALE provide some 
means of reducing contention? Without contention reduction, the 
practical number of simultaneous ALE stations sounding the same 
frequency at the recommended rates would be in the 30 to 60 range.

How could 1000 amateur ALE operators to be simultaneously QRV with 
one pilot channel per amateur band?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John VE5MU wrote:
> > If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 24/7, how much QRM 
> > will this create?  
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> It would be far less QRM than the average RTTY contest, such as we 
had
> this weekend that took over a large chunk of the ham bands with
> "soundings". 
> 
> In fact, it is unlikely that you would notice 1000 ALE operators on
> the air, unless you tune your VFO to the specific frequency the ALE
> operators are using. 
>  
> In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band
> where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. 
The
> nature of the way ALE works enables many stations to dynamically use
> the same channel on a time/space shared basis for various purposes,
> such as messaging, calling, sounding, and geo-position reporting. 
The
> global or regional capacity of a single channel for ALE is rather
> large. One channel is probabably enough to handle a 1000% increase 
in
> amateur radio ALE use over the next 5 years, if and when it becomes
> that popular. 
> 
> It would be wonderful if we had 1000 ALE stations on the air 24/7.
> Perhaps the ALE On-The-AIR Week event in October will give us some
> idea of what is possible with a few hundred stations on at the same
> time. We don't really know yet, since this will be the first such 
event.
> 
> 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: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???

[Dave Bernstein]

The issue is control over the operating system's scheduling 
decisions. There are real-time versions of Linux that are comparable 
in this dimension to the firmware running in a TNC; given sufficient 
CPU horsepower, a Pactor-2 or Pactor-3 implementation on realtime 
Linux is feasible.

The Windows scheduler cannot be adequately controlled for use timing-
critical applications; as a result, the response time requirements of 
protocols like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 cannot be guaranteed, no matter 
how fast the CPU. Generating CW with consistent timing is a challenge 
on this platform.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It was on a linux system
> But that does not matter.
> The problem is EVERY time the computer "thinks"
> what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so
> is the link.
> 
> At 09:53 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >Have you tried it with an up-scale sound card on a
> >computer equipped with both a fast processor and a
> >lot of RAM?
> >
> >What was the interface between PC and rig?  USB 1.0,
> >1.1, 2.0, Serial, Parallel, other?
> >
> >I am wondering if the rapidly improving PC hardware
> >may have solved the speed problem?
> >
> >Also, which OS did you test, please?  Apple, the
> >MS version of windows (XP?), Linux?
> >
> >I am not questioning your observations just am curious
> >as to the testing context.
> >
> >--
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







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?

[Dave Bernstein]

If as you say, "ham radio operators have not been thinking outside 
the box, and are largely content with the status quo, having never 
known anything better", then how do you explain

- the blizzard of new digital modes developed over the past 5 years

- the rapid adoption of panoramic reception and broadband decoding

- the use of software-defined transceivers

?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dave G0DJA David 
> > It's a bit of a silly arguement to say we should be able to 
> > call up someone who we probably have never spoken to before 
> > and have not got any idea whether they use the same bands 
> > and modes as we do... 
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I believe it is not silly at all to call specific hams we have never
> spoken with before, without knowing bands or modes they use... 
simply
> by knowing their callsign. 
> 
> I suggest that the reason some might think it is odd, is that ham
> radio operators have not been "thinking outside the box", and are
> largely content with the status quo, having never known anything 
better.  
> 
> Calling each other on the air is technically feasible in many ways,
> especially with our available digital radio technologies,
> microprocessor-driven transceivers, and computers. 
> 
> In posing the question, I had hoped to spur some thought and
> intelligent discussion about different ways to dependably initiate
> communications with each other on the air. I'm interested in all 
kinds
> of methods, especially the ones that do not require schedules, 
manual
> net monitoring, or telephone calls. 
>  
> 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] New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???

[chasm]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:33 -0500, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>It was on a linux system
>But that does not matter.
>The problem is EVERY time the computer "thinks"
>what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so
>is the link.

???
now, I am not a geek for computers, but my Perl mobo has a pair of 3.1ghz cpus
running with huge cache, and 2gb of ram.  the soundcard is running along with
a pretty wide gateway and its own gb or so of ram.

i just don't think that the wait states, if there are any, are going to be
sufficient to bog down a real, damned slow modem since most of those are
probably running at 1200 to 2400bps.  which is real slow.
I have a dsl which supposedly is running at 3.2kbips but it is uploading
slower than my pc is pushing it up the line.

I am definitely confused which is NOT unusual in the least.

another point,  my IC 736 has a modem in it, CI-V compliant or ready, and
supposedly, I should be able to load the Pactor/ALE, etc  software in the PC
and using it and the sound card and the rig running software, -- push traffic
out over the USB2.0 interface cable to the rig.  and again, that is with HRD
controlling the operation.  Obviously, the modem even were it running at
56,000 is still far slower than my dsl is capable of or the speed at which my
pc is loading.up or down.   the slowest thing going is probably the TNC.
BUT Pactor I is supposedly designed to work with the old, original slow
modems.

So, please enlighten me

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


Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal

[expeditionradio]

> John VE5MU wrote:
> If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 24/7, how much QRM 
> will this create?  

Hi John,

It would be far less QRM than the average RTTY contest, such as we had
this weekend that took over a large chunk of the ham bands with
"soundings". 

In fact, it is unlikely that you would notice 1000 ALE operators on
the air, unless you tune your VFO to the specific frequency the ALE
operators are using. 
 
In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band
where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. The
nature of the way ALE works enables many stations to dynamically use
the same channel on a time/space shared basis for various purposes,
such as messaging, calling, sounding, and geo-position reporting. The
global or regional capacity of a single channel for ALE is rather
large. One channel is probabably enough to handle a 1000% increase in
amateur radio ALE use over the next 5 years, if and when it becomes
that popular. 

It would be wonderful if we had 1000 ALE stations on the air 24/7.
Perhaps the ALE On-The-AIR Week event in October will give us some
idea of what is possible with a few hundred stations on at the same
time. We don't really know yet, since this will be the first such event.

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] ALE QRM

[kd4e]

Someone somewhere will *have* to "sound* else no one
anywhere will make a contact!  :-)

That said, in small numbers the ALE sounding-QRM is
unlikely to be unbearable.

Were the usage numbers to increase then the sounding-QRM
could definitely become more than an occasional nuisance.

Since ALE is mostly of value in military-like emergency
communications support there is no good argument for it
to be spread all over all of the Ham HF spectrum.  Tiny
slivers of each band answer the propagation availability
question.  Spinning the VFO and listening solves the
available frequency question.

Best of both worlds, least probability of QRM.

