[digitalradio] Re: FT990 and PSK

[Andrew O'Brien]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "tm303" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm using the microHam USB II with the 990 and I can't get it to 
work
> on PSK.  I've tried Logger32, MMVARI, and N1MM programs to no 
avail. 
> I was told by Joe at microHam to use the 990 in the Packet position
> but the freq goes down below 14.000 on 20 meters.  I can't hear any
> PSK on an external receiver when I transmit above 14.000.  I can't
> receive any signals either.  Everything works fine with MMTY and
> EDFSK.  Just no luck with PSK.
> 
> Any suggestions?


This is very odd. If your rig goes in to transmit mode when your 
execute a transmit command, I assume that your USB II is working 
correctly.  Does the USB II use the same device router that other 
Microham products use?  If so,  does it use the same "audio 
switching" ?  With my Microkeyer I somtimes have not audio out 
because I selected the wrong audio out via the device router.  This 
would not effect receive though.  Can you receive PSK without the USB 
II?  In other words disconnect it and just run an audio cable from 
rig to PC soundcard, does PSK31 decode then ?

Andy K3UK

RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Jim,

I should have said that NGOs don't have funding for the current technology to 
give them high-speed, robust data that fits into a 3 KHz bandwidth.  There is a 
firm in Australia that does sell this equipment but the cost of the radio and 
modem hardware is in access of $75 U.S.

If there was a computer modem that provided high-speed, robust data, then the 
cost to the NGOs would only be the radio with wider bandwidths.  I have talked 
to two U.S. manufacturers of HF LM radios that are currently in production and 
they said that providing a radio with 3-10 KHz bandwidths would not add much to 
the cost of their radios.  One radio cost less than $3000 and the other less 
than $5000.

There are obviously many solutions to the problem(s) NGOs have with 
communications.  

The FCC has a great deal of latitude in what it can do with frequency 
assignments and I am sure that if Congress tells them to accommodate NGOs data 
communications needs, they will find some way to do it.

I believe that two or perhaps 3 10 KHz channels on 80/75, 40 and 20 meters and 
one on 30M would meet the NGO needs.  In "unofficial" talks with joint 
communications personnel with the 5 major disaster relief NGOs in the U.S. they 
agreed that 3 channels would be sufficient.

Of course this is just discussion...food for thought and subject to refinement 
and many changes or other options.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 3:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please see below... Walt/K5YFW
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:36 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
> 
>> If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they
>> currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow
>> them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land
>> fixed/mobile service?  How would they convince the FCC to allocate and
>> assign new frequencies when they aren't using the ones they have?
> 
> Its not a resource problem, it is a problem that being basically in the
> LMRS their assigned "channels" will not permit they type of 
> modulation that is/would be required for high speed, robust data 
> transmissions.
>
> Money is not really a problem, and of course if they are on NGO assigned
> frequencies, no radio operator's license is needed.
> 

Wait a minute, from message 17814 you said: "These organizations do
need very high-speed throughput modes that are robust to meet their
operational needs and do not have the funding to provide hardware to
support the need."

I was only addressing the argument you made that they didn't have the
funding so must rely on amateur radio to provide their operational
communications needs.  


> The FCC may not have a choice to assign new frequencies or even create a
> new type of service...Congress may pass a Public Law establishing
> it.  Of the FCC might create a new type of service or sub-service
> as they have done in the past.
> 
> If 3750-4000 can be used for land services, then the FCC could 
> establish a sub-class or new land mobile radio class here for 
> disaster communications.  The FCC just recently did away with a 
> sub-class with they effectively did away with RACES.  You might
> have a Radio Amateur Disaster Communications Service  with 
> assigned frequencies in the ham bands and these frequencies might
> be only used exclusively by NGOs during disasters with the modes 
> needed and operated by "certified" amateur radio operators or even 
> non-amateur radio persons who were "certified".  This was done 
> during WWII.
>   

They could also create a new "service" and reassign current land
service frequencies and allow the use of wider bandwidths.  They could
do any of these things.  

> If you worked in a NGO Incident Command Post for the Red Cross,
> Salvation Army, Baptist Disaster Relief for FEMA Incident Command 
> Post, you would know just how much information is needed to run 
> these facilities so that they can meet the collective needs of the 
> disaster area.  Part of the problem we saw in Katrina and Rita, and 
> now looking back at other disaster events, we see that even in them 
> they could have run better, more effectively and met the collective 
> needs of those in the disaster area had information flow been large 
> and faster.
> 
> Walt/K5YFW

Just how many kilohertz on 80m do you think it would take to get one,
just one 56 kb channel on 80m, i.e. one slow old dial up line?  Do you
think this would satisfy the needs of all the NGO's in a major
disaster area like Katri

RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Good news Jim...this type of work IS being done.

