Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400
Hi group Where can I download theRFSM software from? 73 Omar YK1AO - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:45 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 .it took forever to tinker with this new stuff over a distance.. John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Les Warriner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 What did Ham Radio do before the Internet E-Mail? At 03:51 PM 3/15/2007, you wrote: Hi Jaun, Can sked with you on 20 meters: it's 22:50z. Try 14109.5? Tony KT2Q - Original Message - From: Juan Carlos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 I just downloaded and instaled version 0.49 and I'm ready on the air. How config the beacon ? tks. regards LU9DO No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400
o. wrote: Hi group Where can I download theRFSM software from? http://rfsm2400.aanesland.com/
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400
I'm listening in 14.109.5 in MIL-188 STD now 03/16/2007 03:00 UTC Somebody can connect ?
[digitalradio] QRV
I'm listening in 14.109.5 in MIL STD 188 since 03:00 UTC and nobody/ I'll be until 05:00 UTC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo --- kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It still seems a bit non-intuitive that using a 2400 baud rate with two tones can work well and yet 300 baud packet hardly works well at all. There is something that I am missing here. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Yes. MIL STD 188-110 is in PCALE software (along with standard ALE). Operators have been using -110 (outside USA) for data files. I was using the RFSM2400 while I was in Hong Kong, China. It is a good system, and the modified narrow version takes no more bandwidth than some other digital modes or SSB voice. As you know, USA has an arbitrary 300 symbol/second limit in the USA Data Subbands. But there is no such 300 baud limit in the phone and image subbands, so some of us in USA have used -110 to send image files. It does that quite well, but the real forte of -110 is data FTP and email. Wow... 2007... a shame that USA hams are living under those antiquated FCC rules made for the previous century's technology. USA hams still sit rotting in the FCC's technology jail. The rest of the world's hams can use RFSM2400 freely for data or mail. Bonnie KQ6XA No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
[digitalradio] Re: ALE Network Management
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bonnie, Have you ever used HF-CPSHF? John Hi John, I haven't used it, but it looks like a good program for managing ALE networks. It certainly could be useful in generating all the different fill files for different radios automatically. So far, I've had to generate them manually or with a spreadsheet. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] CQ ALE (was: RFSM-2400)
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Juan Carlos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm listening in 14.109.5 in MIL-188 STD now 03/16/2007 03:00 UTC Somebody can connect ? Hi Jaun, I recommend you try transmitting an HFL Netcall. That works better than listening. It will trigger all ALE ham stations to respond to you. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] DigiTRX in Windows Me - it works!
After getting a PIII laptop into the shack (which, like my PII still, unfortunately, runs on Windows Me) I was able to get DigiTRX to work receiving digital images from WB0UNB and NI7O. WB0UNB was also able to receive my first digital picture transmission. Someday I'll get a PC with XP down in the shack and download EasyPal and it will all go a lot easier. But it's fun teaching an old dog (not me, but my TS-120 as well as my laptop) some new tricks... David WB2HTO
Re: [digitalradio] QRV RFSM-2400 14109.5
I'm now qrz on 14.109.50 usb with RFSM-2400 and beacon mode 500/600 short every 30s Can you try to receive me and connect me? 73 Roberto IS0GRB - Original Message - From: KT2Q To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV RFSM-2400 14109.5 All: Listening on 14109.5 RFSM-2400 / non-standard mode. It's 23:00z, Thursday. Tony KT2Q -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11.27
Re: [digitalradio] QRV RFSM-2400 14109.5
sorry qrv.. - Original Message - From: Roberto IS0GRB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV RFSM-2400 14109.5 I'm now qrz on 14.109.50 usb with RFSM-2400 and beacon mode 500/600 short every 30s Can you try to receive me and connect me? 73 Roberto IS0GRB - Original Message - From: KT2Q To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV RFSM-2400 14109.5 All: Listening on 14109.5 RFSM-2400 / non-standard mode. It's 23:00z, Thursday. Tony KT2Q No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11.27 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11.27