WDYT?  doc

> Where did you get the idea that we on ALE are sounding 24/7 ? ?
> If you check the HFLINK web site you will notice to the set up is
> asking that the system is *NOT* be sounding...
> 
> please seehttp://www.hflink.com/beta/pcale1061options.jpg
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> 
> At 09:30 PM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>> It is truly amazing to me that the same hams who have torn up this group 
>> time after time, objecting long and vigorously against
>> automatic Pactor stations , are promoting the concept of ALE sounding on 
>> HF 24/7
>>
>> Talk about being hypocritical !!! If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 
>> 24/7, how much QRM will this create?
>>
>> John
>> VE5MU



-- 

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] ALE QRM

[John Becker]

John,
Where did you get the idea that we on ALE are sounding 24/7 ? ?
If you check the HFLINK web site you will notice to the set up is
asking that the system is *NOT* be sounding...

please seehttp://www.hflink.com/beta/pcale1061options.jpg

John, W0JAB


At 09:30 PM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>It is truly amazing to me that the same hams who have torn up this group 
>time after time, objecting long and vigorously against
>automatic Pactor stations , are promoting the concept of ALE sounding on 
>HF 24/7
>
>Talk about being hypocritical !!! If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 
>24/7, how much QRM will this create?
>
>John
>VE5MU
>



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] New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???

[John Becker]

It was on a linux system
But that does not matter.
The problem is EVERY time the computer "thinks"
what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so
is the link.

At 09:53 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:


>Have you tried it with an up-scale sound card on a
>computer equipped with both a fast processor and a
>lot of RAM?
>
>What was the interface between PC and rig?  USB 1.0,
>1.1, 2.0, Serial, Parallel, other?
>
>I am wondering if the rapidly improving PC hardware
>may have solved the speed problem?
>
>Also, which OS did you test, please?  Apple, the
>MS version of windows (XP?), Linux?
>
>I am not questioning your observations just am curious
>as to the testing context.
>
>--
>
>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
>
>
>
>



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] New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???

[kd4e]

 > John Becker wrote:
> Pactor and Amtor use ARQ mode.
> Because of this timing a computer WILL NOT
> keep up with the TNC equipped station.
> I did run some test about 3 years ago and the
> computer only station on a AMTOR / PACTOR link
> could only do about 43% of what the TNC equipped
> station did.

Have you tried it with an up-scale sound card on a
computer equipped with both a fast processor and a
lot of RAM?

What was the interface between PC and rig?  USB 1.0,
1.1, 2.0, Serial, Parallel, other?

I am wondering if the rapidly improving PC hardware
may have solved the speed problem?

Also, which OS did you test, please?  Apple, the
MS version of windows (XP?), Linux?

I am not questioning your observations just am curious
as to the testing context.

-- 

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/
 

[digitalradio] ALE QRM

[John Bradley]

It is truly amazing to me that the same hams who have torn up this group time 
after time, objecting long and vigorously against
automatic Pactor stations , are promoting the concept of ALE sounding on HF 
24/7 

Talk about being hypocritical !!! If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 24/7, 
how much QRM will this create? 

John
VE5MU 
 


--


  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: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?

[John Champa]

Bonnie,

You raise some good questions!  D-Star works that way now,
in many respects.  We just don't have anything like D-Star
on HF...yet.

73,
John - K8OCL


>From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
>Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:56:57 -
>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>I believe it is not silly at all to call specific hams we have never
>spoken with before, without knowing bands or modes they use... simply
>by knowing their callsign.
>
>I suggest that the reason some might think it is odd, is that ham
>radio operators have not been "thinking outside the box", and are
>largely content with the status quo, having never known anything better.
>
>Calling each other on the air is technically feasible in many ways,
>especially with our available digital radio technologies,
>microprocessor-driven transceivers, and computers.
>
>In posing the question, I had hoped to spur some thought and
>intelligent discussion about different ways to dependably initiate
>communications with each other on the air. I'm interested in all kinds
>of methods, especially the ones that do not require schedules, manual
>net monitoring, or telephone calls.
>
>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?

[expeditionradio]

> Dave G0DJA David 
> It's a bit of a silly arguement to say we should be able to 
> call up someone who we probably have never spoken to before 
> and have not got any idea whether they use the same bands 
> and modes as we do... 

Hi Dave,

I believe it is not silly at all to call specific hams we have never
spoken with before, without knowing bands or modes they use... simply
by knowing their callsign. 

I suggest that the reason some might think it is odd, is that ham
radio operators have not been "thinking outside the box", and are
largely content with the status quo, having never known anything better.  

Calling each other on the air is technically feasible in many ways,
especially with our available digital radio technologies,
microprocessor-driven transceivers, and computers. 

In posing the question, I had hoped to spur some thought and
intelligent discussion about different ways to dependably initiate
communications with each other on the air. I'm interested in all kinds
of methods, especially the ones that do not require schedules, manual
net monitoring, or telephone calls. 
 
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] New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???

[John Becker]

Pactor and Amtor use ARQ mode.
Because of this timing a computer WILL NOT
keep up with the TNC equipped station.
I did run some test about 3 years ago and the
computer only station on a AMTOR / PACTOR link
could only do about 43% of what the TNC equipped
station did.


At 05:35 PM 8/26/2006, you wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:10:49 -0500, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >If you are going to operate Amtor or Pactor ARQ mode
> >you will be better with a TNC. Otherwise for the sound card
> >mode you will not need it.
>
>ok, IC736  running the rig with HRD from an Intel  Pent 4 via CI-V interface
>USB cable on MARS.
>running Pactor, do I need a TNC?
>WHAT IS A TNC exactly.  iow, WHAT does it do?
>Why can I not simply load the Pactor software into the PC along with my
>HRDeluxe software??
>If I need the TNC, how do I hook it up to work with HRD and CI-V??



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] The digital throughput challenge on HF

[John Becker]

You should try DIGITAL VOICE once.
There is 1000% chance that your QSO will be
QRM'ed

At 04:43 AM 8/25/2006, you wrote:

>The problem is QRM. Consisting of PACTOR, MFSK, OLIVIA, PSK31, and on 30 
>meters also SSB signals coming on frequency during your qso.









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?

[David Ackrill]

Please excuse top post - Still resetting options.

Well, for a start, you are assuming that the other person is in and 
listening.  ALE wont help in that case.  Just like calling someone on 
their mobile phone and they have it switched off, or don't answer.  
Plus, who's going to keep and distribute the codes for each person?  I 
bet the non-Amateur visitor wont know the callsign of their Amateur 
Radio friend, nor what they might have as an identifier.

So, just ask them if they can call a friend of yours, but you don't have 
their number and are not sure if they are in...

It's a bit of a silly arguement to say we should be able to call up 
someone who we probably have never spoken to before and have not got any 
idea whether they use the same bands and modes as we do...

de Dave (G0DJA)
expeditionradio wrote:
> Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you
> can call up another ham who they know? 
>   


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: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?