I hope that within 5 years that there will be "implants" similar to the one 
used for the deaf to hear will do just as you say.

There are already prototypes that allow thoughts to do basic arm and hand 
movements such as picking up a glass, cup, fork, etc.

For your and your son's sake I hope this takes place on the front end of 
medical technology.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms


If the folks working on getting nerve responses to control artificial
limbs really wanted to make some money they would be working on how to
interface a cell phone keyboard via bluetooth directly to nerve
connections.  My son would be standing in line to have it transplanted
tommorrow if he could text message just by waving his fingers.  Just
imagine the folks driving and waving fingers to type a text message.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thats the parents fault.  hehe
> I get so tired seeing adults and children in the stores, on the
> sidewalks, driving etc. with a phone stuck in their ear.  It seems 
> no one can get away from home anymore, they just pick up and up take
> it with them.  And I mean stuck IN their ear.  Its like a science 
> fiction movie out there.  You go to a restaurant, and there is that 
> joker -talk talk talk talk talk, - and not quitely either - he yells 
> into it to insure the other person hears ( and everyone in the 
> restaurant too.)  I predict tht in 40 years, there will be millions 
> of voice box  transplants, and some will get a phone stuck IN the
> ear and have to have it surgically removed.
> 
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
> 



Connect to  telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system 
dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[John Champa]

Rick,

Who's talking about just HF for digital radios?!

Kids think SW is weird (gigantic antennas required, unpredicatble 
propagation, excessive noise, etc.).  Please keep in mind they were brought 
up in the LOS UHF and SHF ranges:  DirecTV, cell phones, BlackBerry,  802.11 
WiFi, RC, etc.  That is RADIO to them...not this stange stuff we do with 250 
foot long wires on 160M.

73, John

Original Message Follows
From: KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:18:57 -0600

John and all,

Multimedia on HF is just not going to ever happen other than the
occasional still picture that we already do now. It is difficult enough
now to even get text messages under typical keyboard speed of around 40
+ wpm.

Based upon my experience, digital motion images are difficult enough to
do on the microwave bands such as with a laptop and WAP along with a
medium resolution video camera.

I think that the key here is as Danny pointed out that we do this
without wires. That is the magic part.

The idea that kids don't understand the technologies is a bit
overstated. The fact is that most people do not understand technology
all that much, but actually I would say that the average student of
today may have a bit better grasp of it. They certainly realize that
they have to access a cell tower to get their cell phone to work and if
you are very far from a tower, you don't have communications.

The amount of knowledge to understand current technology is overwhelming
compared to when I grew up. As a former audiovisual/computer repair
technician, I can say that due to manufacturing efficiencies of today,
it is frequently less expensive to replace an entire assembly rather
than repair one part of it as we used to do. Thirty years ago it was
routine to replace the 1/4" phone plug on a pair of $20 headsets. That
has not been economically possible to do for some years now as the
repair charge would exceed the replacement cost. Same thing at the board
level for moderate cost equipment. As one one of my technicians used to
point out, it would be hard to imagine anything more complicated than a
VCR with the merging of electronics and mechanical parts to be sold for
less money. And yet the prices kept going lower and lower and eventually
VCR's were pretty much non repairable item too, even for what most of us
would consider a minor repair.

What I would like to see the digital mode developers concentrate on is
having the most robust mode possible that can get through difficult
conditions with perfect copy and do it with adequate keyboarding speed.
We don't have many modes that can do that except for perhaps PSKmail
which only is available on Linux OS at this time and that is using PSK
which has its limits under difficult conditions. Having a mode that can
scale to conditions would also be very nice to have and we should always
keep emergency needs in the back of our minds, even if it is not the
driving force.

Because of the drastically reduced bandwidth for Data/RTTY/Text on 80
meters here in the U.S. and perhaps more of that on the way for other
bands, depending upon pending FCC decisions, it is my view that we need
to keep our bandwidths as narrow as we can.

Certainly, good radio amateur practice would lean toward 500 Hz or less.
You should only exceed that when you have some unusual conditions, the
bands are empty from other users, or you have emergency traffic.

Based upon my recent experience with 160 meters,  even MFSK16 and
DominoEX have their limits, and that is  under fairly good conditions in
the winter period of the northern hemisphere with low QRN. Low power,
modest antennas, still make digital modes a challenge at times with
normal keyboard speeds.

