Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U
These numbers seem very much what others have reported as well. A difference of 3 or 4 dB lower is highly significant, even with AWGN tests. When we were testing SCAMP, which used the RDFT protocol, there was nothing so frustrating as to watch the mode time itself out even though signals were more than adequate to carry on a solid SSB voice contact. Which, of course we could not do because we were in the data portion of the band. But just a few dB improvement in the protocol would have meant the difference between success and no success at all, even if it had to run a bit slower. But it was either good speed or no speed. And this is the difference between digital data and digital voice. With voice you have a threshold that you really can not go below or else the quality becomes unusable. With data, you can have fall back positions, albeit at a slower speed. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick... I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? For what it's worth, I did some path simulator tests with WinDRM and the SNR decode threshold seemed to be around 8db. It was about 3 to 4db lower with DVDRM. These were AGWN tests without any simulated ionospheric disturbance added in. Keep in mind that the modes might start to decode at these levels, but being right at the threshold, any QSB or selective fading would cause the signal to drop out. I think 10db is a more realistic figure for reliable copy. maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? I think it does. The audio quality is that internet sound Yes, it does sound digitized to some extent, but I think the near zero noise floor makes the user forget about the robot-like characteristics! It's fun to use... Tony KT2Q - Original Message - From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U Hi Tony, I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10, and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT based software and moving toward the OFDM type as found in WinDRM. I am not sure how RDFT works either, maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? The audio quality is that internet sound that we used to get with low quality dial up speeds and is not unlike some cell phone connections. I am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick, WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so it's usually not an issue there. On 40 meters and below it seems that DVDRM mode does a better job coping with QRN. It's not exactly hi-fi as you say, but it's interesting to note that the decoded audio has a range of about 4khz (see attached). The lows dip way down and the high-end is slightly above 4000 hertz. I guess you could say audio response is pretty good when you consider the RF bandwidth is the same as used for SSB! You'd need 4khz to duplicate this with analog. Mel and I have fooled around with EQ a bit and you can enhance the DV audio to sound terrific, but the problem is getting software EQ's to work simultaniously with WinDRM. An outboard unit would work fine. Check with Mel about the DVDRM mode info... 73, Tony KT2Q 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: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, You make several excellent points! OK...Chris isn't perfect ($%#@). Plus, the recent alternative ARRL proposal causes me some concern. For example, might we not want some digital mode above 3 kHz someday? How about one spot on just a few bands where up to 6 kHz is permitted? Why take away privileges we already have in the name of our own self-defense? It doesn't make any sense to me. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable. 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the Amateur Radio News section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
Bruce, Is all you know how to do is flame? Turn down the heat and go back on your meds, OK? Thanks from all of us, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Do you ever want to see a vote of all members of the arrl? or better yet all hams as to if they want this? You know damn well if wide band gets going all other modes will be squeezed out ... why do you think the RTTY/CW guys are livid right now ? how many ARRL members will be left after this mess you are proposing get going ? hopefully none . They GAVE you 222 and up but untill you OWN all the bands your kind will not be happy It's the truth and you know it . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o) John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) This will be the end of ham radio . Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