[John Champa]

What's all this RANDOM talk?  I have been a Ham for
50 years, and most of my contacts have been and still
are SCHEDULES  (nets, skeds, etc.)!

I haven't called CQ in years!  HI

Vy 73,
John - K8OCL


>From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
>Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:19:33 -
>
>Bonnie claimed that amateur radio had devolved to random QSOs. Since
>amateur radio began with random QSOs and random QSOs remain a
>significant component of amateur communications today, that claim is
>false. If the original post was on topic, then correcting its factual
>errors must also be on topic.
>
>The premises and context on which we make technical decisions are
>critical. Leaving errors and misrepresentations unchallenged would be
>irresponsible.
>
> 73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> > So what is techincal about this thread at this point.  Dave, you
>are
> > wasting bandwidth here.
> > Can we get back on topic, please?
> >
> > Chuck, AA5J
> >
> > At 11:22 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote:
> >
> > >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
> > >40yahoogroups.com>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
> > >"expeditionradio"
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date:
>8/25/2006
> >
> > Regards,
> > ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --
> > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield
> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield
> >
>
>
>
>
>




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

[John Champa]

Those who really need "standards" adopt one specific approach (e.g., MARS).
The others are explorers who will try any route to get to the destination.


>From: "rws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: 
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency 
>Data
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:24:22 -0400
>
>
>WELL SAID --- BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING??
>
>BOB, K2CRR
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>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
> >
> >
> >
> 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting

[John Champa]

Yes, that is unfortunate on both counts...
your final, and the fact that sometimes
the two topics can't really be separated,
unless one is willing to turn a blind eye
to the entire scope of the issue.


>From: "radionorway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Too much fighting
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:21:15 -
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Harold Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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@ 
> > yahoogroups.com, "John Champa"  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 
> > > >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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [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: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data

[John Champa]

Yes, yes, beta looked better, but had no flexibility in recording.
Marketing may have been a factor, but VHS was clearly the favorite.

Darwin got it right.  The superior will survive in the end...(HI)


>From: Bill Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email,  
>Emergency Data
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:05:16 -0700
>
>ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
>At 08:48 AM 8/24/2006, kd4e wrote:
>
> >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
>




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: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Dave Bernstein]

I said 

"In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important."

The rationale for this prioritiation is that a typical month sees 
more people killed, injured, or displaced by conflict than by natural 
disaster. This is a personal view that shapes my time allocation. I 
did not derive it from its position in 97.1 -- I didn't say "clearly, 
they saved the best for last" -- nor do I expect any other amateur to 
agree with me. Each of his must use his or her own best judgement in 
fulfilling our obligations as radio amateurs. 97.1 gives us a set of 
principles to guide our decisionmaking.

As I have said before, the premises on which we make technical 
decisions are highly relevant. If you assert that the principles in 
97.1 are listed in in priority order, and use that assertion to drive 
a chain of technical decisions, then those decisions will be flawed 
because the premise on which they are based is false. Identifying 
such errors is hardly a waste of bandwidth.
73,

   Dave, AA6YQ





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> But did you not just state "In today's world, (e) 
> is arguably the most important"
> 
> To me your statement read that you placed 97.1(e) in the priority.
> 
> My purpose of the posting on Part 97.1 was to 
> make a point that the rules are very much 
> interpreted by all that read them, to include the 
> entire basis for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.
> 
> I believe the bandwidth on this forum would be 
> much better utilized to discuss the technical 
> aspects of digital radio communications and to 
> assist our fellow Amateurs seeking help with the 
> digital modes rather than moving off focus. The 
> statement intent of intent for focus of this 
> forum lists many protocols and tools and I think is pretty clear as 
follows:
> 
> " This is a meeting place to discuss amateur 
> radio digital applications such as RTTY, CW, 
> PSK31,PSK63/125, MFSK16, Olivia-MFSK, PAX, 
> Chip64, DominoEX, THROB, ALE, PACTOR, AMTOR, 
> HELL, SSTV, Digital SSTV, and more. There are 
> several reflectors dedicated to these separate 
> modes but this group focuses on ALL digital 
> modes. Software applications such as MixW, 
> Logger32, MMVARI, MMTTY, MultiPSK, Hamscope, 
> Winwarbler/DXLAB, Digipan, etc, etc, are often 
> discussed. Theory of digital communications is 
> encouraged. Experimentation with new digital modes is also 
encouraged.
> Questions from newcomers are welcome"
> 
> If is of course all up to Andy as to the direction personality of 
this forum.
> 
> Personally, I am interested in discussing many 
> aspects of Amateur Digital Communications and of 
> course those of which I am most involved will be 
> of more interest to me than ones that I am not so 
> much involved. I do not knock another digital 
> mode for its existence or use, I look for ways to 
> coexist with all modes. I am not pushing 
> anything, just interested in discussing the 
> technical aspects of technology and being of assistance,
> this is where I am coming from in my use of this forum.
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 
> At 10:39 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
> >No priority is stated, thus all of the principles set forth in 
§97.1
> >are equally important.
> >
> >In particular, no one can claim that one activity is more important
> >than another solely because its applicable principle has a lower
> >ordinal.
> >
> >This is not a matter of interpretation. Regulations are explicit 
when
> >they convey an order of priority.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> >






Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data

[KV9U]

The thing that holds most of us back from alternate power is the cost 
and safety issue. It is not without risk and you have to trade the cost 
and benefit. I agree that each individual case does not determine what 
most might want to do, but 99% won't be doing much with emergency power. 
It is not unlike the 99.99% in our county who have zero interest in 
CERT training. OK, there were three, but two would be me and my ham wife.

Producing your own power, while a self thing by some standards, due to 
the resources you take, I think can be justified for those who can 
provide something back to the community or not be as much of a burden on 
the community. Then again I know of cases where people had illegal (and 
very unsafe) stores of fuel so there are pros and cons.

I have to say that except for perhaps fleeting propagation, most of us 
OT's know what frequencies are likely to work for the best signal at a 
given distance. Especially for NVIS. The technology is contained within 
our brain and does not need any complications which can render it 
useless in an emergency. Having rigs with built-in ALE is a lot better 
idea but we will have to see if that becomes common. My guess is that it 
will not, but if there proves to be a market for the ham community, it 
could happen.

The area that holds the most interest for me, and something we have not 
discussed all that much, is the ability to send messages with the 5066 
based systems. I have been doing some googling on this and if I 
understand things correctly, this technology does not work with weak 
signals. In fact, I was surprised that the strength of the signals 
(above 0 S/N) has to be pretty good to work well.

Can someone comment on just using the various STANAG waveforms for 
messaging? Is this in the software right now for PC-ALE? What kind of 
throughput have you been finding with a given S/N ratio?

