[digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
I wonder if group members might want to use 1808 KHz as the frequency for 160 meter digital modes. And that means the actual frequency. With the ease of seeing the bandwidth on waterfall displays, I favor centering on the frequency. This means that you need to put your dial frequency at the appropriate point to have the transmitted frequency in the correct location. Since I need to center on 1500 Hz up in the passband, I would need to set my equipment for 1806.5 KHz so that my transmitted signal is actually on 1808. If you center on 1000 Hz, then you would need to place your dial frequency on 1807. Bottom line is that the frequency should always be the actual transmitted frequency. Last night there were some digital signals here in the midwest U.S., even with some moderate QRN. As far as when, it could be anytime that the D layer is not absorbing too much, and a good time might be when the greyline terminator is approaching your QTH. Of course, close stations, ~100 miles?, should be able to make contacts during the day? 73, Rick, KV9U David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] Re: Need a PDF manual (or any format) for the MFJ 1278 Data Controller
Thanks, I got it. Jonathan --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jonathan, Can you accept a 26MB email? /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 12:56 AM 2/13/2007, you wrote: Howdy folks, I need this manual if you have it on PDF. No longer on their site. Thanks, Jonathan KC7FYS
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
At 08:28 AM 2/14/2007, you wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd Keep in mind that the PropNet folks are using 1807.5...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
Is it the band or the mode ? ? ? It seems to me in my 35 years as a ham that 80 and 160 are at it's best this time of year. John, W0JAB At 09:51 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote: Hi Bill, Yes, busy night tonight on 160:) The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found on the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is better when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
domino EX , on multipsk. sorry if I mis-lead you Ozhan John - Original Message - From: ozhan onder To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc Hello John, What is DEX John?,a new digi mode to play with?..Tell us a little bit.. vy tnx. 73's de Özhan TA3BQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With respect to MT63 , I have used it extensively in the past and found it wanting, especially trying to tune a weak signal under less than optimum conditions, as the noise covered the audio up. Under side by side tests it did not copy as well as Olivia (1000/32) . probably half as well on the day tested between 2 stations 1500 miles apart on 20M . that day likely a 2 hop. MFSK is fussy to tune, and with some folks using older rigs, is subject to drift during a long TX at power. Does get through, however, as well as OLIVIA 500/16 , and much better than PSK31, again trying multiple modes between distant stations. DEX? I always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so have only used DEX locally. Look forward to playing with DEX over a distance Will sit on 14073 center freq in the AM and please let me know if you are playing on 80 or 160 . Monday night had some good luck with OLIVIA 500/16 over a considerable distance on 160m tnx John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 7:54 AM
[digitalradio] 160m meeting place
would like to do some more on 160mseems you guys are down there, but need to when and where. david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
Again, I see no reason why we would want digital signals down that low in such a wide band. That first 25 KC or so is used heavily by CW stations both here and DX. I dont care what someone else arbitraily decided was the bandplan for digital. Those bandplans are NOT worldwide, and until they are, they make no sense DX wise. We should go with the flow. Its the same with mixing SSB all up and down the band, just makes no sense. I also dont see why we even need to mention where your, or my, VFO is set. Simply give the final freq where the signals will be in the waterfall. Each of us has different offset, according to our own equipment, and all that does is confuse the issue. IF I spot something on 1.876, that is where it is on the waterfall, and if your software doesnt take you there automatically (very unlikely it wont) then its up to you to figure out your offset. It is certainly the one item that confuses new people when they get into digital radio, because they are seeing spots listed every which way. The great majority of software packages (including every one I have used) takes the offset into consideration and properly sets the VFO and then the tracking mark on the waterfall falls right on the proper spotted freq. You can almost bet someone doesnt know how to set their offset, or spot correctly, when you see them spot exactly on 14.070 or 14.069 every time. Thats their VFO freq, and the real station is someplace a few cycle to hundreds of cycles from that. 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. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place I wonder if group members might want to use 1808 KHz as the frequency for 160 meter digital modes. And that means the actual frequency. With the ease of seeing the bandwidth on waterfall displays, I favor centering on the frequency. This means that you need to put your dial frequency at the appropriate point to have the transmitted frequency in the correct location. Since I need to center on 1500 Hz up in the passband, I would need to set my equipment for 1806.5 KHz so that my transmitted signal is actually on 1808. If you center on 1000 Hz, then you would need to place your dial frequency on 1807. Bottom line is that the frequency should always be the actual transmitted frequency. Last night there were some digital signals here in the midwest U.S., even with some moderate QRN. As far as when, it could be anytime that the D layer is not absorbing too much, and a good time might be when the greyline terminator is approaching your QTH. Of course, close stations, ~100 miles?, should be able to make contacts during the day? 73, Rick, KV9U David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 7:54 AM
[digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each band and in varying conditions This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions are.
[digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
Am I correct in believing these digital transciever only talk to other digital transcievers. They don't have a switch in there that allows them to talk to non- digital trancievers. If not why doesnt some smart company put a switch in a radio that allows ditial analog usage? Also DSTAR seems to be propriatary protocal. does that mean a DSTAR radio can only talk to another DSTAR radio, or can they talk to other digital vendor radio? Peter KG6OUE
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim. It may not be the best in the world but is does have some variables and Moe has made it freely available. Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator will allow and then chack you on-the-air reports against the standard. We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of new digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but we MUST work in concert. Walt/K5YFW Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jhaynesatalumni Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each band and in varying conditions This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions are. Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
As far as I know all the ICOM D-Star user radios can run analog or D-Star. The D-Star digital repeaters are digital only. D-Star is an open source protocol developed by the Japnaese Amareur Radio League. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of pcooke2002 Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios??? Am I correct in believing these digital transciever only talk to other digital transcievers. They don't have a switch in there that allows them to talk to non- digital trancievers. If not why doesnt some smart company put a switch in a radio that allows ditial analog usage? Also DSTAR seems to be propriatary protocal. does that mean a DSTAR radio can only talk to another DSTAR radio, or can they talk to other digital vendor radio? Peter KG6OUE Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
I have not used Moe's simulator yet. It takes my second PC that is not working now. Could you tell people like me which are those variables available on Moe's simulator besides gaussian noise ? So far I have only seen reports on gaussian noise using Moe's simulator. And agreed. Working in concert is a MUST. Flaming each other is the least we need. Jose, CO2JA DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim. It may not be the best in the world but is does have some variables and Moe has made it freely available. Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator will allow and then chack you on-the-air reports against the standard. We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of new digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but we MUST work in concert. Walt/K5YFW Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us. __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data gathered with ionospheric data archives. I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the tunnel to get to see the light at the end... A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some noise will creep into it. With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY. It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY. A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short. With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies. On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more prevalent variables on a given situation. I am very interested on this experiment. Jose, CO2JA jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each band and in varying conditions This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions are. __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
[digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
My only experience is with the new dual band Icom HT and it does both digital and analog. You can program mode by channel and if I remember right it will switch automatically on receive. At the moment you can only talk to other Icom's simply because the other ham equipment companies have not yet released a model of their own (I hear Kenwood showed a D-Star radio in Japan). My guess is they are taking a wait and see if this D-Star really catches on. Once Icom does the heavy lifting then the others will jump on. I am trying to put up a P25 repeater and if all goes well, it will pass D-Star digital as well as P25 and analog. Limitation is that since I'll have only 1 repeater initially, the 2 digital modes (D-Star P25)cannot cross communicate. If I key up w/ a D-Star HT then only other D-Star radios will be able to decode the audio...same with P25. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, pcooke2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I correct in believing these digital transciever only talk to other digital transcievers. They don't have a switch in there that allows them to talk to non- digital trancievers. If not why doesnt some smart company put a switch in a radio that allows ditial analog usage? Also DSTAR seems to be propriatary protocal. does that mean a DSTAR radio can only talk to another DSTAR radio, or can they talk to other digital vendor radio? Peter KG6OUE
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