[digitalradio] MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data
Since there is work presently being done to advance HF data communications, I thought it would be good to start a dialogue here about the advantages of PSK signals on HF, over some of the other choices. I'm not a world expert on these particular systems, however, I have used them and have an understanding. I have also been involved in design engineering of commercial radio communications using high speed data OFDM, AM-QPSK, and MPSK on DSP platforms. I hope that some of the individuals who are working on new HF data systems and data modes will engage in this discussion. Background. PSK signals have been long proven for HF communications. The MIL STD 188-110 type PSK signals have been in constant use by government and other entities for HF data and email, and they are now being adopted by hams. The standard 188-110 serial tone modem is an example of a Multi-Phase PSK signal (8PSK) running at a phase shift symbol rate of 2400 symbols per second. That means it shifts a constant carrier's phase between 8 different polar degree positions 2400 times per second. This raw bit speed is modified by software to get a data channel at various selectable levels from 75 baud to 4800 baud. The lower baud rates such as 75 baud, provide more robust comms, capable of low SNR, and operation in weak signal conditions. The highest baud rates such as 2400 baud provide faster data throughput but require a somewhat better quality channel, not weak signals. This -110 MIL Standard 8PSK signal is about 3kHz wide. It has an audio baseband signal approximately 300Hz to 3300Hz with a center frequency of 1800Hz. Some of the newer ham radios have adequate passband width for this signal. Since most ham radio and commercial SSB transceivers have a more narrow passband (~2.5kHz), at least 2 modified non-standard versions of the -110 PSK signal were independently developed (MARS-ALE and RFSM2400) to fit within the narrower SSB passband of ham transceivers. The RFSM2400 uses a 6PSK signal at 2000 symbols per second for its narrow non-MIL-standard mode rather than the 8PSK MIL-standard signal. It is centered on 1500Hz, and provides an audio baseband signal that is approximately 300Hz to 2700Hz. It also uses a short burst of BPSK signal for sync/control. Why Multi-Phase PSK? Phase detection is inherently faster than tone frequency detection such as used with FSK or MFSK signals. In the present state of the art for Frequency Shift Keying demodulation, the tone is present for several cycles to be detected reliably at audio baseband, so this makes rapid shifts having fewer cycles less reliable, thus limiting the data speed. Phase detection, on the other hand, is reliably detected within a a cycle. With a 6-phase (6PSK) signal or 8-phase (8PSK) signal, a greater number of raw symbol bits provides more throughput than the more common 2-phase (BPSK) or 4-phase (QPSK) signal. How the raw symbols are used, and how they are coded for redundancy and FEC at the software level, can be balanced for optimization of robustness and throughput for given conditions. Why not OFDM or AM-PSK? The use of full power constant amplitude, with 8 phase shift or 6 phase shift also makes the -110 PSK type signals more robust for HF than signals that depend upon amplitude level, such as OFDM (AM-QPSK or AM-MPSK). Perhaps an OFDM (AM-QPSK) signal with 2-level amplitude shift and 4 position phase shift, could achieve similar robustness to a 6PSK signal. Such an OFDM signal potentially has more throughput because the number of raw symbols, and thus number of bits per second, are higher. In weak signal conditions, however, the advantage of PSK over OFDM (AM-QPSK, AM-BPSK, AM-MPSK) becomes apparent... Since this OFDM (AM-QPSK) signal requires amplitude modulation, there is an inherent sacrifice of raw link margin threshold above noise for the receiver demodulator to resolve the lower amplitude symbols that are not at full transmit power. The lower amplitude symbols of the constellation are resting in the noise, although the higher amplitude symbols are still above the noise. If the OFDM modulation level shift is -6dB for the lower amplitude symbols, then the OFDM (AM-QPSK) will require a +6dB better SNR threshold than a PSK signal, all other factors being equal. However, once that relative threshold as been reached, the OFDM (AM-QPSK) signal has greater raw throughput potential. Comments and discussion are invited. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400
