Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
I have been using the bottom part of 160, since I started with 160, without anyone complaining. That is, after we were allowed the whole of the band, and didnt have to fiddle around trying to stay out of the radio location areas. Those were a real pain, having been in different portions of the band, for different areas of not on the country, but the world. Back then, having a DX window, etc. made some sense, but no longer does. take DX where ever it is. I have had people come in and say I am in the DX window, when I am working DX. 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: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: 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. > > > > > > > > > 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 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
I currently have a remote HF base. I have tried Ham Radio Deluxe which worked fine, but prefer TRX-Manager, which controls the radio, the SteppIR, the rotator, and the band switch for the linear, and the band switch for the antenna. For functions not controlled by TRX-Manager, I use free remote desktop software called LogMeIn. This is just like the more well known GoToMyPC, except it is free. Once I am on the remote PC, I can use RS232 relay boards to select which receive antenna I want to use, etc. The best remote control radios are the Kenwood TS-570, 870, 480, and 2000. Not necessary the best radios per se, but easiest to remote. I originally used the obvious audio solution, Skype, but now use IP Sound from SM5VXC. I am working on doing audio over a phone line. This is the best solution, and long distance rates are now so cheap I can afford to use it. There are many other remote configurations different from mine. They all have advantages and disadvantages and what works best depends on your particular situation. You should probably read the Google group on "IRB" (internet remote base). You might want to start out operating one of the public remote base stations. What is harder than the above is getting an internet connection to the remote base. And getting the remote base venue itself is harder yet. But that is OT for this reflector. Rick N6RK James Wilson wrote: > Here is what I was thinking, to setup a radio at a remote location that > could be "fully" controlled remotely. Ham Radio deluxe has the capability > of controlling my ft897 with a serial interface. A USB sound card could > be used to provide PSK and other digital modes. > > By using this remote usb interface > http://www.digi.com/products/usb/anywhereusb.jsp a remote serial interface > and sound card could easily be setup. Is there a way to pass audio > through one sound card to another sound card? > > In this situation it would be nice to talk SSB using the computer mic and > speakers. Is there a way to speak into a mic and have the sound come out > another sound card and then the reverse when recieving? > > Any help is greatly appreciated I am so excited about this concept. This > would allow an apartment dweller like myself an inexpensive way to have a > completely remote full HF rig. Best case scenario would be to purchase > antenna and rack space on a mountain top. > > James Wilson > K6WRJ > *** > Warning: This email may contain confidential or privileged information > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please understand > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents > of this email is strictly prohibited. > *** >
[digitalradio] Re: 160 meter PropNet Station Identified
Hello Rick, As of today unattended Propnet operations on 160 meters (at least in the US) has ceased. 73 and be well, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It turned out that the PSK31 station was a Propnet station: > > 4www.PropNET.org > w2aaa>mo:(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 >
Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
Try Skype for the audio channel... Leigh/WA5ZNU On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 4:28 pm, James Wilson wrote: > Is there a way to pass audio through one sound card to another sound > card?
[digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
Here is what I was thinking, to setup a radio at a remote location that could be "fully" controlled remotely. Ham Radio deluxe has the capability of controlling my ft897 with a serial interface. A USB sound card could be used to provide PSK and other digital modes. By using this remote usb interface http://www.digi.com/products/usb/anywhereusb.jsp a remote serial interface and sound card could easily be setup. Is there a way to pass audio through one sound card to another sound card? In this situation it would be nice to talk SSB using the computer mic and speakers. Is there a way to speak into a mic and have the sound come out another sound card and then the reverse when recieving? Any help is greatly appreciated I am so excited about this concept. This would allow an apartment dweller like myself an inexpensive way to have a completely remote full HF rig. Best case scenario would be to purchase antenna and rack space on a mountain top. James Wilson K6WRJ *** Warning: This email may contain confidential or privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please understand that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. ***
Re: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?