73,

Rick




Steve Hajducek wrote:

>GM Rick,
>
>At 11:07 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Steve,
>>
>>I do have an 80 amp  hour AGM battery under my operating position that
>>is kept trickle charged. While this is not that common, there are some
>>hams who have at least rudimentary backup power capability. In the last
>>year or so, there was a poll to see how many ARES/RACES HF stations in
>>our section had emergency power of some type. A fair number had none. Of
>>the broader ham population, even fewer have emergency power.
>>
>>
>
>Its an easy plug and play these days, many outfits like West Mountain 
>offer enough selection of the needed hardware/cabling for common 
>make/model radios to take a battery and remove your existing D.C. 
>cables and Power Pole connect your existing D.C. power supply to do 
>just that. Anyone who wants Amateur Radio comm when the A.C. fails 
>and its not on some other system so do just this and plan to absorb 
>the cost of battery replacement in x number of years.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>We do have emergency water for personal use and can cook with LP gas
>>(that is partially why we have no electric range), but we would be in
>>dire straits with water for cattle and would need help from emergency
>>management. To maintain a week or two of power is nearly impossible
>>since storage of fuel has safety and legal requirements. If you can not
>>live here, emergency communication is of limited importance. The
>>cheapest fuel storage I could get for diesel to meet the regs would have
>>been well over $1000. And that was a price quote ten years ago. One
>>alternative we have contemplated is using the LP gas but it is very
>>pricey to set up a generator system.
>>
>>
>
>I live in an all electric Log Home with well water here in NJ, no 
>longer in the sticks though, my existence has been surrounded by 
>townhouses and as soon as I can sell, its a planned relocation to the 
>mountains of NC.
>The drill here has been gas generator, I almost moved up to a large 
>propane tank/automatic generator, but with the townhouses came many 
>changes to the rules, so that is now planned for NC, as I desire 
>fully automated switch over to backup power for the entire house and 
>a propane system seems to be the most efficient and lease amount of 
>maintenance in comparison to gas or diesel.
>
>
>  
>
>>We would not be too involved with communications issues during a severe
>>emergency here as we would be trying our best to work with our immediate
>>neighbors to help them survive. Many do not have back up power since you
>>need rather large generators for dairy farms, even small ones. Some have
>>3 point hitch generators that run off a tractor PTO, but as some found
>>out a while back, they can suddenly fail and are difficult to repair in
>>a "timely" manner.
>>
>>
>
>Well in such discussions as have been talking place via this forum I 
>do not believe that relating everything to an individual personal 
>situation with set parameters and limitations is best. Providing 
>examples of such certainly is noteworthy, but they should not be us

Re: [digitalradio] ALE use in Disaster Relief Comms, Katrina

[KV9U]

Its mostly the ham radio operator's use of ALE that I would like to know 
more about. With military, I expect it since the main purpose of ALE is 
to make things easier for the untrained radio operators. Actually, it 
might be more accurate to say the users since the intent is to make 
something easy to use for the end user, with minimal trng.

I am not a member of the hf groups. Thats all I need, yet another 
group(s) to join. I try to limit it to now more than a dozen at any one 
time.

I do some googling but did not come up with any specifics other than the 
usual folks discussing this sort of thing. Since you have the knowlege 
of the amount of use, perhaps you could share that information.

Rick


expeditionradio wrote:

>>Rick KV9U wrote:
>>If ALE played a huge part in Katrina, it was one of the best kept 
>>secrets.
>>
>>
>
>Hi Rick,
>
>There was substantial use of ALE during the Katrina disaster.
>I monitored rather intense ALE comms by Coast Guard rescue helicopters
>and vessels, which were using ALE extensively. There was also ALE use
>by ham radio operators involved in relief efforts. 
>
>If you enter "Katrina" in the search feature of either the HFLINK
>group or the HFNOW group, you will find some of the real time reports
>by hams involved in ALE use in the Katrina Disaster. There are also
>some reports on there about ALE use by government and non-government
>entities involved in the relief. 
>
>As you may remember, there was a serious solar storm that disruped
>normal HF propagation during the disaster recovery efforts. Those who
>were using ALE were able to take advantage of the unpredictable
>propagation to pass traffic, especially band openings where there were
>no nets in operation. 
>
>Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Other areas of interest:
>
>The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Dave,

But did you not just state "In today's world, (e) 
is arguably the most important"

To me your statement read that you placed 97.1(e) in the priority.

My purpose of the posting on Part 97.1 was to 
make a point that the rules are very much 
interpreted by all that read them, to include the 
entire basis for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service.

I believe the bandwidth on this forum would be 
much better utilized to discuss the technical 
aspects of digital radio communications and to 
assist our fellow Amateurs seeking help with the 
digital modes rather than moving off focus. The 
statement intent of intent for focus of this 
forum lists many protocols and tools and I think is pretty clear as follows:

" This is a meeting place to discuss amateur 
radio digital applications such as RTTY, CW, 
PSK31,PSK63/125, MFSK16, Olivia-MFSK, PAX, 
Chip64, DominoEX, THROB, ALE, PACTOR, AMTOR, 
HELL, SSTV, Digital SSTV, and more. There are 
several reflectors dedicated to these separate 
modes but this group focuses on ALL digital 
modes. Software applications such as MixW, 
Logger32, MMVARI, MMTTY, MultiPSK, Hamscope, 
Winwarbler/DXLAB, Digipan, etc, etc, are often 
discussed. Theory of digital communications is 
encouraged. Experimentation with new digital modes is also encouraged.
Questions from newcomers are welcome"

If is of course all up to Andy as to the direction personality of this forum.

Personally, I am interested in discussing many 
aspects of Amateur Digital Communications and of 
course those of which I am most involved will be 
of more interest to me than ones that I am not so 
much involved. I do not knock another digital 
mode for its existence or use, I look for ways to 
coexist with all modes. I am not pushing 
anything, just interested in discussing the 
technical aspects of technology and being of assistance,
this is where I am coming from in my use of this forum.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 10:39 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>No priority is stated, thus all of the principles set forth in §97.1
>are equally important.
>
>In particular, no one can claim that one activity is more important
>than another solely because its applicable principle has a lower
>ordinal.
>
>This is not a matter of interpretation. Regulations are explicit when
>they convey an order of priority.
>
>73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > We have a fundamental difference of opinion here
> > which I feel speaks volumes on your part.
> >
> > So tell us, as you feel 97.1(e) should be first,
> > what order would you place the others ?
> >
> >
> > /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> >
> > At 10:01 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
> > >There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in
> > >§97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made
> > >explicit.
> > >
> > >In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important.
> > >
> > > 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: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Dave Bernstein]

No priority is stated, thus all of the principles set forth in §97.1 
are equally important.

In particular, no one can claim that one activity is more important 
than another solely because its applicable principle has a lower 
ordinal.

This is not a matter of interpretation. Regulations are explicit when 
they convey an order of priority. 