Roberto... IS0GRB' attempt connecting to 'LA5VNA' 'IS0GRB' attempt connecting to 'LA5VNA' 'IS0GRB' attempt connecting to 'LA5VNA' 'IS0GRB' attempt connecting to 'LA5VNA' Monitoring your RFSM sigs -- sorry I can't connect : ( Tony KT2Q From 'IS0HMB' to 'IS0GRB': Channel status packet, S/N: 10 dB From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 19 dB From 'IS0HMB' to 'IS0GRB': Channel status packet, S/N: 10 dB From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 21 dB From 'IS0HMB' to 'IS0GRB': Channel status packet, S/N: 9 dB From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 21 dB From 'IS0HMB' to 'IS0GRB': Channel status packet, S/N: 11 dB From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 22 dB From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 21 dB From 'IS0HMB' to 'IS0GRB': Channel status packet, S/N: 4 dB Read download directory request Request transfer file 'filelist', size 214 bytes From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 21 dB Info packet(s) 'IS0HMB' accept transfer file 'IS0HMB' accept transfer file From 'IS0GRB' to 'IS0HMB': Channel status packet, S/N: 21 dB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Poor Bonnie! We are hitting you from both directions: --some want better weak signal performance at the cost of speed (~HF) --some want more speed at the cost of signal performance (~10M VHF) Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:32:30 -0500 If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400
My side is now updated with a fast link to latest the software. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar http://rfsm2400.aanesland.com/ Les Keppie wrote: o. wrote: Hi group Where can I download theRFSM software from? http://rfsm2400.aanesland.com/
[digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Your understanding is not correct. The lower baud rates of the 188-110 PSK system work in *negative SNR*. That is much farther down into the noise than DRM. May I suggest you download RFSM2400 and receive some of the signals on the air. This might give you a better feel for it. Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
The slower speeds are better when the condx is worse, 75 bps and long interleave gets through just about anything. I have not really had to use it at that speed , 1200 bps gets through nicely too. I don't know how good the implementation in RFSM is, my experience is based upon years of daily use of the Harris RF-5710(A) modem so I need to use RFSM for a while to be able to say. Trouble is RFSM just doesn't play very well on linux, it hangs at times. 73 de Per, sm0rwo --- kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
RE: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
What if an individual wants high speed AND good low signal leveel throughput? I think the first thing is that individuals need to decide what USER throughput they want in CPS or WPM or PPM and then at what the lowerest SNR they expect the mode to provide 95% copy (or some percent of perfect). As Dave AA^YQ has said, there may not be one mode that works for all bands and under all scenerios...so more than one mode may be called for. IMHO a chat mode need not provide for more then 60 or so WPM but you might want it to provide 95% copy at a -15 dB SNR and you don't care what the bandwidth is as long as its small. On the other hand you may to esnt ASCII and binary files from point to point with a throughput so that a 40 Kbps file can be sent in 5 milutes or less and the mode must give 98% copy at a -10 dB SNR and if it shold have an ARQ feature that can be turned on to give you 100% copy for binary. You might wind up with a suite of modes call from a menu such as attached. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Champa Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Poor Bonnie! We are hitting you from both directions: --some want better weak signal performance at the cost of speed (~HF) --some want more speed at the cost of signal performance (~10M VHF) Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:32:30 -0500 If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- 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 Title: Modes HF Digital Modes Band Select a Band 160 Meters 80 Meters 40 Meters 30 Meters 20 Meters 17 Meters 15 Meters 12 Meters 10 Meters Mode Options Select a Chat Mode PSK31-Chat PSK63-Chat PSK125-Chat DomainoEX11-Chat DomainoEX22-Chat MFSK16-Chat Select a Send File Mode PSK63- end File PSK125-Send File MFSK16-Send File Select E-Mail PSKMail-EMail
[digitalradio] From YK1AO