You can establsih a base line for each mode with a simulator. And while the propagation conditions vary a great deal, if you gather enough data, then you begin to get an average or norm. This is much like keeping medical records on diseases treated with a specific drug...while no one case is alike, after a while you can see a norm on what each medicine can do. Or in another way, we can keep tabs on the life span of Cuban Cigar smokers vs. those who smoke inferior cigars and see who lives the longest. But you may need to keep track of 10,000 smokers. In out case, perhaps we can get several thousand QSOs for each mode on each band. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose A. Amador Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:47 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data gathered with ionospheric data archives. I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the tunnel to get to see the light at the end... A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some noise will creep into it. With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY. It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY. A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short. With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies. On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more prevalent variables on a given situation. I am very interested on this experiment. Jose, CO2JA jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each band and in varying conditions This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions are. __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
How does the audio quality sound with P25 equipment compared with D-Star? Since P25 is very expensive, are almost all users getting used equipment? How much does this cost? I have heard new prices for HT's at $1500. Is that really true? What about the cost of the repeater? Or did you buy a used one? Either way, what kind of cost is involved in the repeater itself? I assume that the cavities and antenna, etc., are identical to analog repeaters. Thanks for any information you can share. 73, Rick, KV9U otobmark wrote: I am trying to put up a P25 repeater and if all goes well, it will pass D-Star digital as well as P25 and analog. Limitation is that since I'll have only 1 repeater initially, the 2 digital modes (D-Star P25)cannot cross communicate. If I key up w/ a D-Star HT then only other D-Star radios will be able to decode the audio...same with P25.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
Hummm, let me dig up the book or go back online and download it. We can work in concert and try not to tell fish stories about our QSOs. Hi Hi. Walt -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose A. Amador Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc I have not used Moe's simulator yet. It takes my second PC that is not working now. Could you tell people like me which are those variables available on Moe's simulator besides gaussian noise ? So far I have only seen reports on gaussian noise using Moe's simulator. And agreed. Working in concert is a MUST. Flaming each other is the least we need. Jose, CO2JA DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim. It may not be the best in the world but is does have some variables and Moe has made it freely available. Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator will allow and then chack you on-the-air reports against the standard. We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of new digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but we MUST work in concert. Walt/K5YFW Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us. __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
Sorry, the 1.2 GHz ID-1 is FM, Digital Voice, or Digital Data! KV9U wrote: digital or analog. The 1.2 GHz rig is strictly digital and operates at a much higher data rate and has a raw 128 Kbps speed. And in testing around here on 2m and 23cm we have seen a range advantage for Digital Voice over FM for same power and same antennas between our base stations. 73, Tom n4zpt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
Hi. KV9U wrote: Since P25 is very expensive, are almost all users getting used equipment? How much does this cost? I have heard new prices for HT's at $1500. Is that really true? Our local police chief said the multi mode HTs they are buying were $3k each. They did normal FM for the legacy police repeaters and trunked P25. 73, Tom n4zpt
[digitalradio] 160m meeting place
where and when is this meeting place on 160m...would like to join in. david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
Hello to all, There are also some basic axioms (I suppose so) as: 1) Doppler iosnospheric modulation acts on PSK modes (the phase is dancing randomly, the Costas loop cannot stabilize and the PSK decoding is quite impossible). The more the modulation speed is, the less this Doppler acts on the phase difference (which determines the bit). Hence, PSK10 is very sensitive to Doppler, PSK31 is less sensitive and the effect is very weak on PSK125. 2) Doppler ionospheric modulation effect is linear with the HF frequency (smaller in 3.5 MHz that in 7 MHz). It seems logical but I'm not so sure of it... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Jose A. Amador To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data gathered with ionospheric data archives. I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the tunnel to get to see the light at the end... A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some noise will creep into it. With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY. It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY. A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short. With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies. On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more prevalent variables on a given situation. I am very interested on this experiment. Jose, CO2JA jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each band and in varying conditions This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions are. __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