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Dave,
> 
> We have a fundamental difference of opinion here 
> which I feel speaks volumes on your part.
> 
> So tell us, as you feel 97.1(e) should be first, 
> what order would you place the others ?
> 
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 
> At 10:01 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
> >There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in
> >§97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made
> >explicit.
> >
> >In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> >Dave, AA6YQ
>







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

I think that it would be great if PC-ALE (and Olivia or PSK programs) 
would log RX QSOs in something like WOTA automatically.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 8:50 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> Another approach is the "Who's on the Air?" database, which is under
> development. See
>
> http://www.wotadb.org/


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: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Steve Hajducek]

Dave,

We have a fundamental difference of opinion here 
which I feel speaks volumes on your part.

So tell us, as you feel 97.1(e) should be first, 
what order would you place the others ?


/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 10:01 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in
>§97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made
>explicit.
>
>In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important.
>
> 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: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Dave Bernstein]

There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in 
§97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made 
explicit. 

In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I just want to make one observation regarding the 
> Amateur Radio Service (ARS) from a strictly U.S. 
> Amateur perspective as you to are U.S. based. 
> That observation is with respect to FCC Part 97.1 
> below, in the order of priority listed, I pretty 
> much think it sums it all up pretty well, don't you?
> 
> Now, anyone for some "Digital Radio" technical 
> exchanges in the spirit of Part 97.1 and the 
> similar basis and purpose for the Amateur Radio 
> Service that bond Amateurs around the world?
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 
> 
> §97.1 Basis and purpose.
> 
> The rules and regulations in this Part are 
> designed to provide an amateur radio service 
> having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following 
principles:
> 
> (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of 
> the amateur service to the public as a voluntary 
> noncommercial communication service, particularly 
> with respect to providing emergency communications.
> 
> (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's 
> proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
> 
> (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur 
> service through rules which provide for advancing 
> skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
> 
> (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within 
> the amateur radio service of trained operators, 
> technicians, and electronics experts.
> 
> (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's 
> unique ability to enhance international goodwill.







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

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>snip<

I have no idea how much ALE will take root in the future via Amateur 
Radio period, I would love to see at least one station Sounding 24/7 
on each Amateur Band (excluding 60m) from 160-6m from every 
state/province of every country in the world for propagation study 
where all other stations just RX and there is not two-way comm. There 
are similar things taking place with ALE, but not a concerted world 
wide effort spanning MF through to VHF. The ARS is in the position to 
provide this valuable service that anyone could monitor. 

>>>There are already several active propagation beacon programs.

>>>The NCDXF and IARU operate a set of beacons positioned around the 
world that continously transmit on each amateur band between 20m and 
10m inclusively. The frequencies used by these beacons are allocated 
by the ITU. Each transmission includes stepwise reductions in power 
levels by powers of 10, which facilitates the assessment of openings. 
There are several free software applications that let you monitor HF 
beacons, including PropView, which is free and available via 
www.dxlabsuite.com . MFJ even has a hardware product!  See 
http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html .

>>>There is also the PropNet project, which uses PSK to assess 
propagation on the 160m to 2m bands. See http://www.propnet.org/ for 
a more detailed description.

>>>Steve, when you say "I would love to see at least one station 
Sounding 24/7 on each Amateur Band (excluding 60m) from 160-6m from 
every state/province of every country in the world for propagation 
study where all other stations just RX and there is not two-way 
comm.", have you done the math to compute the amount of spectrum that 
would be required to do this? 

>>>Personally, I find HF propagation fascinating, and continue to 
devote significant effort to its study. Beacons are a great help, but 
if every amateur were to start up there own HF beacon project, there 
would be few clear frequencies on which to hold QSOs! Before creating 
new beacon projects, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the 
existing efforts. It would be better to augment their momentum than 
to reinvent the wheel and consume more spectrum in the process.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

re: KATRINA and ALE - Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Rick,

I wanted to make this a separate message for some reading regarding 
ALE and Katrina, I do not know all the details of ALE use by all the 
agencies involved, many just take it for granted actually, below is 
an item to read related to the subject of ALE and Katrina that I have 
made note of in the past, I am sure if some did some research much 
more would be found. The purchasing of ALE equipments after Katrina 
has gone way up by the way.

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Clark_Andrew.pdf#search=%22%22Automatic%20Link%20Establishment%22%20Katrina%22

Also, the reason for all the ALE in everything Military is that they 
have learned HF ALE excels in "over-the-horizon" transmissions due to 
automatic selection of the best available frequency for a given 
communication path. As the Military has a limited number of available 
Tactical Satellite (TACSAT) channels within a given theatre, HF ALE 
has proven to be a reliable over-the-horizon communications 
replacement for TACSAT anywhere at any time 24/7.

Here is a message from my e-mail archives from that disaster: Bonnie 
and others are in a much better position to provide or point you to 
the Amateur Radio data from that period as I was involved with MARS 
activities and at that time we did not do things like posting 
monitoring reports.

To: "a Propagation Reflector" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Propagation] WD8ARZ ALE Propigation Report for Katrina Responders
From: "WD8ARZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:57:12 -0500
List-post: 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This e-mail posting is from the Radio Propagation Reflector that you're
currently subscribed to.  Refer to the end of this e-mail for 
directions on how
to change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe.
___-start-_

Ale scanning and sounding has generated the following so far today:

[17:45:43][FRQ 07065000][SND][ ][TWS][K4BYR ][AL0] BER 27 SN 06
[17:40:43][FRQ 14109500][SND][ ][TWS][K4BYR ][AL0] BER 23 SN 06
[17:39:44][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][K4BYR ][AL0] BER 30 SN 07
[17:39:28][FRQ 14109500][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 30 SN 09
[17:38:30][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 26 SN 06
[17:24:25][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 30 SN 07
[17:18:04][FRQ 10145500][AMD][KM4BA ][ENROUTE BROOKHAVEN MS RED CROSS
SHELTER]
[17:08:30][FRQ 14109500][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 30 SN 06
[16:47:25][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 29 SN 08
[16:38:59][FRQ 14109500][AMD][KF4 ][KF4IN DAN HERE TES]
[16:34:45][FRQ 14342500][FAILED ][KQ6XA ]
[16:33:06][FRQ 14342500][TO ][WB9QDL ][TIS][K4BYR ][AL0] BER 30 SN 07
[16:31:25][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 26 SN 06
[16:29:08][FRQ 14342500][TO ][WB9QDL ][TIS][K4BYR ][AL0] BER 25 SN 10
[16:27:44][FRQ 10145500][TO ][GPR ][TIS][KM4BA ][AL0] BER 30 SN 10
[16:03:30][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 24 SN 07
[16:00:29][FRQ 07065000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 28 SN 08
[15:32:31][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2M ][AL0] BER 22 SN 06
[15:32:26][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][KB2 ][AL0] BER 26 SN 05