Hi group Where can I download theRFSM software from? 73 Omar YK1AO - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:45 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 .it took forever to tinker with this new stuff over a distance.. John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Les Warriner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 What did Ham Radio do before the Internet E-Mail? At 03:51 PM 3/15/2007, you wrote: Hi Jaun, Can sked with you on 20 meters: it's 22:50z. Try 14109.5? Tony KT2Q - Original Message - From: Juan Carlos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM-2400 I just downloaded and instaled version 0.49 and I'm ready on the air. How config the beacon ? tks. regards LU9DO No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM
[digitalradio] SNR Performance vs Speed Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
John wrote: --some want better weak signal performance at the cost of speed (~HF) --some want more speed at the cost of signal performance (~10M VHF) Hi John, Fortunately, this choice is already built into the 188-110 system. Here is the specification a 8PSK MIL-STD-188-110 modem meets for minimum performance of Baud vs SNR vs Bit Error Rate in a fading channel. Examples: 4800baud non-fading channel is +17db SNR at 1.0E-3 Bit Error Rate. 75baud fading channel is +2dB SNR at 1.0E-5 Bit Error Rate. Generally speaking, with ARQ on HF, the average SNR to produce a good no-error final output is significantly lower... in other words, it works down into the noise with ARQ, at slower speed when needed. Keep in mind that these are the requirements in the specification. In order to meet these consistently, the equipment needs to be better than the spec. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA =Baud=ChannelPaths=Multipath(ms)=Fading BW(Hz)=SNR(dB)=BER 4800 1 Fixed - - 17db 1.0E-3 4800 2 Fading 2ms 0.5 27db 1.0E-3 2400 1 Fixed - - 10db 1.0E-5 2400 2 Fading 2ms l 18db l.0E-5 2400 2 Fading 2ms 5 30db 1.0E-3 2400 2 Fading 5ms 1 30db 1.0E-5 1200 2 Fading 2ms 1 11db 1.0E-5 600 2 Fading 2ms 1 7db 1.0E-5 300 2 Fading 5ms 5 7db 1.0E-5 150 2 Fading 5ms 5 5db 1.0E-5 75 2 Fading 5ms 5 2db 1.0E-5 NOTES: 1. Fading test per ITU-R F520-2. 2. Both signal and noise powers are measured in a 3-kHz bandwidth.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
I was able to find some interesting data on poor channel performance of the 110A modem from one company: http://www.etools.de/software/telekommunikation/komponenten/milstd188110a.htm Depending upon the BER you can tolerate, it appears that the 2400 bps speed can only handle around +10 to +14 S/N dB. The slower bps rates can work to around zero S/N. Te 150 bps shows something around -1 to -4. Another interesting specification is the the multipath tolerance. They claim 6 msec at 2400 bps, 8 ms from 150 to 1200 bps, and 12 mec at 75 baud. That seems to have good ability to cope with ISI. Now these are the bps rates. Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, contrary to what Bonnie claims? 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Your understanding is not correct. The lower baud rates of the 188-110 PSK system work in *negative SNR*. That is much farther down into the noise than DRM. May I suggest you download RFSM2400 and receive some of the signals on the air. This might give you a better feel for it. Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Bonnie, Your definition below is not at all my understanding, nor does it square with anything that I have read on baud rate. My understanding for many years has been that baud refers to the symbol rate per second. In other words, the actual changes or transitions taking place per second. The rate of data throughput (the signaling rate) is often expressed as bits per second (bps). Some baud rates may allow for more data throughput in bps than the baud rate because one symbol can carry more than one bit depending upon the modulation scheme. What do you consider the baud rate to be, if not the symbols per second? KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Rick, KV9U wrote: Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, Hi Rick, Perhaps you have been confusing baud and symbols per second. This is a common mistake many hams have with complex digital formats. To answer your question... The MIL STD 188-110 serial PSK modem signal on the air is 2400 symbols per second. The non-standard RFSM2400 is 2000 symbols per second. The baud rate, determined by coding, may change. The symbol rate stays constant. The baud rate may be as low as 75 baud or as high as 4800 baud. If your issue is about how this affects your FCC compliance, the answer to that is: 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Stay in Technology Jail. :) Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Yes. Bonnie --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, To condense, is your opinion as follows? It is legal, in the US, for image or voice content on HF in the image/voice subbands. It is not legal at all, in the US, in the RTTY/data subbands. Thanks, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Somebody wrote: Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not considered legal on HF in the USA. That is false. The modems are legal on HF for hams in USA. They may be used for image or voice content on HF. 