73,

Rick, KV9U


John Champa wrote:

 >
 >Not just for text messagesthink multimedia:  pics, still and motion.
 >Sound - high quality. etc.
 >Kids don't understand a phone that doesn't take pics, and soon has an MP3
 >player built-in too (HI).
 >
 >73, John - K8OCL
 >
 >
 >
 >

Re: [digitalradio] FT990 and PSK

[Joe Ivey]

Tom,

I don't have the MicroHam but do have the FT-990. I don't understand why they 
told you to use the PKT mode to use PSK31. In the PKT mode, you can only have 
LSB or FM. PSK31 I always in the USB mode. For the audio connections I use the 
"AUDIO OUT" and the PATCH IN" on the back of the 990 and use CAT control. I use 
Logger32, N1MM, and several other software that use radio command for PTT.

Joe
W4JSI


- Original Message - 
  From: tm303 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:27 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] FT990 and PSK


  I'm using the microHam USB II with the 990 and I can't get it to work
  on PSK. I've tried Logger32, MMVARI, and N1MM programs to no avail. 
  I was told by Joe at microHam to use the 990 in the Packet position
  but the freq goes down below 14.000 on 20 meters. I can't hear any
  PSK on an external receiver when I transmit above 14.000. I can't
  receive any signals either. Everything works fine with MMTY and
  EDFSK. Just no luck with PSK.

  Any suggestions?

  73,

  Tom W8JWN



   

RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[John Champa]

Remember the old story about the lone lawyer living in a small town?

He was nearly starving to death for lack of business.

Then another lawyer moved to the little town, and then they both prospered 
(HI).

JJC

Original Message Follows
From: "Michael Hatzakis Jr MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: 
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:33 -0800

It is an industry that creates it own demand and, thereby, supply.  MH



   _

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of list email filter
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:33 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms



Yes! :(

Erik
KI4HMS/7

John Bradley wrote:
 >
 > Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry?
 >
 > John
 > VE5MU
 >

RE: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!

[manaen]

>From: "Michael P. Brininstool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/11/29 Wed AM 10:12:23 CST
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!

>  
>From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
>Kevin O'Rorke
>Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:47 PM
>To:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!
>
>
>Seriously, until Linux programs can be installed as easily and reliably 
>as Windows programs (I HAVE NEVER EVER HAD AN INSTALLATION PROBLEM IN 
>WIN) then Linux has not a dogs chance in Hell of competing with Windows.
>I enjoy the challenge of fighting with Linux and consider myself an 
>apprentice geek in that realm, but really what John

I personally have never had *any* problems installing things I want to run in 
Linux.  I am not married to any windows applications either though.  There are 
Linux alternatives for nearly every windows solution out there, to include 
programs that I want to use with my radios.  My personal experience has been 
that M$ has far less support for older hardware and it is much harder to find 
drivers.  It always amuses me that somehow it is ok to hunt for 5 hours for a 
windows driver that only works half right but it's not ok to have to spend 10 
minutes looking at a *nix log and changing a config file, goofy.  The problem 
isn't that Linux is hard to use it is that people have significant "mindshare" 
built up in becomeing windows experts and are unwilling to go through the 
process again for Linux.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: FT990 and PSK

[Dave Sloan]

Not sure what your problem would be. I have a FT920, Rascal Interface, SB
sound card, P 4 computer running XP. With a WinPSK program and it works
great for me. I have the FT920 in data usb mode and take the output from the
data din plug in the back. 

 

Good luck, 

Dave N0EOP

 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:58 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: FT990 and PSK

 

--- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, "tm303" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm using the microHam USB II with the 990 and I can't get it to 
work
> on PSK. I've tried Logger32, MMVARI, and N1MM programs to no 
avail. 
> I was told by Joe at microHam to use the 990 in the Packet position
> but the freq goes down below 14.000 on 20 meters. I can't hear any
> PSK on an external receiver when I transmit above 14.000. I can't
> receive any signals either. Everything works fine with MMTY and
> EDFSK. Just no luck with PSK.
> 
> Any suggestions?

This is very odd. If your rig goes in to transmit mode when your 
execute a transmit command, I assume that your USB II is working 
correctly. Does the USB II use the same device router that other 
Microham products use? If so, does it use the same "audio 
switching" ? With my Microkeyer I somtimes have not audio out 
because I selected the wrong audio out via the device router. This 
would not effect receive though. Can you receive PSK without the USB 
II? In other words disconnect it and just run an audio cable from 
rig to PC soundcard, does PSK31 decode then ?