73 from Bill - WD8ARZ


/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY









>If ALE played a huge part in Katrina, it was one of the best kept
>secrets. Each group with a particular agenda believes that their system
>was THE one that saved the day. For example Winlink 2000, by some
>accounts, preempted the ARRL NTS system. I heard the SHARES system
>active, but not passing very much traffic, I heard other nets in a
>similar vein. Since you can not easily copy Pactor traffic, even with
>the equipment, it is difficult to know what went on there. I suspect
>that most of the traffic was via government sat phone, HF links, and of
>course tactical communication which makes up the bulk of emergency
>traffic. Some of this information may not be possible to ever find out.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U


[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] Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Bill Aycock]

Steve-

Thanks for another copy of PART 97.1. Forgive me if I don't print it and 
add it to the other copies I already have. My problem is that I object to 
stopping at the end of Part 97.1(a). I agree that it is given elevated 
status by virtue of position (ie, being first) but that does not mean that 
all activity must comply with, and add to, that need to the exclusion of 
the rest of 97.1.

Believe me, if you take the pleasure parts of amateur radio out and leave 
only the duty parts, amateur radio will diminish to the point where our 
frequencies will be subject to auction, also. I would hate for Amateur 
radio to be killed by this trend.

I also object to the implication from you and Bonnie , and some others that 
the application of ALE to amateur radio is an advance in the "State of the 
Art", and any who don't agree are Luddites ( a favorite word of one of the 
other ALE pushers).  ALE is fine, in its place, but other services are FAR 
ahead, with reason, and in response to their own needs. They pay a price 
that I don't think is appropriate for us.

Bill-W4BSG

At 09:24 AM 8/27/2006 -0400, you wrote:


>Hi Bill,
>
>I just want to make one observation regarding the
>Amateur Radio Service (ARS) from a strictly U.S.
>Amateur perspective as you to are U.S. based.
>That observation is with respect to FCC Part 97.1
>below, in the order of priority listed, I pretty
>much think it sums it all up pretty well, don't you?
>
>Now, anyone for some "Digital Radio" technical
>exchanges in the spirit of Part 97.1 and the
>similar basis and purpose for the Amateur Radio
>Service that bond Amateurs around the world?
>
>/s/ Steve, N2CKH
>
>
>§97.1 Basis and purpose.
>
>The rules and regulations in this Part are
>designed to provide an amateur radio service
>having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
>
>(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of
>the amateur service to the public as a voluntary
>noncommercial communication service, particularly
>with respect to providing emergency communications.
>
>(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's
>proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
>
>(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur
>service through rules which provide for advancing
>skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
>
>(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within
>the amateur radio service of trained operators,
>technicians, and electronics experts.
>
>(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's
>unique ability to enhance international goodwill.
>
>
>At 10:16 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>
> >Again, Bonnie is using loaded words to bolster an argument that really
> >needs help to be heard. Here, she repeats the word "Random many times and
> >uses loaded words and phrases, like "Hobby pursuit", "Playful pastime",
> >"Curiosity", to "put-down" the things that don't agree with her view.  And,
> >again she insists on the use of "channel" instead of "frequency"
> >
> >She also tends to be an absolutist, as when she uses the word"Only" in her
> >subject line. Just as there are shades of gray instead of black and white,
> >and maybe in place of yes and no, there is room for co-existance, instead
> >of "only" on either side.
> >
> >One needs to read here arguments carefully; they tend to be crafted as an
> >advertising flack writes his stuff. (See, I can use loaded words[flack], 
> too).
> >
> >Bill-W4BSG
>
>
>[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
>
>
>
>

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama 




Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data

[Steve Hajducek]

GM Rick,

At 11:07 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>I do have an 80 amp  hour AGM battery under my operating position that
>is kept trickle charged. While this is not that common, there are some
>hams who have at least rudimentary backup power capability. In the last
>year or so, there was a poll to see how many ARES/RACES HF stations in
>our section had emergency power of some type. A fair number had none. Of
>the broader ham population, even fewer have emergency power.

Its an easy plug and play these days, many outfits like West Mountain 
offer enough selection of the needed hardware/cabling for common 
make/model radios to take a battery and remove your existing D.C. 
cables and Power Pole connect your existing D.C. power supply to do 
just that. Anyone who wants Amateur Radio comm when the A.C. fails 
and its not on some other system so do just this and plan to absorb 
the cost of battery replacement in x number of years.



>We do have emergency water for personal use and can cook with LP gas
>(that is partially why we have no electric range), but we would be in
>dire straits with water for cattle and would need help from emergency
>management. To maintain a week or two of power is nearly impossible
>since storage of fuel has safety and legal requirements. If you can not
>live here, emergency communication is of limited importance. The
>cheapest fuel storage I could get for diesel to meet the regs would have
>been well over $1000. And that was a price quote ten years ago. One
>alternative we have contemplated is using the LP gas but it is very
>pricey to set up a generator system.

I live in an all electric Log Home with well water here in NJ, no 
longer in the sticks though, my existence has been surrounded by 
townhouses and as soon as I can sell, its a planned relocation to the 
mountains of NC.
The drill here has been gas generator, I almost moved up to a large 
propane tank/automatic generator, but with the townhouses came many 
changes to the rules, so that is now planned for NC, as I desire 
fully automated switch over to backup power for the entire house and 
a propane system seems to be the most efficient and lease amount of 
maintenance in comparison to gas or diesel.


>We would not be too involved with communications issues during a severe
>emergency here as we would be trying our best to work with our immediate
>neighbors to help them survive. Many do not have back up power since you
>need rather large generators for dairy farms, even small ones. Some have
>3 point hitch generators that run off a tractor PTO, but as some found
>out a while back, they can suddenly fail and are difficult to repair in
>a "timely" manner.

Well in such discussions as have been talking place via this forum I 
do not believe that relating everything to an individual personal 
situation with set parameters and limitations is best. Providing 
examples of such certainly is noteworthy, but they should not be used 
for taking pro/con positions.


>Your ALE antenna is not something that I would normally have here at my
>QTH but one could set up such as system if they wanted NVIS
>communication. I am not too excited about complicated systems for
>emergencies. Things frequently can go wrong. Dependence on autotuners,
>computers, etc. all working well is problematic. With rigs, and a basic
>antenna, I have numerous backup systems. I only will buy ~ 12 vdc rigs
>so that they can connect to my dc bus as I have converted everything I
>can (both mobile and fixed) to Powerpole connections for ease in
>switching equipment.