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] 14346kHz Image Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Hi Howard, It is best to arrange a sked on Digitalradio or HFLINK group. We have previously used one of the ALE channels at 14346.0kHz USB for sending images with the 188-110 modem. We link first on ALE, then use SSB Voice QSO for setting things up. We don't use any texting or chat via keyboard. Other frequencies that are often used for digital images: 14230.0kHz USB 14233.0kHz USB 14236.0kHz USB But, most of those frequencies are pretty busy running other digital image formats or digital voice, so you might not find many takers for 188-110. But if they are clear, it would be a good alternative to 14346.0kHz USB. Bonnie KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we are legal if we go to the voice bands and save screen shots of our messages then send the screen shots? What frequency(s) is this happening on? I have had the opportunity to test RFSM2400 using the Modulation type called 2000 baud. This works every bit as well as you said. I do not know the technical details but in practice it is FAST and ERROR FREE. Howard K5HB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Somebody wrote: Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not considered legal on HF in the USA. That is false. The modems are legal on HF for hams in USA. They may be used for image or voice content on HF. 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
If you want to have a revolution, first you must kill all the lawyers. William Shakespeare Does that include barracks lawyers? Just kidding guys. Keep it light! HI HI 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:08:21 +0100 Here we go again... --- Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not considered legal on HF in the USA. -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb. com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Bonnie, If one more so called radio experimenter asks if something is legal, tonight, I am going to go out and get drunk...which I really would rather not do. I am getting too old for such foolishness. HI 73, John, K8OCL PS - I found a store that will ship an ICOM IC-F7000 to my address in Canada! Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:18:53 - Yes. Bonnie --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, To condense, is your opinion as follows? It is legal, in the US, for image or voice content on HF in the image/voice subbands. It is not legal at all, in the US, in the RTTY/data subbands. Thanks, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Somebody wrote: Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not considered legal on HF in the USA. That is false. The modems are legal on HF for hams in USA. They may be used for image or voice content on HF. 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Walt, I would rather have ONE mode that is scalable so that you could merely adjust it according to the demand, speed vs SNR, etc. Please write to me off-line if you plan to attend HAMCOM in Dallas. I think I owe you a case of wine or something. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:27:23 -0500 What if an individual wants high speed AND good low signal leveel throughput? I think the first thing is that individuals need to decide what USER throughput they want in CPS or WPM or PPM and then at what the lowerest SNR they expect the mode to provide 95% copy (or some percent of perfect). As Dave AA^YQ has said, there may not be one mode that works for all bands and under all scenerios...so more than one mode may be called for. IMHO a chat mode need not provide for more then 60 or so WPM but you might want it to provide 95% copy at a -15 dB SNR and you don't care what the bandwidth is as long as its small. On the other hand you may to esnt ASCII and binary files from point to point with a throughput so that a 40 Kbps file can be sent in 5 milutes or less and the mode must give 98% copy at a -10 dB SNR and if it shold have an ARQ feature that can be turned on to give you 100% copy for binary. You might wind up with a suite of modes call from a menu such as attached. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Champa Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Poor Bonnie! We are hitting you from both directions: --some want better weak signal performance at the cost of speed (~HF) --some want more speed at the cost of signal performance (~10M VHF) Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:32:30 -0500 If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo 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 test.html