Andy K3UK

 

[digitalradio] APRS/Packet experiment on 80M tonight

[Andrew J. O'Brien]

Subject: APRS/Packet experiment on 80M tonight from 0100 to 0300 UTC. 
IF anyone in North America wants to test some of the Multipsk APRS
Packet features that were just released for testing, I will be around
on 3624 USB tonight , I will beacon every 3 minutes.  If you hear me,
we can perhaps do some "echo" tests.



--
Andy K3UK
Skype Me :  callto://andyobrien73
www.obriensweb.com

Re: [digitalradio] APRS/Packet experiment on 80M tonight

[John Bradley]

this message did not show up until after 0400Z

John
VE5MU


  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew J. O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:56 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] APRS/Packet experiment on 80M tonight





  Subject: APRS/Packet experiment on 80M tonight from 0100 to 0300 UTC. 
  IF anyone in North America wants to test some of the Multipsk APRS
  Packet features that were just released for testing, I will be around
  on 3624 USB tonight , I will beacon every 3 minutes.  If you hear me,
  we can perhaps do some "echo" tests.



  --
  Andy K3UK
  Skype Me :  callto://andyobrien73
  www.obriensweb.com


   

Re: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!

[Brad Gillis]

 
>It always amuses me that somehow it is ok to hunt for 5 hours for a windows 
>driver that only works half right but it's not ok to have to >spend 10 minutes 
>looking at a *nix log and changing a config file, goofy. The problem isn't 
>that Linux is hard to use it is that people have 
>significant "mindshare" built up in becomeing windows experts and are 
>unwilling to go through the process again for Linux.
 
First I am not a big fan of Windows and especially Billy Gates who steals 
everybody's ideas because he has the money and can. He just pays the antitrust 
fines or whatever meantime the poor bloke that came up with the idea/software 
goes in the poor house. Short version!

But I never had to spent 5 hours looking for a windows driver but I have spent 
days trying to get a new version of a Linux program to work because of one 
missing dependency outta a dozen you need to install. I've spent 10 times as 
much time learning Linux with a fraction of the success as I have Windows. And 
if you go to a Linux forum and ask a question all you get is RTFM, doesn't 
matter that I have read a dozen of them or that yes I do have the answer in one 
of my MANY Linux books but really don't want to spend days figuring out which 
book it is in when some Linux guru could tell me in 39 seconds where I went 
wrong.

I'll stick to Windows since it works 99% of the time with a 1000% less hassle.

I don't want to be a Windows or a Linux guru I just want an OS that works with 
as little hassle as possible. A system that'll let me install the software I 
want without spending days chasing a rare dependency.

Later Brad
N1NPK

[digitalradio] New 80m USA Keyboarding Digi Frequencies

[expeditionradio]

Some Suggested Keyboarding Activity/CQ/Calling Frequencies 
for the new 80 meter band for USA:

BPSK31 = 3545kHz USB (3545.3-3548.0 kHz)

QPSK31/PSK63/125 = 3547kHz USB (3547.3-3550.0 kHz)

MFSK = 3548kHz USB (3548.3-3551.0 kHz)

OLIVIA = 3549kHz USB (3549.3-3553.0 kHz)

PAX/CONTESTIA/DOMINO, etc = 3550kHz USB (3550.3-3554.0 kHz)

HELL/FMHELL = 3552 USB (3552.3-3555 kHz)

MT63 = 3553 USB (3553.3-3556)

RTTY/FSK = 3555+ USB (3555.3-3565 kHz) 

Notes:

The new FCC subband changes for USA hams go into effect on 15 December
2006. 

On 80 meters, Data, and Keyboarding activity will be pushed down lower
in the band than ever before. CW is allowed in the full 500kHz of
spectrum in the 3500kHz to 4000kHz band. But Data and Keyboarding are
limited to only 100kHz of spectrum the 3500kHz-3600kHz subband. It is
expected that mainstream CW activity will consume the bottom 40kHz or
so (excluding nets).

In an effort to get us going with some new digital keyboarding calling
and CQ activity frequencies, I am suggesting the above starting
frequencies. Remember, they are simply suggested starting points. The
3500-3600 kHz 80m Data Subband is "wide open" for operators to go
anywhere there is a clear frequency available. :)

The suggested frequency list includes USB (upper sideband) and the
"actual frequency" range, because many digi texting operators in USA
are more familiar with the VFO dial setting.

73--- Bonnie KQ6XA
 
Proposed 80 meter Bandplan 2007 for USA
3500-3540 = CW 
3540-3560 = Any Mode, 500Hz Bandwidth 
3560-3600 = Any Mode