My 400 foot random wire NVIS antenna is simple to install and needs 
no ATU from 4Mhz on up installed in the clear, add more wire and that 
bottom Fo can be lowered, but I have no room for more than 400 feet 
to test here, for details see see: http://www.n2ckh.com/AAR2EY_NVIS_ANTENNA.pdf

I am 95% 12 dc regarding radio equipments, some equipments only run 
off A.C., and a few are 24-28 vdc that are commercial/military in 
nature such as the MILCOM/UNIDEN 220Mhz amplifiers on my 1 1/4 meter 
repeater running off 28v Astron rack mount supplies, I got all that 
stuff NOS cheap, so there we have big rack mount UPS for short term backup.


>It will be interesting if ALE becomes common on your favorite band of 6
>meters. Normally, I just look at my scope on my ICOM 756 Pro 2 and see
>if there are signals on 6 meters or sometimes on 10 meters which can
>also be open.  Then again, if something  opens on 6, a local ham (50
>miles) puts out an e-mail to that effect on our "local" ham mail group.

I have no idea how much ALE will take root in the future via Amateur 
Radio period, I would love to see at least one station Sounding 24/7 
on each Amateur Band (excluding 60m) from 160-6m from every 
state/province of every country in the world for propagation study 
where all other stations just RX and there is not two-way comm. There 
are similar things taking place with ALE, but not a concerted world 
wide effor

[digitalradio] ALE use in Disaster Relief Comms, Katrina

[expeditionradio]

> Rick KV9U wrote:
> If ALE played a huge part in Katrina, it was one of the best kept 
> secrets.

Hi Rick,

There was substantial use of ALE during the Katrina disaster.
I monitored rather intense ALE comms by Coast Guard rescue helicopters
and vessels, which were using ALE extensively. There was also ALE use
by ham radio operators involved in relief efforts. 

If you enter "Katrina" in the search feature of either the HFLINK
group or the HFNOW group, you will find some of the real time reports
by hams involved in ALE use in the Katrina Disaster. There are also
some reports on there about ALE use by government and non-government
entities involved in the relief. 

As you may remember, there was a serious solar storm that disruped
normal HF propagation during the disaster recovery efforts. Those who
were using ALE were able to take advantage of the unpredictable
propagation to pass traffic, especially band openings where there were
no nets in operation. 

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

[KV9U]

Hi Steve,

I do have an 80 amp  hour AGM battery under my operating position that 
is kept trickle charged. While this is not that common, there are some 
hams who have at least rudimentary backup power capability. In the last 
year or so, there was a poll to see how many ARES/RACES HF stations in 
our section had emergency power of some type. A fair number had none. Of 
the broader ham population, even fewer have emergency power.

As one who has had a keen interest in following PV and home power for 
decades, even I have not spent the money to set up solar or even back up 
generator power. Due to shade on the house a panel would not work unless 
put some distance away.  I live on a small farm (~ 150 acres) and have 
several electrical services due to the layout here. In order to even 
have water from my deep well, I would have to have a generator running 
on the other side of the highway for that service. Then I would need 
another generator for the home.  I may change things here and someday 
have a back system of some type if I ever have a new well drilled but 
that is very pricey.

We do have emergency water for personal use and can cook with LP gas 
(that is partially why we have no electric range), but we would be in 
dire straits with water for cattle and would need help from emergency 
management. To maintain a week or two of power is nearly impossible 
since storage of fuel has safety and legal requirements. If you can not 
live here, emergency communication is of limited importance. The 
cheapest fuel storage I could get for diesel to meet the regs would have 
been well over $1000. And that was a price quote ten years ago. One 
alternative we have contemplated is using the LP gas but it is very 
pricey to set up a generator system.

We would not be too involved with communications issues during a severe 
emergency here as we would be trying our best to work with our immediate 
neighbors to help them survive. Many do not have back up power since you 
need rather large generators for dairy farms, even small ones. Some have 
3 point hitch generators that run off a tractor PTO, but as some found 
out a while back, they can suddenly fail and are difficult to repair in 
a "timely" manner.

Your ALE antenna is not something that I would normally have here at my 
QTH but one could set up such as system if they wanted NVIS 
communication. I am not too excited about complicated systems for 
emergencies. Things frequently can go wrong. Dependence on autotuners, 
computers, etc. all working well is problematic. With rigs, and a basic 
antenna, I have numerous backup systems. I only will buy ~ 12 vdc rigs 
so that they can connect to my dc bus as I have converted everything I 
can (both mobile and fixed) to Powerpole connections for ease in 
switching equipment.

It will be interesting if ALE becomes common on your favorite band of 6 
meters. Normally, I just look at my scope on my ICOM 756 Pro 2 and see 
if there are signals on 6 meters or sometimes on 10 meters which can 
also be open.  Then again, if something  opens on 6, a local ham (50 
miles) puts out an e-mail to that effect on our "local" ham mail group.

On having enough space for HF e-mail, it will be interesting how you 
think we can handle large amounts of traffic. Even the Winlink 2000 
folks moved closed down their world wide HF mail forwarding system some 
time back because they realized that things were too congested. It is OK 
for emergency use, of course, but as we have mentioned before, and 
concur with Bonnie, that in order to make a system work for emergency 
use, it also must be used for fun stuff too or it won't be operational 
when you most need it.

If ALE played a huge part in Katrina, it was one of the best kept 
secrets. Each group with a particular agenda believes that their system 
was THE one that saved the day. For example Winlink 2000, by some 
accounts, preempted the ARRL NTS system. I heard the SHARES system 
active, but not passing very much traffic, I heard other nets in a 
similar vein. Since you can not easily copy Pactor traffic, even with 
the equipment, it is difficult to know what went on there. I suspect 
that most of the traffic was via government sat phone, HF links, and of 
course tactical communication which makes up the bulk of emergency 
traffic. Some of this information may not be possible to ever find out.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Steve Hajducek wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>
>I just had to take a break from the .NET C++ compiler to reply to 
>this one, day job work and other demands have slow my responses the 
>past few days, although I will try to reply some of the other 
>messages flying about if I can make the time
>
>At 12:40 PM 8/26/2006, you wrote:
>  
>
>>Running a laptop under emergency conditions is not that practical other
>>than for short duration events. If you want to have ALE available you
>>need to keep the software running or else the ALE selcal would be
>>missed. For regular communications 

Re: [digitalradio] Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications? ...NOT

[KV9U]

Bonnie,

Ham radio is not only for random communications. You know that.  In 
fact, we all know that.

You asked earlier and I gave you many examples of being able to contact 
other hams on VHF repeaters, UHF simplex, HF "local frequencies," and at 
one time with packet messaging.

Your entire premise of something being "lost" is complete nonsense. We 
continue to do today what we have always done. Most of it on HF is going 
to be a CQ call.

You then go on to contradict your very premise with pointing out the 
many ways that those who wish to do non-random contacts may do so by 
having skeds or nets.

An honest appraisal would show that we now have more ... not less ... 
ways to set up non-random contacts. Primarily with the big one: the 
internet.

This includes skeds via the special internet sites for MS, EME, digital 
modes, DX clusters and other special interests.