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Rick, Now that is some interesting research! More please. Thanks, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:00:21 -0500 I was able to find some interesting data on poor channel performance of the 110A modem from one company: http://www.etools.de/software/telekommunikation/komponenten/milstd188110a.htm Depending upon the BER you can tolerate, it appears that the 2400 bps speed can only handle around +10 to +14 S/N dB. The slower bps rates can work to around zero S/N. Te 150 bps shows something around -1 to -4. Another interesting specification is the the multipath tolerance. They claim 6 msec at 2400 bps, 8 ms from 150 to 1200 bps, and 12 mec at 75 baud. That seems to have good ability to cope with ISI. Now these are the bps rates. Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, contrary to what Bonnie claims? 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Your understanding is not correct. The lower baud rates of the 188-110 PSK system work in *negative SNR*. That is much farther down into the noise than DRM. May I suggest you download RFSM2400 and receive some of the signals on the air. This might give you a better feel for it. Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
To be argumentative, this quote was from the play Henry VI, believe Dick the Butcher made it. He also wanted to execute all those that could read or write. Shakespeare apprenticed for a law firm and do not think he would wish for my family to be deprived of income thru death :) Also doubt Shakespeare knew morse code! Now back to our regularly scheduled programming --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to have a revolution, first you must kill all the lawyers. William Shakespeare Does that include barracks lawyers? Just kidding guys. Keep it light! HI HI 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Is THAT legal? Oh I guess it is if your over 21. 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: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:28 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110 Bonnie, If one more so called radio experimenter asks if something is legal, tonight, I am going to go out and get drunk...which I really would rather not do. I am getting too old for such foolishness. HI 73, John, K8OCL PS - I found a store that will ship an ICOM IC-F7000 to my address in Canada! Original Message Follows From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:18:53 - Yes. Bonnie --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, To condense, is your opinion as follows? It is legal, in the US, for image or voice content on HF in the image/voice subbands. It is not legal at all, in the US, in the RTTY/data subbands. Thanks, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Somebody wrote: Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not considered legal on HF in the USA. That is false. The modems are legal on HF for hams in USA. They may be used for image or voice content on HF. 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Bonnie KQ6XA 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM
[digitalradio] RFSM2400
HELP!!! I cannot seem to get this software running properly. I can call another station, and his station answers me , looking for the connect. But I don't see ANY packets from him and can't carry thru with the connection. His signal looks good, everything seems to be working the way it should. any ideas? and is anyone on 40 or 80 tonight with this mode? John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM2400
Hi John,
I had a similar experience running RFSM2400 under Wine on Linux.
I set up a clean Windows system and went to the latest version of the
RFSM2400 package and that cleared it up.
The best I could tell, my software was seeing the other station because
the S/N and speed were appearing in the status bar when he replied.
I assumed it was some wierd problem with Wine.
In that version (0.49) I did not see any packets in the Packets Monitor
window. On the new version (0.496) I do see packets there.
Oh yes, I exchanged a couple of emails with the author. He was very
responsive.
Good Luck,
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:27:37 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM2400
HELP!!!
I cannot seem to get this software running
properly.
I can call another station, and his station answers
me , looking for the connect.
But I don't see ANY packets from him and can't
carry thru with the connection. His signal looks good,
everything seems to be working the way it should.
any ideas? and is anyone on 40 or 80 tonight with
this mode?
