Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Corrects J2D 500Hz Bandwidth Error
HI Bonnie and the others commenting.. I certainly do not hate any mode but I believe that there are some incompatible uses of the bands that need to be separated given the number of inconsiderate operators that seem to be out there. I do not like getting stomped on by an operator using a mode that does not back off nor whom did not appear to listen to see if I was there. Especially so when they are calling a semi-automatic node that per the called station's web page does not exist. So I believe, and have commented to the FCC, that both semi-automatic and automatic stations need to be kept away from person to person operating. I have been in a narrow band QSO (psk31 on 40 meters) when a Pactor station starts up on top of me. When I go check the call sign they are trying to contact, that ham's web page does not include the frequency I was on. And I could not report most of the inconsiderate operators as only a few had a CW ID at the end of their connect attempt. (The one that did was an NTS operator.) So then I go pick frequencies on 40 meters that seem to be in between the published frequencies used by Pactor then the Pactor station switches from II to III and I am stomped on again. Once I watched the entire 20m psk31 band (with half a dozen QSOs underway including me) blown away. Even better would be modems that could detect existing signals, with some community agreed upon standard, and then back off for a while to make sure the QSO is over. If the station was waiting to move traffic, then delaying until the end of my QSO should not be a big deal. I also like the wider Olivia or MT63 modes for keyboard to keyboard QSOs - they have worked for me cross country when the narrower less robust modes did not work. I was listening to my radio and watching the waterfall to make sure that to the best of my local hearing I was not on top of someone else. As was the guy on the other end. So having the FCC modify the new published rule is a move I support. Even better would be the regulation by bandwidth that does not force data modes into 1/5th the band. Then leave the bottom fifth to be the narrow modes region and put the semi-auto and auto stations up in the wider band section of the band. 73, Tom n4zpt expeditionradio wrote: > It is now high time for all the PACTOR-haters to eat crow :) >
Re: [digitalradio] Proposed: New 80meter Bandplan for USA
Well, my vote would be to restrict semi-automatic and automatic stations to the top 20 KHz or less in the below proposal. And just have the rest be all modes less than 500 hertz. Or wait until the NPRM comes out for the management by bandwidth where the wider data modes would be permitted in the other 80 percent of the 80 meter band. And put both the semi-automatic and automatic modes up in the wider area. 73, Tom Azlin n4zpt expeditionradio wrote: > Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA > > 3500-3540 = CW > 3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes. > 3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto. > 3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto. > > --- > Proposed New Calling Frequencies > 3539 QRP CW > 3545+ PSK31 > 3548+ PSK63, MFSK16, Olivia500, etc > 3552+ Hell, etc > 3555+ RTTY, FSK, etc > > -- > Date: 22 Nov 2006 > Proposed By: Bonnie KQ6XA >
Re: [digitalradio] Proposed: New 80meter Bandplan for USA
It seems to me that CW will be more toward the bottom of the band and Data/RTTY will be more toward the top of the band. Sometimes CW will be over the entire band and it is possible for Data, particularly RTTY during a contest, to be over much of the band too. I certainly do not expect the FCC to reinstate an area for automatic operation since the remaining 80 meter band is too small for this vis a vis the amount of traffic on this band. Remember that semi-automatic is permitted in any part of the Data/RTTY areas as long as the bandwidth of the stations are not wider than 500 Hz. So Pactor 2 BBS systems can still operate. Same with PSKmail systems. The only time fully automatic stations can operate is if they are within a designated automatic area of the band. Also, the only time a wide band mode (anything over 500 Hz), such as Pactor 3 can be used in even semi-automatic mode is within a designated automatic area of the band. The automatic area of the 80 meter band should be ended on Dec 15th. Even an unattended PAX2 BBS will no longer be legal and in the past could only operate from the automatic area of the band. After all the concern about not being able to operate these high speed serial modems on the U.S. HF bands, how many hams are using them for sending of images/FAX in the phone section where it is legal to do so? If not, why not? 73, Rick, KV9U Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: >Somehow I doubt the non-extra-class CW ops will go for a >15 kHz segment (3525-3540) > >Since 25% of the non-phone band is extra-only, wouldn't it >make sense to designate some of the extra-only sub-band >as digital? Not all extra-class operators operate CW. > >expeditionradio wrote: > > >>Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA >> >>3500-3540 = CW >>3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes. >>3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto. >>3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto. >> >>