Contrast that with, HP Maxim's time where radio only went a few dozen 
miles at best. It was by necessity that the ARRL was set up if any 
reasonable distance was to be covered to send a message. Today that is 
rarely needed due to the amazing advances in equipment and knowlege of 
propagation.

73,

Rick, KV9U




expeditionradio wrote:

>For communication between two ham radio stations to exist, 
>some type of starting point is required. 
>
>In ham radio, the importance of this fundamental initial 
>starting point has gradually been lost, while heavy emphasis 
>has been placed upon the body of the communication or the 
>technique of the radio medium itself. 
>
>This has resulted in an entire ham radio culture built upon 
>varying degrees of random communication. A random 
>communication has great value as a hobby pursuit, a playful pastime, 
>an exploration, or a curiosity. Many hams have never known 
>anything but this randomness and are therefore content with it 
>or have accepted it as status quo.
>
>Hams are by and large, traditionally most familiar with the starting
>points of random communications, characterized by the most famous
>starting point, the CQ. The operator can turn on the radio, call
>CQ, and possibly start up a random communication if another ham
>happens to be randomly listening on the same channel or dialing 
>the VFO. The longer the CQ, the better the chance of the random QSO. 
> 
>A non-random or less-random communication however, requires a 
>more definite and intentional starting point. Many hams are 
>interested in non-random communication. There is a need to 
>further the state of the art for initiating communication 
>between specific hams and groups of hams. 
>
>Hams traditionally have employed some less-random techniques to 
>generate a more intentional or controllable starting point for 
>less-random communications. Most of the common techniques use
>manual monitoring of some kind:
>
>1. Dial up a specific frequency or channel or repeater, and roll the
>dice that the other ham is manually listening to the radio speaker 
>at that moment on that channel for your call.
>
>2. Regularly scheduled QSOs: Get on the air at a pre-determined
>channel and pre-arranged time every day. Call and monitor it.
>
>3. Regularly scheduled nets: A larger group of hams gets on the 
>air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day. 
>
>The ARRL was founded upon a relay network of hams using 
>some of the above techniques. For the ARRL network, Maxim placed a 
>good deal of importance on inititating non-random communications 
>through regimentation of operators and standardizing techniques.  
>
>There are other techniques that some hams have been using to 
>achieve non-random communication starting points. We can explore 
>these in future postings and discussion on this group.
>
>Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>
>.
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>Other areas of interest:
>
>The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
>DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Bill,

I just want to make one observation regarding the 
Amateur Radio Service (ARS) from a strictly U.S. 
Amateur perspective as you to are U.S. based. 
That observation is with respect to FCC Part 97.1 
below, in the order of priority listed, I pretty 
much think it sums it all up pretty well, don't you?

Now, anyone for some "Digital Radio" technical 
exchanges in the spirit of Part 97.1 and the 
similar basis and purpose for the Amateur Radio 
Service that bond Amateurs around the world?

/s/ Steve, N2CKH


§97.1 Basis and purpose.

The rules and regulations in this Part are 
designed to provide an amateur radio service 
having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of 
the amateur service to the public as a voluntary 
noncommercial communication service, particularly 
with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's 
proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur 
service through rules which provide for advancing 
skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within 
the amateur radio service of trained operators, 
technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's 
unique ability to enhance international goodwill.


At 10:16 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:

>Again, Bonnie is using loaded words to bolster an argument that really
>needs help to be heard. Here, she repeats the word "Random many times and
>uses loaded words and phrases, like "Hobby pursuit", "Playful pastime",
>"Curiosity", to "put-down" the things that don't agree with her view.  And,
>again she insists on the use of "channel" instead of "frequency"
>
>She also tends to be an absolutist, as when she uses the word"Only" in her
>subject line. Just as there are shades of gray instead of black and white,
>and maybe in place of yes and no, there is room for co-existance, instead
>of "only" on either side.
>
>One needs to read here arguments carefully; they tend to be crafted as an
>advertising flack writes his stuff. (See, I can use loaded words[flack], too).
>
>Bill-W4BSG


[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] Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?

[Bill Aycock]

Again, Bonnie is using loaded words to bolster an argument that really 
needs help to be heard. Here, she repeats the word "Random many times and 
uses loaded words and phrases, like "Hobby pursuit", "Playful pastime", 
"Curiosity", to "put-down" the things that don't agree with her view.  And, 
again she insists on the use of "channel" instead of "frequency"

She also tends to be an absolutist, as when she uses the word"Only" in her 
subject line. Just as there are shades of gray instead of black and white, 
and maybe in place of yes and no, there is room for co-existance, instead 
of "only" on either side.

One needs to read here arguments carefully; they tend to be crafted as an 
advertising flack writes his stuff. (See, I can use loaded words[flack], too).

Bill-W4BSG

At 02:38 AM 8/27/2006 +, you wrote:

>For communication between two ham radio stations to exist,
>some type of starting point is required.
>
>In ham radio, the importance of this fundamental initial
>starting point has gradually been lost, while heavy emphasis
>has been placed upon the body of the communication or the
>technique of the radio medium itself.
>
>This has resulted in an entire ham radio culture built upon
>varying degrees of random communication. A random
>communication has great value as a hobby pursuit, a playful pastime,
>an exploration, or a curiosity. Many hams have never known
>anything but this randomness and are therefore content with it
>or have accepted it as status quo.
>
>Hams are by and large, traditionally most familiar with the starting
>points of random communications, characterized by the most famous
>starting point, the CQ. The operator can turn on the radio, call
>CQ, and possibly start up a random communication if another ham
>happens to be randomly listening on the same channel or dialing
>the VFO. The longer the CQ, the better the chance of the random QSO.
>
>A non-random or less-random communication however, requires a
>more definite and intentional starting point. Many hams are
>interested in non-random communication. There is a need to
>further the state of the art for initiating communication
>between specific hams and groups of hams.
>
>Hams traditionally have employed some less-random techniques to
>generate a more intentional or controllable starting point for
>less-random communications. Most of the common techniques use
>manual monitoring of some kind:
>
>1. Dial up a specific frequency or channel or repeater, and roll the
>dice that the other ham is manually listening to the radio speaker
>at that moment on that channel for your call.
>
>2. Regularly scheduled QSOs: Get on the air at a pre-determined
>channel and pre-arranged time every day. Call and monitor it.
>
>3. Regularly scheduled nets: A larger group of hams gets on the
>air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day.
>
>The ARRL was founded upon a relay network of hams using
>some of the above techniques. For the ARRL network, Maxim placed a
>good deal of importance on inititating non-random communications
>through regimentation of operators and standardizing techniques.
>
>There are other techniques that some hams have been using to
>achieve non-random communication starting points. We can explore
>these in future postings and discussion on this group.
>
>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
>
>
>
>

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/