Danny, If we don't stay with the bandplans, then we can be sited by the FCC for not following good amateur practice. The ARRL Bandplan is the defacto bandplan for the U.S. That is why I don't venture out of the digital part of 160 meters when using digital text modes. Ideally, CW stations should not be using 1800-1810 as that is reserved for digital modes. The bandplan does permit CW there, of course, but that is because CW has special dispensation yet across most all of the ham bands (except 60 meters) here in the U.S. If you set your dial frequency to 1808 USB and put your signal at 1000 Hz on the waterfall, you are really operating on 1809 and that is getting very close to the CW QRP frequency of 1810. An alternative frequency could theoretically be the 1.995 - 2.000 experimental area, but that is right close to the 1.999 beacon frequency. Do I agree with these bandplans for 160? No I do not, but we would have to get them changed to our liking if we wanted to operate differently. What I really would like to see is narrow band modes (CW, PSK31) at the bottom of the bands, medium digital modes ~ or 500 Hz (RTTY, DEX, MFSK16) above that, and wide band digital 1000 Hz above that and below voice frequencies. But that is not possible at this time because the FCC has continued to divide by type of mode rather than bandwidth. I am not too worried about missing any DX on 160 and consider it lucky to copy stations within a 1000 miles or so:) 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: Again, I see no reason why we would want digital signals down that low in such a wide band. That first 25 KC or so is used heavily by CW stations both here and DX. I dont care what someone else arbitraily decided was the bandplan for digital. Those bandplans are NOT worldwide, and until they are, they make no sense DX wise. We should go with the flow. Its the same with mixing SSB all up and down the band, just makes no sense. I also dont see why we even need to mention where your, or my, VFO is set. Simply give the final freq where the signals will be in the waterfall. Each of us has different offset, according to our own equipment, and all that does is confuse the issue. IF I spot something on 1.876, that is where it is on the waterfall, and if your software doesnt take you there automatically (very unlikely it wont) then its up to you to figure out your offset. It is certainly the one item that confuses new people when they get into digital radio, because they are seeing spots listed every which way. The great majority of software packages (including every one I have used) takes the offset into consideration and properly sets the VFO and then the tracking mark on the waterfall falls right on the proper spotted freq. You can almost bet someone doesnt know how to set their offset, or spot correctly, when you see them spot exactly on 14.070 or 14.069 every time. Thats their VFO freq, and the real station is someplace a few cycle to hundreds of cycles from that.
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
John, Most of us simply can not possibly know or even care about any particular use of any particular frequency as long as we are properly operating within our subband and mode. The one exception might be the area of automatic operation around the 14.100 beacons and maybe others in the world wide ITU beacon system. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of frequencies that various groups use as spot frequencies. They are only available to them if not being used by someone else at the time. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: At 08:28 AM 2/14/2007, you wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd Keep in mind that the PropNet folks are using 1807.5...
[digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tom Azlin, N4ZPT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our local police chief said the multi mode HTs they are buying were $3k each. They did normal FM for the legacy police repeaters and trunked P25. 73, Tom n4zpt $3K for an HT!!! BREATH, BREATH.. SWALLOW You mean to say that $3k of my tax dollars are being spent on a HT that you could have spent $200 on. I have to complain to my city council about my police dept going digital.
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
Rick I don't care either. I don't use PSK myself. the only reason I bring it up it that the PropNet station broadcast a beacon so many times an hour. I just don't want to see a load of whining and crying when someone gets QRM by one oh the propnet station like they did over the pactor station. At 05:22 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: John, Most of us simply can not possibly know or even care about any particular use of any particular frequency as long as we are properly operating within our subband and mode. The one exception might be the area of automatic operation around the 14.100 beacons and maybe others in the world wide ITU beacon system. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of frequencies that various groups use as spot frequencies. They are only available to them if not being used by someone else at the time. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
You are right about the FM operation. The main source of information that I had a few years ago was the group that had a web site on this unit and their testing of the data throughput and voice distance. If they discussed any use of analog FM, I completely missed it. 73, Rick, KV9U Tom Azlin, N4ZPT wrote: Sorry, the 1.2 GHz ID-1 is FM, Digital Voice, or Digital Data!