Re: [digitalradio] Q15X25 on HF
Hello Rick, As far as I know, there are very few specifications about Q15X25, only generalities. However, for HF, the minimum S/N is certainly too high (surely around -1 to +1 dB). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Q15X25 on HF John, From everything we could find, Q15X25 never really worked very well and was abandoned as a replacement for AX.25 packet. Consider that instead of adding this mode to Multipsk, Patrick came up with the PAX modes, although they are not 8 bit ASCII. We know what we MUST do to improve sound card modes. The programmers should look to the most successful modes and pick and choose from those modes what works the best and go from there. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: >has anyone tried Q15X25 on hf , or are interested in trying? > > >John >VE5MU > > > >-- > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.13/546 - Release Date: 11/22/2006 > > >
Re: [digitalradio] MFSK 16 Beacon
Hello Simon, >So what about the different bandwidth? Assuming SSB is 2.4 kHz and PSK31 is 31 >Hz, is there >an extra advantage here of 800 (19 dB or whatever) as well? The bandwidth is already taken into account. The standard bandwidth for determining S/N is 3 KHz. The small bandwidth of PSK31 is one of the reason why PSK31 is better than SSB. Speed modulation, type of modulation and coding do the S/N. In general for the same coding, the bandwidth is reversely linear with the S/N. Example: * S/N of PAX: -6 dB * S/N of PAX2 (which twice more rapid that PAX and so has twice more bandwidth): -3 dB. It's true for PSK31 and PSK63 and so on. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Simon Brown To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MFSK 16 Beacon Thanks Patrick, So what about the different bandwidth? Assuming SSB is 2.4 kHz and PSK31 is 31 Hz, is there an extra advantage here of 800 (19 dB or whatever) as well? IMO Digital Modes are ideal for QRP and for those who want to get away from the screaming guys with 1,000m towers and 10kW amplifiers. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker Hello Simon, I measured the minimum S/N (in general for about 2 % of errors) for all the Multipsk modes (look at the chapter "RX/TX modes selection and their descriptions" in my help). I did not measure in fact the minimum S/B for a SSB QSO. I suppose that for two Hams speaking in the same native language and with a normal pronunciation, the minimum S/N must be about 0 dB, but I think it is very variable. For aural CW , it is supposed to be -15/-20 dB for very good CWers (and I put this figure in my help). However, I tested myself at 20 wpm (my level must be considered as not very good, see weak, in CW) with a CW signal in gaussian noise. I could decode only to about -5 dB, so the human psychoacoustic dynamic must be very large... 73 Patrick
Re: [digitalradio] USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms for Hams Re: RFSM2400
Rick, To me it all depends on "the channel behavior". On HF, with multipath, the parallel modem wins because the simbols can be made longer than the delay spread. Just observing the succesful implementations may lead anyone to see that in an ionospheric channel, generally, parallel tone modems wins. There are many examples, like the Thales parallel tone modems, DRM, WinDRM, the russian ninetysome tones modem, etc. On HF, a serial modem can only have an edge close to the MUF, which is a dwindling parameter I used 1200 bauds Bell 202 packet links for BBS forwarding on HF (20, 15 and 10 meters), and did generally well on 10, most of the times on 15 and sometimes on 20. On 20, there were excellent days, and very bad days with almost nil thruput. Pactor II achieves 10 times the thruput of a 300 baud link, on 20 and 40 m, consistently. Even for moonbounce and tropo, parallel tones have an edge. The PUA43 protocol, JT44, JT65, etc, do have an edge. I would have to reread the manuals, since I was interested on that too but real life commitments, hurricanes that forced me to take down the antennas , etc, have had negative effects on my wishlist. And believe it or not, I have found that the safest place for an antenna is in top of a mast. Down at chest level, it is very easy for anyone to inadvertently get tangled in the wires and rods and do the damage that you intended to avoid the hurricane to do8-( Jose, CO2JA KV9U wrote: > When I make the statement that there is not much difference between > the parallel and serial modems, I should have clarified this in terms > of the performance results. In other words, you could have either one > with similar results. According to one source: > > http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TacCom/papers98/11_04i.pdf > > The tradeoffs are such that the serial modem requires equalization > and robust error correction, but can give you similar results to the > parallel modem. But eventually, the parallel modem may outperform > the serial modem. > > It seems that it is Bonnie's contention that these high speed serial > modems are the advanced kind of technology we need on amateur radio. > > But it just seems that we already have an equivalent modem to the > high speed serial modem with our parallel modems that are able to run > with similar speeds due to multiple parallel tones vs. a high speed > serial tone. Not that I oppose high speed serial modems. I question > whether they really are an advance over what we already have. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U __ XIII Convención Científica de Ingeniería y Arquitectura 28/noviembre al 1/diciembre de 2006 Cujae, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/convencion