John
VE5MU
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a {
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc {
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o {font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq {margin:4;}
--
[digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data
Hi Bonnie, Thanks for initiating this discussion: Throw the prospect of incremental frequency shift keying into the mix for discussion; know a few are working on this mode(s)also. The OFDM (AM-QPSK)+6dB better SNR may or may not be an issue...it depends on usagethe usual HF near LUF versus nearer MUF or VHF/UHF question. The key may well be your comment later, all other factors being equal. Greater raw throughput seems very dependant upon S/N (we all know this intuatively). You are correct, PSK overall is a known quantity...QPSK abit less so. In a sense you have hit upon the crux of the issueam simple so bear with me. If the SNR is high enough, then higher raw throughput is available. Question (well one of them) for discussion; where is the threshold? Also some mitigating factors such as robustness (never sure that has been defined) and the ever-lovable bandwidth. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since there is work presently being done to advance HF data communications, I thought it would be good to start a dialogue here about the advantages of PSK signals on HF, over some of the other choices. I'm not a world expert on these particular systems, however, I have used them and have an understanding. I have also been involved in design engineering of commercial radio communications using high speed data OFDM, AM-QPSK, and MPSK on DSP platforms. I hope that some of the individuals who are working on new HF data systems and data modes will engage in this discussion. Background. PSK signals have been long proven for HF communications. The MIL STD 188-110 type PSK signals have been in constant use by government and other entities for HF data and email, and they are now being adopted by hams. The standard 188-110 serial tone modem is an example of a Multi-Phase PSK signal (8PSK) running at a phase shift symbol rate of 2400 symbols per second. That means it shifts a constant carrier's phase between 8 different polar degree positions 2400 times per second. This raw bit speed is modified by software to get a data channel at various selectable levels from 75 baud to 4800 baud. The lower baud rates such as 75 baud, provide more robust comms, capable of low SNR, and operation in weak signal conditions. The highest baud rates such as 2400 baud provide faster data throughput but require a somewhat better quality channel, not weak signals. This -110 MIL Standard 8PSK signal is about 3kHz wide. It has an audio baseband signal approximately 300Hz to 3300Hz with a center frequency of 1800Hz. Some of the newer ham radios have adequate passband width for this signal. Since most ham radio and commercial SSB transceivers have a more narrow passband (~2.5kHz), at least 2 modified non-standard versions of the -110 PSK signal were independently developed (MARS-ALE and RFSM2400) to fit within the narrower SSB passband of ham transceivers. The RFSM2400 uses a 6PSK signal at 2000 symbols per second for its narrow non-MIL-standard mode rather than the 8PSK MIL-standard signal. It is centered on 1500Hz, and provides an audio baseband signal that is approximately 300Hz to 2700Hz. It also uses a short burst of BPSK signal for sync/control. Why Multi-Phase PSK? Phase detection is inherently faster than tone frequency detection such as used with FSK or MFSK signals. In the present state of the art for Frequency Shift Keying demodulation, the tone is present for several cycles to be detected reliably at audio baseband, so this makes rapid shifts having fewer cycles less reliable, thus limiting the data speed. Phase detection, on the other hand, is reliably detected within a a cycle. With a 6-phase (6PSK) signal or 8-phase (8PSK) signal, a greater number of raw symbol bits provides more throughput than the more common 2-phase (BPSK) or 4-phase (QPSK) signal. How the raw symbols are used, and how they are coded for redundancy and FEC at the software level, can be balanced for optimization of robustness and throughput for given conditions. Why not OFDM or AM-PSK? The use of full power constant amplitude, with 8 phase shift or 6 phase shift also makes the -110 PSK type signals more robust for HF than signals that depend upon amplitude level, such as OFDM (AM-QPSK or AM-MPSK). Perhaps an OFDM (AM-QPSK) signal with 2-level amplitude shift and 4 position phase shift, could achieve similar robustness to a 6PSK signal. Such an OFDM signal potentially has more throughput because the number of raw symbols, and thus number of bits per second, are higher. In weak signal conditions, however, the advantage of PSK over OFDM (AM-QPSK, AM-BPSK, AM-MPSK) becomes apparent... Since this OFDM (AM-QPSK) signal requires amplitude modulation, there is an inherent sacrifice of raw link margin threshold above noise for the receiver demodulator to
[digitalradio] rfsm2400
beaconing on mil std 3620khz USB at 0400Z John VE5MU
[digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
KT2Q wrote: All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT Les VK2DSG
Re: [digitalradio] From YK1AO
o. wrote: Hi group Where can I download theRFSM software from? 73 Omar YK1AO Omar, The temporary site is http://rfsm2400.narod.ru 73, José, CO2JA __ 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