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
John, Is it your understanding that they are running unattended beacons on 160 meters? Under Part 97 rules here in the U.S., it does not seem that you would be allowed to transmit an unattended beacon on that band. And if you did transmit a beacon, the bandplan calls for 1.999 at the very top of the band. Wouldn't there have to be a live control operator and that operator would need to monitor and be sure the frequency is clear before each transmission? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: Rick I don't care either. I don't use PSK myself. the only reason I bring it up it that the PropNet station broadcast a beacon so many times an hour. I just don't want to see a load of whining and crying when someone gets QRM by one oh the propnet station like they did over the pactor station. At 05:22 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: John, Most of us simply can not possibly know or even care about any particular use of any particular frequency as long as we are properly operating within our subband and mode. The one exception might be the area of automatic operation around the 14.100 beacons and maybe others in the world wide ITU beacon system. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of frequencies that various groups use as spot frequencies. They are only available to them if not being used by someone else at the time. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
Key word being *unattended* .. I can not speak for the stations on 160 but I do see the reports on the web site. First understanding how this animal works will really help you. I wont go into it here. At 06:27 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: John, Is it your understanding that they are running unattended beacons on 160 meters? Under Part 97 rules here in the U.S., it does not seem that you would be allowed to transmit an unattended beacon on that band. And if you did transmit a beacon, the bandplan calls for 1.999 at the very top of the band. Wouldn't there have to be a live control operator and that operator would need to monitor and be sure the frequency is clear before each transmission? 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] Re: 160M digital meeting place
Hi, Do not know about others but I operate Propnet on 160 often...I am always live (or as live as I ever get) when not in lurker mode (xmitting is disabled). As per normal, if the freq is in use, I disable transmitting. The software does include a DCD routine, but that will not get around the hidden transmitter syndrome. I operate only using BPSK31 on Propnet, but others use AX.25 on 10/6/2 and above and believe BPSK63 was also coded into the software but have not seen others using it 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Key word being *unattended* .. I can not speak for the stations on 160 but I do see the reports on the web site. First understanding how this animal works will really help you. I wont go into it here. At 06:27 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: John, Is it your understanding that they are running unattended beacons on 160 meters? Under Part 97 rules here in the U.S., it does not seem that you would be allowed to transmit an unattended beacon on that band. And if you did transmit a beacon, the bandplan calls for 1.999 at the very top of the band. Wouldn't there have to be a live control operator and that operator would need to monitor and be sure the frequency is clear before each transmission? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
My experience indicates that Olivia 16-500 and MFSK are very solid modes for the conditions that we presently are experiencing during the current phase of the sunspot cycle. I, like Bill, am amazed at Olivia's ability to copy signals that you can barely see on the waterfal and not even hear via audio. 30 meter propagation is sometimes not very good and Olivia really shines on this band. I have had a dozen or so QSOs with MT63 and that mode seems to give a binary result. There is a lot of FEC going on in this mode so it should work very well under poor conditions. If you can copy, the copy is excellent -- near 100%; otherwise, no copy whatsover. Not too many people seem to use this mode so I believe I need more experience before having a good appreciation of this mode under various conditions. 73, Bernie - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc Well can only relate my impressions; hope others chime in I think even though DominoEX halves the speed when FEC in engaged, it is well worth the speed trade-off. 160/80 seems to vary night to night in this regard; probably due to qrn and multipath. It also depends on one's ability/willingness to read between the lines as there are a few hits at the higher speeds and one needs to brain- error correct as there is no ARQ. As for Throb; I find it very sensitive, but at times it does not seem to decode signals that are audiblenever figured out why. As for MFSK modes, yes they are very frequency sensitive although I have had little trouble tuning most, aside from a few that took a long time to sync. Multipsk's AFC seems to lock quite well on MFSK signals, not sure how other software doescertainly DominoEX is superior in that sense. I have not worked enought MT63 to comment. I have had better luck with CHIP64 although both seem to not be qrp modes and require a high signal to noise ratio... It is odd (but probably not so if studied correctly), on some nights (condx) certain modes just seem to work better under various conditionsat times I am amazed that Olivia can decode signals in the mudother times I swear at it...one night on a VHF path only PSKAM10 or JT65B would get through; guess that what makes it all fun. 