Re: [digitalradio] Proposed: New 80meter Bandplan for USA
Somehow I doubt the non-extra-class CW ops will go for a 15 kHz segment (3525-3540) Since 25% of the non-phone band is extra-only, wouldn't it make sense to designate some of the extra-only sub-band as digital? Not all extra-class operators operate CW. expeditionradio wrote: > Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA > > 3500-3540 = CW > 3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes. > 3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto. > 3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D
jgorman01 wrote: > I didn't say it was "J" and you didn't answer the questions. What > frequency would it be tuned to, i.e. the main carrier and is it > considered SSB? It could be SSB, DSB, FM, etc. > > Jim WA0LYK OK, I did not mean you said it is Jxx, and I am glad you did not. > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > jgorman01 wrote: > > > >> Need to know some more info. > >> > >> Is it SSB? No, it is not SSB. It is the baseband modulation, a spectrum chunk, frequency shifted. Where is the main carrier located (suppressed or not)? There is no main carrier in such multitone modulations. You might define a certain heterodyne frequency, like in satellite transponders, which you should tune in your radio to shift the RF spectrum into your demodulator input band. There is not (or should not be) any emission detectable at all in that frequency. Does anyone remember the old telephone long distance FDM multiplex equipment principles and how groups and supergroups were formed and channels recovered? The same applies here. > >> Jim WA0LYK > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller wrote: > >> > >>> Lets look into the future. What would be the emissions > >>> designator for MT63 or PACTOR III if the DSP and D/A converter > >>> that I was using output something in the 20 meter frequency > >>> range, no SSB transmitter at all? > >> > Given that all of the power in an OFDM signal is in the data > > subcarriers > > (and in one sideband) with the RF carrier is suppressed, it > sure > > > > sounds like > > > J2 to me. My understanding is that Jxx should only apply to ANALOG signals, i.e., audio. Otherwise, the J designator obscures the designation, because it does not truly reflect what you run into in the RF spectrum. A SSB transmitter is a frequency shifter, a transponder that does not modify the signal it is fed, (excepting the unavoidable distortion that real devices introduce) other than doing a frequency translation, like an audio to RF transponder. And since it does not modify the spectrum chunk it is fed, the baseband modulation designator, whatever it may be, still applies. Jose, CO2JA __ XIII Convención Científica de Ingeniería y Arquitectura 28/noviembre al 1/diciembre de 2006 Cujae, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/convencion
Re: [digitalradio] MFSK 16 Beacon
Thanks Patrick, So what about the different bandwidth? Assuming SSB is 2.4 kHz and PSK31 is 31 Hz, is there an extra advantage here of 800 (19 dB or whatever) as well? IMO Digital Modes are ideal for QRP and for those who want to get away from the screaming guys with 1,000m towers and 10kW amplifiers. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker Hello Simon, I measured the minimum S/N (in general for about 2 % of errors) for all the Multipsk modes (look at the chapter "RX/TX modes selection and their descriptions" in my help). I did not measure in fact the minimum S/B for a SSB QSO. I suppose that for two Hams speaking in the same native language and with a normal pronunciation, the minimum S/N must be about 0 dB, but I think it is very variable. For aural CW , it is supposed to be -15/-20 dB for very good CWers (and I put this figure in my help). However, I tested myself at 20 wpm (my level must be considered as not very good, see weak, in CW) with a CW signal in gaussian noise. I could decode only to about -5 dB, so the human psychoacoustic dynamic must be very large... 73 Patrick
Re: [digitalradio] Q15X25 on HF
John, From everything we could find, Q15X25 never really worked very well and was abandoned as a replacement for AX.25 packet. Consider that instead of adding this mode to Multipsk, Patrick came up with the PAX modes, although they are not 8 bit ASCII. We know what we MUST do to improve sound card modes. The programmers should look to the most successful modes and pick and choose from those modes what works the best and go from there. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: >has anyone tried Q15X25 on hf , or are interested in trying? > > >John >VE5MU > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.13/546 - Release Date: 11/22/2006 > > >
[digitalradio] Proposed: New 80meter Bandplan for USA
Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA 3500-3540 = CW 3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes. 3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto. 3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto. --- Proposed New Calling Frequencies 3539 QRP CW 3545+ PSK31 3548+ PSK63, MFSK16, Olivia500, etc 3552+ Hell, etc 3555+ RTTY, FSK, etc -- Date: 22 Nov 2006 Proposed By: Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] MIL-STD 188-110 Modem
I would like to hear of the results from those who are able to try these modems. I wish I could find someone who would operate 6 meter digital but have never been able to do so, even though I have promoted this for years here in Wisconsin. It has been very disappointing to me that even though we made the licenses easier to get, the new hams really don't use their license capabilities even thought we have low cost multiband/multimode equipment that easily lets them do it. One of the main problems with these high speed modems is that I doubt that they will even work into zero db S/N ratio, but the only way to know is try them out. We already know how incredibly well SCAMP worked, but you had to have a good signal of around 10 db, or no throughput. Once you hit that that point though, it would just scream on HF. So having an adaptable modem for HF is something that some genius ham will eventually do. Have any of you folks compared the MIL-STD 188 modem to the existing popular image/FAX modes? What kind of performance differences have you seen? 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: > >Hi Rick, > >You can easily download PCALE and try the MIL-STD 188-110 modem in it >for comparison against packet. > >http://hflink.com > >I have used it, and it works... I've sent photos with it in the USA HF >phone bands. > >The MIL-STD 188-110 modem is built into PCALE. >The FS-1052 settings are adjustable for various data rates from 75 to >2400, with long or short interleave. > >You will need 3kHz audio bandwidth, so if you have one of the newer >DSP-IF transceivers, such as IC-756pro, you can select the wider >transmit and receive bandwith, and that is sufficient. > >There are also 2 other software modems that are non-standard 188-110, >good for the more narrow bandwidth of ham transceivers (~2.7kHz). >One of those is the RFSM "2400" modem by IDE Group and the other one >is built into MARS-ALE (but only available to MARS members). > >The format of the RFSM 2400 modem data does not seem to be compatible >with the 110 modem in PCALE presently. > >Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Corrects J2D 500Hz Bandwidth Error
Bill, The FCC is very clear about ALE being completely legal to use on voice frequencies for signaling purposes. You would not even have any particular restriction on baud rate either. This whole "eat crow" nonsense is coming from one person. The fact is that the FCC's decisions have been shockingly amateurish with many errors in their own R&O and final rule. They are saying things that are mutually exclusive and seem to not even be aware of it. Such as not removing the automatic operation area on 80 meters from the rules, even though this type of operation will not be possible in the area that has been set aside for years. What is the most annoying is their statement that no one loses any privileges, when in fact, it is a huge loss to many. The main beneficieries are the phone operators. In terms of the wide modes, Pactor 3, or even any of them, it will be extremely inappropriate to be using modes over 500 Hz in the ultra narrow CW/DATA/RTTY area of 80 meters. In fact, it is my recommendation that a bandplan be developed to reflect that view, except during low usage of the band, such as during the daytime, and perhaps during extremely noisy conditions such as summer evenings. This subband is really only twice the size of 30 meters now and during good propagation and a lot of activity, DXing, contests, NTS nets, etc., good operators will not use wide modes. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill McLaughlin wrote: >Guess time will tell Bonnie, I do not hate Pactor (hard to hate a >mode) just hate when it transmits on an existing QSOthink this >will sort out eventually for best or worse...have heard many (no >names mentioned) that various modes would be illegal and a death bell >would toll for many. Even heard people saying 80 meter ALE would move >to 3.587 in response to the Omnibus ruling. Time will tell as to who >over/under reacted and how we as a community will adjust. Not sure >claiming others will "eat crow" is in the best spirit thoughas >usual I may well be wrong. > >73, Bill N9DSJ > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: STANAG 4285
thanks Steinar I am not a linux user so will wait for the windows version... will let you know when VE5TLW and myself are on one of these modes. John VE5MU - Original Message - From: radionorway To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: STANAG 4285 Hi John, Some of my message seems to have disappeared. I can see them on the yahoo web, but not in the mailing list. I don't know what's happen , but here I try again. There is no new version of RFSM2400. The 04 is the last one. The only freeware of STANAG I have found is open5066: http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page 73 de LA5VNA Steinar --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Steinar > > Is there any Freeware or shareware source for STANAG 4285 software? > > Would be interested in trying this mode, both locally and on 20M to see how it stands up. > > Has our Russian friend come up with another version of RFSM2400 yet? > > thanks > > > John > VE5MU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D