PS - All you guys concerned with such need to write to your respective ARRL Director. Hamming it up on this reflector will do little good in the endUNLESS you cc your director, too. AND, I am not a spokesman for the League. I spend most of my Ham radio on the 2.4 GHz band, so what do I know anyway (HI). 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:13:31 -0400 Dave, Just FYI, here is the response I got back to your points... I don't necessary agree with the response, but Jim is closer to the situation than I am so here goes... Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. Interestingly, if Regulation by Bandwidth had been adopted, there would have been no reason for us to ask FCC to impose a maximum transmitted bandwidth on data transmissions. Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable. 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the Amateur Radio News section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 19:50 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Can anyone identify this mode (jpg posted)
http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group. David WB2HTO
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Dave, Oh, that's great Dave!. Thanks a lot, partner. (HI) Not that it's not an excellent proposal, mind you, but the HSMM modes cover BRUCE's personally owned AM Worldwide 6M Calling spot @ 50.4 MHz! I am the destroyer of worlds! (The Hunt for Red October?) So now Bruce will be on constant flame! 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:33:12 - This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid. To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people (including me) in addition to Chris and anyone else at the law firm who reviewed the ex parte presentation before it was made. The interesting thing is that the bulk of the criticism made about the presentation focuses on the proposed maximum bandwidth of 3 kHz for data. This was not the error. I didn't lay this all on Imlay; I simply quoted Imlay's mea culpa to demonstrate that the error and ensuing confusion were the responsibility of paid professionals, rather than unpaid volunteers as you had claimed. His No. 2, second paragraph: He is wrong when he asserts we are trying to expand the use of uncontrolled 'bots. They have been allowed for quite some time. This is a non-sequitur. The fact that uncontrolled 'bots (by which I assume he means unattended servers like WinLink PMBOs) have been around for quite some time does not refute my assertion that the ARRL is trying to expand the frequencies available for their use. The ARRL's RM-11306 would allow semi-automatic operation anywhere subject only to bandwidth constraints. The reason for the 3 kHz proposal for data max. bandwidth is to establish a limit where one does not exist. If adopted, this will apply to 'bots as well as other data forms. Further, we are not proposing to expand the frequency subbands available to 'bots or any other form of data. Without seeing the ARRL's newest proposed changes to ยง97.221 (which governs semi-automatic operation) one can't agree or disagree. Taking the author at his word, there is still the problem of unintended consequences, which have plagued recent ARRL proposals. Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. As we have discussed here many times, Rick KN6KB developed an effective soundcard-based busy frequency detector 2 years ago as part of SCAMP. The implementation was a first iteration proof of concept, and technology has progressed during the ensuing years; thus, I'm sure that improvements are possible, but reinventing the wheel is unnecessary. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing. This is completely backwards thinking. Is it okay to keep using a transmitter with key clicks until we learn how to cure them? No. Is it okay to keep using an amplifier that splatters until we figure out how to tune it correctly? Of course not. Then neither is it okay to be running a PMBO without a busy detector until the WinLink organization gets around to correcting their shoddy implementation. His No. 2, last paragraph: The broad scale opposition to Regulation by Bandwidth occurred only for HF. There was no such opposition for VHF and above. Based on the responses to RM-11306, I would say that the broad scale opposition is to the expansion of semi-automatic operation that came as a side effect of the ARRL's Regulation by Bandwidth proposal. Had the ARRL taken this feedback into account by retaining the current limits on semi-automatic operation, my guess is that a suitably-modified Regulation by Bandwidth proposal would have been supported by most of the amateur community for both HF and VHF operation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU Finally, we have tasked a group with developing an inexpensive means to develop a means of enabling 'bots and other forms of data to monitor the frequency they would transmit on (and nearby frequencies) before they transmit. As we have discussed here many times, Rick KN6KB developed an effective soundcard-based busy frequency detector 2 years ago as part of SCAMP. The implementation was a first iteration proof of concept, and technology has progressed during the ensuing years; thus, I'm sure that improvements are possible, but reinventing the wheel is unnecessary. Once these become reasonably available, FCC can require their use to avoid QRMing.
Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
From my time in Ham Radio: - Going from Class A to a structured licensing was the end of Ham Radio. - Giving Novices 10m voice was the end of Ham Radio. - Giving Novices 220 was the end of Ham Radio. - Dropping CW from structured classes to 5WPM was the end of Ham Radio. - Dropping CW was the end of Ham Radio. No opinions, no flames, no political agenda, just a review of history. I am sure there are plenty of other examples along these lines. On 3/23/07, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Do you ALWAYS over-react, of is that just for this reflector? ;o) John Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wa4gch%40yahoo.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT) This will be the end of ham radio . __ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
no the ARRL will pay with loss of 90% of its members ... they will see just how many unhappy hams are out there come renewal time . ENJOY YOUR BAND all 12 of you . im done .. 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] Can anyone identify this mode (jpg posted)
Looks like RTTY to me. Can't quite tell but the shift maybe 200Hz. Darrel VE7CUS On 24-Mar-07, at 3:12 PM, David Kruh wrote: http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group. David WB2HTO
Re: [digitalradio] Can anyone identify this mode (jpg posted)
Pactor 1 ARQ. -Joe, N8FQ On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:12:33 - David Kruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group. David WB2HTO
[digitalradio] New PSKlive version available
Hi all, A new live cd for pskmail is now available! This cd features the latest versions of client and server for pskmail (with all the nice new features available there). Also there is xastir, tlf, wsjt, xdx, gmfsk, fldigi and much more to explore on the cd. Also available is Firefox, evolution, koffice etc. All the pskmail files are tied to our subversion server and its possible to update them while running (this feature will be enhanced even further). New scripts for backup and restore of your home folder are also on board. I recommend this mirror at the moment: http://sharon.esrac.ele.tue.nl/pub/linux/ham/pskmail/psklive_2007_2.iso (I hope it will soon be available on the US mirror as well). Thanks to all that have contributed to this release. 73 de Per, sm0rwo P.s. More info regarding this cd and PSKmail can be found at the wiki here: http://pskmail.wikispaces.com Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is stepping on another QSO. and the response was: Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including the release of the code coming from a GPL source. Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was just casually listening if the frequency was clear. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5? Or is it now that they want to limit the text data area to a similar BW which currently has no limits? I support that and have lobbied hard for it with Division Director and other decision makers, but I now some of you would like to see very wide modes on the HF bands and if this came to pass, it would not be possible to get that changed for a very long time. 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem to get around them. 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: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is stepping on another QSO. and the response was: Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including the release of the code coming from a GPL source. Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was just casually listening if the frequency was clear. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU 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: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 3/23/2007 3:27 PM
[digitalradio] Re: Can anyone identify this mode (jpg posted)
Thank you. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Joe Veldhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pactor 1 ARQ. -Joe, N8FQ On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:12:33 - David Kruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group. David WB2HTO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden transmitter issue. The sad fact is that they are probably right, there is enough bad will against the system amongst the ham community, that if 'they' did implement automatic signal detection and a qrm avoidance process, they probably would experience a drastic reduction in throughput. Of course if the system had been well behaved and less proprietary all along, the current animosity probably wouldn't have ever existed. Both the frequency in use signal detection issue and the hidden transmitter issues have already been solved, at the tax payers expense. Those who claim the problem is 'difficult' or 'unsolvable', either don't understand the problem, are intentionally misrepresenting the complexity of resolving it, or are just repeating what they've been told. Very elegant solutions are already available either in open source, or via the freedom of information act. This is a problem that was solved decades ago by radio astronomers, who resolved it in real time with computers which were dinosaurs compared with the modern junkers many of us have lining the walls of our garages. The real issue, is that 1) the average ham, and the well above average bureaucrat don't understand the problem, and 2) those who could 'fix' it believe that doing so would cripple their system to the point of making it totally unusable, in short their only incentive is to not fix it. I think the American ham community would actually jump at the 'opportunity' to be regulated by bandwidth, if they could also get rid of the misbehaving (semi)automated systems. The real block to progress, is that the wardens of Bonnie's Technology Jail, haven't or won't resolve the qrm problem to pave the way for bandwidth regulation change. Most of the resistance to the bandplan by bandwidth proposal(s), is in fact opposition to the continuation and proliferation of a 'bad' system, and not opposition to bandwidth based band plans at all. 73, Erik N7HMS Danny Douglas wrote: If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem to get around them. 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.
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
The initial proposal was 3.5 kHz bandwidth for any mode within certain HF band segments. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: kv9u To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 00:56 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5? Or is it now that they want to limit the text data area to a similar BW which currently has no limits? I support that and have lobbied hard for it with Division Director and other decision makers, but I now some of you would like to see very wide modes on the HF bands and if this came to pass, it would not be possible to get that changed for a very long time. 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote: The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate.
[digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I am not privy to the PMBO code, but I would be extremely surprised if Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. All that is required is for a PMBO in its idle state to not respond to an incoming user request if the busy detector output was positive anytime during the last X minutes; where 1 X 5. A more likely concern is that adding a busy busy detector would make PMBOs vulnerable to intentional QRM. This is one of the tradeoffs we all make by using the amateur bands for communications as opposed to commerical services. However, a WinLink PMBO could easily outlast a human QRMer, and the delay in email delivery would likely have no serious consequences. During emergencies, one would expect PMBO operators to disable busy detection. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is stepping on another QSO. and the response was: Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including the release of the code coming from a GPL source. Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was just casually listening if the frequency was clear. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