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bill, Yes, busy night tonight on 160:) The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found on the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is better when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC? Tentatively, I almost want to say that it may be better at the higher speed with FEC. If true, and I am not sure it is, it could be because the higher speed still has a fairly low baud rate, even for some serious multipath on the lower bands. The 77 wpm speed with DEX22/FEC is faster than is comfortable for keyboarding so a slower speed is not bad. The DEX11/FEC does seem quite robust, even with static crashes and who knows how much multipath. Of course you can never get 100% copy under certain conditions when too much of the data is damaged and the Viterbi decoder can not reconstruct the character. Then an ARQ mode would be needed. I wonder how well this type of mode would work with a PSKmail type of program? I know that I had a very difficult time reading a PSK31 signal that was up the band from me. The earlier station that I was talking with for our weekly sked for experimenting with these modes at a short distance of about 35 miles or so indicated that he had good luck with MT-63 in the past but the faster (wider) mode seemed to work better due to having the data spread out so far. Has anyone else found this on the lower bands with MT-63? The ability to only approximately tune in DEX signals is extremely helpful for me as I find that I have a difficult time locking in on MFSK16. Earlier tonight WA9HCZ and I started our experiments with ThrobX and although he could copy me solid, I could never decode his signal. So I must have been doing something wrong. Ideally, these modes that need extremely accurate tuning, should have some kind of display to help you determine if you are far from locking in to the signal or not. Something like we had with the early PSK programs. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
pcooke2002 wrote: $3K for an HT!!! BREATH, BREATH.. SWALLOW You mean to say that $3k of my tax dollars are being spent on a HT that you could have spent $200 on. I have to complain to my city council about my police dept going digital. I'd more likely congratulate them on having the foresight to spend money (a fraction of what it costs to keep an officer on the job for a year) on something that can make the job safer and more productive. If they've spent $3K on the handheld, that probably means they bought the ones that will support the type of capabilities (e.g. encryption) that they need to support a law enforcement professional. That radio will stay with him when he leaves the vehicle and provide him with communications that could be the difference between life and death. If my local officials were sending officers out on the job with $200 HT's, I'd be looking to replace them at the next election, if not before.
[digitalradio] DEX and 160M
AT 02:30 Z listening on VFO 1806.5 (actual 1807.5) DEX and anything else that shows up. Nothing heard so far. anybody on 80 tonite? John VE5MU
[digitalradio] Re: DEX and 160M
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AT 02:30 Z listening on VFO 1806.5 (actual 1807.5) DEX and anything else that shows up. Nothing heard so far. anybody on 80 tonite? John VE5MU John, my new radio's tuner matches 160M for me, so I do have the ability to transmit on that band now. I am not sure how well i will do but I will listen for you. Andy
Re: [digitalradio] DEX and 160M
I can see what may be a PSK31 signal from time to time, but have been unable to decode anything. It is on 1807.5. I have been transmitting there with DEX11/FEC but no luck. I thought that I detected another DEX station earlier but no decode on that either. Was very weak. Now is 0303Z. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: AT 02:30 Z listening on VFO 1806.5 (actual 1807.5) DEX and anything else that shows up. Nothing heard so far. anybody on 80 tonite? John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 2/12/2007 1:23 PM
[digitalradio] 160 meter PropNet Station Identified
It turned out that the PSK31 station was a Propnet station: 4www.PropNET.org w2aaamo:(fn0 xd4200R INFO http://www.Pro4200C6/34 I am wondering if this station is running unattended as it keeps sending out every few minutes. If so, this does not seem to be legal to do from my reading of Part 97 rules. This is a vanity call for the club station of the Society of Contest Operators and Radio Experimenters of NY. The trustee is W2EV. Maybe they have some kind of a STA? 73, Rick, KV9U