Thank you for the note. If it is designed the way you say (and this is not contraindicated by the document I provided a link to) then the bauds in the detector will be orthogonal. 73's Bob N4HY cesco12342000 wrote: >> relevant to its classification to OFDM. Which it is NOT. The >> > carriers > >> are on 120 Hz centers and the baud times are 100 Hz. Because the >> > baud > >> time is not commensurate with angular frequency of the carriers, the >> dot products are not zero and therefore, they are NOT orthogonal in >> PACTOR-III. >> > > I do not agree. > > 100 baud means 10ms/symbol, of which 8.33ms symbol time, 1.66ms guard > interval. Carrier spacing is 1000ms/8.33ms = 120hz. > > The carrier spacing is orthogonal to the "integration time", and not > to "integration time + guard intervall". It's exacly like all the other > ofdm systems. > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair "If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoffer
[digitalradio] Re: STANAG 4285
Hi John, Some of my message seems to have disappeared. I can see them on the yahoo web, but not in the mailing list. I don't know what's happen , but here I try again. There is no new version of RFSM2400. The 04 is the last one. The only freeware of STANAG I have found is open5066: http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page 73 de LA5VNA Steinar --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Steinar > > Is there any Freeware or shareware source for STANAG 4285 software? > > Would be interested in trying this mode, both locally and on 20M to see how it stands up. > > Has our Russian friend come up with another version of RFSM2400 yet? > > thanks > > > John > VE5MU >
[digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D
> relevant to its classification to OFDM. Which it is NOT. The carriers > are on 120 Hz centers and the baud times are 100 Hz. Because the baud > time is not commensurate with angular frequency of the carriers, the > dot products are not zero and therefore, they are NOT orthogonal in > PACTOR-III. I do not agree. 100 baud means 10ms/symbol, of which 8.33ms symbol time, 1.66ms guard interval. Carrier spacing is 1000ms/8.33ms = 120hz. The carrier spacing is orthogonal to the "integration time", and not to "integration time + guard intervall". It's exacly like all the other ofdm systems.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Corrects J2D 500Hz Bandwidth Error
expeditionradio wrote: > Respectfully, Roger, if you are one of the many who were jumping up > and down on the "PACTOR3 illegal" bandwagon, then it is certainly > time for you to eat crow. If you were not, then don't worry about it. > But, I do notice that the most vocal PACTOR-haters are conspicuously > silent right now for some reason. :) > > Bonnie KQ6XA I do not notice that. I do reiterate that contrary to what you were reporting on this forum, the FCC has now made it plain that: a) the regs as originally promulgated, did make Pactor 3 and certain other modes illegal; and b) they are hopefully going to make modifications that will affect some modes such that these modes will be permitted. Your cheery email last weekend that "Pactor 3 is OK, etc." is therefore now proven to have been wrong. For all I know, automated modes lacking control ops, will remain illegal as many amateurs believe they should be. I used to run Pactor 1 and 2, and I still own a PTC-II modem. I now do not operate Pactor, because keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor qsos are essentially extinct, as far as I can tell. Most Pactor communications seem to consist of radio-to-internet messages from boaters. I do question whether this sort of traffic is really traditional amateur radio or appropriate for amateur radio. Many question this. It has nothing to do with whether anyone "hates" Pactor--as someone else recently posted, it is senseless to hate a mode. Disliking certain operating practices, i.e. someone who transmits without listening first to see if a channel is clear--that is something different. This practice is particularly destructive when it involves a wide band mode since obviously a wide band mode like Pactor 3 has the potential to interfere with more innocent stations than a narrow-band mode. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Corrects J2D 500Hz Bandwidth Error
> Meaning no offense, but I would say that it is you that is proven > wrong. You have been stating that the regulations as recently > promulgated (not after the corrections that we are now promised) > made Pactor 3 legal. > de Roger W6VZV > Respectfully, Roger, if you are one of the many who were jumping up and down on the "PACTOR3 illegal" bandwagon, then it is certainly time for you to eat crow. If you were not, then don't worry about it. But, I do notice that the most vocal PACTOR-haters are conspicuously silent right now for some reason. :) Bonnie KQ6XA