Howdy: The board brush strokes are easy. I do not have enough patience, smarts, or time to do what Bob Cowdery has done in his fantastic erlang implementation. On the other hand it does not fit with my vision of this and so far, Frank agrees with what I have been saying so I am assuming it is substantially his vision as well. The idea is to have the erlang be the simplest possible thing, as few lines as possible to get the job done reliably, robustly, with remoting built in from the word go. Cnodes are big in your future. dttsp's sdr_core (as an example) will start up as a stand alone program and it will maintain its command structure. Now you use the simple cmdr script to send it commands. e_cmdr will be a C program that starts up and attaches itself to the TINY erlang server. After it establishes its presence, it will negotiate what it can provide and what it wants to receive. So long as it is around, the erlang based hub will send all commands of the registered type to it and respond to all data requests of the type registered from e_cmdr by making a request for this data from e_cmdr, etc. The state held in the erlang radiocore will be the absolute minimum needed. If the cnode disappears, the hub will time out on it and drop it and all of its sources and sinks from the list. You might think of the, erlang cnode as working the exact same way Frank did the code in update.c BUT the "CTE" array will be dynamic and supplied upon initial connection, etc. in the radiocore. It really will be TINY block of code and the smarts will be in the leaves. I have had Cnodes running robustly on all my machines of every type for months. I keep thinking that it is but a day's work to give everyone the e_cmdr as a template for how to make their connection to the hub and even to provide the simplest possible kind of GUI, something like Roger's little push button GUI but interfaced through its own Cnode interface to the hub as a template for how to proceed. Between having FOUR close relatives with life threatening conditions and being constantly on the road for work, I just have not gotten it done. I apologize to everyone. No one is more unhappy about this than me. I need an uninterrupted week at home. This week I am in Boston fighting the snow going to Cell processor class at Mercury and next week I am at VPI working on OFDM with GnuRadio folks for MY WORK. I will catch a breath soon. Bob kd5nwa wrote: > I downloaded the code from the SVN a couple of days ago and I'm > wondering what will the Radio core will do, I don't need a detailed > explanation just some broad strokes. > > At 05:15 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote: > >> Walt: >> >> Frank, Eric, and I have specfically answered all of your questions about >> the Linux support. It is completely controllable under Linux now >> especially for those who have no need for fancy radio GUI's. For those >> that need GUI's there ARE GUI's and more will be coming. >> >> Roger Rehr has painted the road with crayola crayon especially for you: >> >> http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz >> >> >> but the Linux code does not have the polished presentation of the >> Windows version of code AND IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ITS >> LIMITATIONS. It is poised to take off now. >> >> There are several approaches to take such as dttsp-shell (available >> > >from Edson Pereira) or the java GUI done by John Melton or usSDR gui > >> done by Jonathan Naylor. Frank and I are not interested in doing >> this GUI work. We are interested in support anyone who wants to do >> the GUI work. >> >> Bob >> N4HY >> (coauthor DttSP with AB2KT) >> >> >> >> -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair "Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine
Re: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?
I downloaded the code from the SVN a couple of days ago and I'm wondering what will the Radio core will do, I don't need a detailed explanation just some broad strokes. At 05:15 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote: >Walt: > >Frank, Eric, and I have specfically answered all of your questions about >the Linux support. It is completely controllable under Linux now >especially for those who have no need for fancy radio GUI's. For those >that need GUI's there ARE GUI's and more will be coming. > >Roger Rehr has painted the road with crayola crayon especially for you: > >http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz > > >but the Linux code does not have the polished presentation of the >Windows version of code AND IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ITS >LIMITATIONS. It is poised to take off now. > >There are several approaches to take such as dttsp-shell (available >from Edson Pereira) or the java GUI done by John Melton or usSDR gui >done by Jonathan Naylor. Frank and I are not interested in doing >this GUI work. We are interested in support anyone who wants to do >the GUI work. > >Bob >N4HY >(coauthor DttSP with AB2KT) > > > > >DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: > > Peter, > > > > IMHO, the SDR-1000 has some of the best specs. out and is the > most configurable transceiver on the market. I have seen the > insides of the transceiver several times and the construction looks good. > > > > But note that it is only controllable using MS NT (maybe), W2K, > XP but I understand that there is a problem controlling it with > Vista. According to Felx Radio there is third party software to > control the SDR-1000 with Linux but I'll be darned if I can find > anything that gives steps 1, 2, 3, to take, to download, compile > the application or configure the radio. > > > > If a manufacturer claims that there is 3rd party software but > can't tell you where it is, then I think they should not claim that > there is such software and let it go at that. For that reason I am > leery of buying hardware that makes such claims. > > > > I have seen demonstrations of the SDR-1000 and I have used the > TS-1000/2000 series radios and the SDR-1000 is most impressive > against the Yaesu radios. > > > > 73, > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > -Original Message- > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter G. Viscarola > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:30 PM > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE? > > > > > > I work digital modes (PSK, RTTY, MFSK, Olivia, etc) almost exclusively. > > I also have a pretty low noise environment, living out in the > country and with my antenna (a dipole) almost 100' from the nearest > RF noise source. Note that upgrading my antenna system is really > not an option at this point for a whole lot of reasons. > > I presently have a TS-2000 and I like it a lot. I like the > ability to use the IF DSP to narrow the passband from each side to > isolate the signal I want. I've been pretty successful with it, > too. Given my modest setup I'm rapidly closing-in on my first 100 > for DXCC, after being on HF for only about 4 months. > > Could I gain some sensitivity/selectivity/better filtering by > upgrading my rig? What rigs might folks suggest? How about the > SDR-1000? Better? Worse? Something else? > > I'm relatively new to HF, so I'm looking for some elmering > I suppose -- Is my rig doing as well as any? Or, is a significant > step up possible? > > Again... I'm interested strictly in digital mode > performance. And, again, while I'd *like* to put up a tower with a > beam (and I *know* the old adage about 1 dollar spent on antennas > is worth 100 spent in teh shack), that just can't happen (for any > price I can pay) given my location. > > Thanks for your opinions, > > de Peter K1PGV > > > > > > __ > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, >TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair >"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows >how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine > > > > >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 > > > Cecil KD5NWA www.qrpradio.com www.hpsdr.com Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt. (Whe
Re: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?
Walt: Frank, Eric, and I have specfically answered all of your questions about the Linux support. It is completely controllable under Linux now especially for those who have no need for fancy radio GUI's. For those that need GUI's there ARE GUI's and more will be coming. Roger Rehr has painted the road with crayola crayon especially for you: http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz but the Linux code does not have the polished presentation of the Windows version of code AND IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ITS LIMITATIONS. It is poised to take off now. There are several approaches to take such as dttsp-shell (available from Edson Pereira) or the java GUI done by John Melton or usSDR gui done by Jonathan Naylor. Frank and I are not interested in doing this GUI work. We are interested in support anyone who wants to do the GUI work. Bob N4HY (coauthor DttSP with AB2KT) DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: > Peter, > > IMHO, the SDR-1000 has some of the best specs. out and is the most > configurable transceiver on the market. I have seen the insides of the > transceiver several times and the construction looks good. > > But note that it is only controllable using MS NT (maybe), W2K, XP but I > understand that there is a problem controlling it with Vista. According to > Felx Radio there is third party software to control the SDR-1000 with Linux > but I'll be darned if I can find anything that gives steps 1, 2, 3, to take, > to download, compile the application or configure the radio. > > If a manufacturer claims that there is 3rd party software but can't tell you > where it is, then I think they should not claim that there is such software > and let it go at that. For that reason I am leery of buying hardware that > makes such claims. > > I have seen demonstrations of the SDR-1000 and I have used the TS-1000/2000 > series radios and the SDR-1000 is most impressive against the Yaesu radios. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter > G. Viscarola > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:30 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE? > > > I work digital modes (PSK, RTTY, MFSK, Olivia, etc) almost exclusively. > I also have a pretty low noise environment, living out in the country and > with my antenna (a dipole) almost 100' from the nearest RF noise source. > Note that upgrading my antenna system is really not an option at this point > for a whole lot of reasons. > I presently have a TS-2000 and I like it a lot. I like the ability to use > the IF DSP to narrow the passband from each side to isolate the signal I > want. I've been pretty successful with it, too. Given my modest setup I'm > rapidly closing-in on my first 100 for DXCC, after being on HF for only about > 4 months. > Could I gain some sensitivity/selectivity/better filtering by upgrading my > rig? What rigs might folks suggest? How about the SDR-1000? Better? > Worse? Something else? > I'm relatively new to HF, so I'm looking for some elmering I suppose -- Is > my rig doing as well as any? Or, is a significant step up possible? > Again... I'm interested strictly in digital mode performance. And, again, > while I'd *like* to put up a tower with a beam (and I *know* the old adage > about 1 dollar spent on antennas is worth 100 spent in teh shack), that just > can't happen (for any price I can pay) given my location. > Thanks for your opinions, > de Peter K1PGV > > > __ > > > > 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 > > > > > -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair "Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine
[digitalradio] dominoEX/11
Finally worked W6JVE on DEX this AM, 100% copy despite QSB, He could not connect to me using PAX2 under the same conditions will be back on here later this afternoon, after 2000Z and will listen on 14073.5VFO or 14074.5 actual John VE5MU
[digitalradio] UIview
Uiview is unable to find unerlays or overlays.. These files are in the folder. What is wrong. Dan N0ZIZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc
I did some measurements for a few days in november on ionospheric doppler using whatever "constant" signals have been available, like WWV, CHU, several broadcasters on 49 meters, including Radio Habana Cuba, whose transmitters are some 20 km away from my QTH and become a mix of NVIS and ground wave. I used Spectran to obtain the carriers spectrum, and I mean plural, because you get several "threads" dancing on the screen in frequency and amplitude. I shifted the carriers to 1 kHz, offseting the tuning by that amount. The results have been interesting and a bit surprising. You may see several threads on the screen, spread around some 5 Hz. The frequency moves on the average at a rate of about 0.1 Hz per second (more or less, I was looking for absolute shift more than rate of shift, but both do matter). At times, some of the threads dissapear, and reappear shifted about 1 Hz per thread, sometimes jumping from one extreme of the carriers bunch to the other. The analysis bandwidth was between 20 and 50 Hz wide. I was also playing with Spectran and learning how to use it. That kind of behavior is a killer for many modulation schemes. As Patrick says, PSK10 suffers much more than higher speeds because the bit duration is an important fraction of the doppler shift rate, and you never get anything as stable phase. But also, when relative amplitude among the several threads varies, the carrier regenerator may jump from one to another. I did not look either for amplitude calibration during those first attempts. It may require periodic screenshots of the Spectran spectrum in the upper window. Reanalyzing some of those screenshots you may see amplitude differences as large as 20 dB at times and as small as 1 dB on some ocassions. But I was looking at the waterfall, and did not pay too much attention to amplitudes, and the screenshots timing was random between those patterns I found interesting in the waterfall. I don't know so far if Spectran might be able to produce a printed log of the amplitude vs. time distribution of the threads amplitude (possibly not...). Multicarrier modulations must also suffer, because if you use OFDM the jump from one of the "outer" threads to the other extreme, 5 Hz away, may be a cause for MT63 to refuse to decode at all sometimes. That is on the lower boundary of usable speeds. But you are bound also by ISI (inter symbol interference) at the higher usable speeds. One of the strategies of Pactor III is supressing some of the carriers at the lower data rates, and it sort of protects the signal by spacing the frequency bins a bit farther away, which may become more inmune of doppler causing the carriers to fall in the adjacent (wrong) bins. I did not measure delay spread, and would appreciate suggestions on doing so. And I only see the time standards (CHU, WWV) as suitable using the second ticks as time markers. I am open to suggestions. I cannot be conclusive about doppler spread now. It does not seem any worse on the higher frequencies, but then again, paths are different, and it does have an effect on what you get on the screen with Spectran. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Patrick Lindecker wrote: > > 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 __ 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] PAX 2 Beacon
At 1630Z beaconing PAX2 30 sec intervals VFO freq 14073.5 (actual 14074.5) RS ID on. Looking for a DEX QSO, but, since I can't beacon in Dex, PAX will do John VE5MU
