[digitalradio] Re: Teaser... new mode
Thanks for the answer. S --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy, Any news about this new digital protocol ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Andrew O'Brien wrote: OK, now that you have bought the new Harry Potter book, what more is there to look forward to with excitement. A new digital protocol is due to be tested in the next few weeks that will be of interest to many. Watch this space . Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Hi Steve, Can you give a rundown as why dedicated PTT is better than CAT PTT? Thank you. I think you will find on a whole and especially within the ALE community that RTS/DTR hardware PTT is the standard to this day, just look at all the RigBlaster and other interfaces being used ( where if such an interface is the choice and RTS/CTS handshaking is being used either DTR for PTT or again the use of CAT PTT with such units in the Vox position would be used). begin:vcard fn:73... Jon W1MNK Brandon, FL USA EL87uv n:;73... Jon W1MNK Brandon, FL USA EL87uv version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [digitalradio] Re: help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Chiming in here: no delays, less to go wrong. Also a *lot* easier for the poor old programmer. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Jon Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you give a rundown as why dedicated PTT is better than CAT PTT? Thank you.
[digitalradio] Re: help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Of course, if you don't have a spare RS232 port then CAT contol is obviously better. At least for PSK, I found the CAT control on the MP to work just fine. I question the timing conclusion. Anybody who has tried using RS232 ports or LPT's for sending CW knows the highly buffered environment in XP and VISTA screws up the timing. We're talking way more than 10 ms delays and timing inaccuracies. People have gotten around this in XP by a program called DLPORT which allows direct port writes like one could do in older OS's. Another solution has been to use WINKEY instead of generating CW within the computer. One sends out an ASCII character via a port and the WINKEY PIC generates the perfect CW character. In effect it is a CW TNC. That's real progress! Instead of just turning on and off an external line at prescribed times one has to resort to such nonsense. Anyhow the software/hardware out there should be working on USB interfaces rather than COM port interfaces. USB/com port intefaces have been problematic with RTTY due to the slow baud rate. I assume the same would be true for these modes. Obviously rig control for most present generation rigs has to be over COM's. Most USB/COM port converters work OK for rig control. However, the same timing problems most likely exist. I simply don't know if USB timing suffers from the above timing problems or not. Perhaps so. But for computers with no COM ports, USB is the way to go. The problem is that a real time operating system is needed when timing is critical. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chiming in here: no delays, less to go wrong. Also a *lot* easier for the poor old programmer. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Jon Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you give a rundown as why dedicated PTT is better than CAT PTT? Thank you.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Hi Jon, Simon: Well MS-Windows being an event driven, multi-tasking environment is the not the best environment when it comes to dealing with signaling and data comm ports, however it can be managed for PTT needs reasonable well depending on how strict such PTT timing requirements are. For example as we all should know by now repetitive PTT timing down to 10ms is a big challenge. Anyhow, the point with regard to ALE operations and PTT is that when fully exercised ALE is a near-real time scanning operation at 1, 2 and 5 channels per second (ch/sec) presently and 10 ch/sec coming as mentioned in the current MIL-STD-188-141B standard. At that 5 ch/sec scan rate there is but a 100ms window to change radio characteristics from channel to channel regarding Frequency, Mode ( and other parameters that may be supported such as Antenna Port, ATU etc.) when Scanning/Sounding. Par of the Sounding process is of course PTT as is when receiving and replying to a call while Scanning or during a user initiated LQA Linking Call during Scanning. What must be taken into account here also is the baud rate at which the radio is operating, at 9600 baud and 100ms a maximum of 80 characters can be exchanged whereas at 1200 baud it is only 10, 2400 baud is 20, 4800 baud is 40. Also, even though a radio may be operating at 9600 baud, its CPU may not be able to process the data sent to it fast enough and may use whatever means provided ( if any) to ask the PC application to wait before sending more data at certain juncture and if not the follow on data that comes to fast will be ignored. In ALE operations the last thing to be sent for a TX event is the TX method, thus for CAT PTT the TX command is the last item sent to the radio and if may be ignored. I have however found in my testing that it does work rather well with the make model radios that I have here for testing with, but I still prefer and I do only use RS-232 RTS or DTR for my PTT needs as I know for sure that the RS-232 will go high and go low, I state that as aside from what I have just pointed out, RS232 noise, data collision ( depending on the topology such as CI-V CSMA) and dropped data bits, missing polling event ( depending on radio model), a constant keep in PTT or keep alive command needing to be sent over and over for some models ( e.g. Harris RF-350 family and Kachina 505DSP) etc. as well as the possibility of radio lock up due to RFI or over heating or just plain failure come into play with CAT PTT and not with RTS/DTR signaling. For casual use of Amateur Radio CAT PTT is fine as far as I am concerned, its also seems to work ok for most radios, most of the time for ALE applications from the years of experience now under my belt in discussing this issue with MARS-ALE users who have been using it and as stated, its not supported for each radio type selection in the next version of PC-ALE being tested for those that want to use it, I just can't recommend it for everyone to use taking into account the known issues and variables involved, whereas hardware PTT through the 10 ch/sec ( supported in MARS-ALE) scan rate works great all the time. With it now being in place in the next PC-ALE, everyone can experiment with their installation ( if their radio supports it) to determine if its reliable for their ALE pursuits. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 07:45 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: Chiming in here: no delays, less to go wrong. Also a *lot* easier for the poor old programmer. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Jon Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you give a rundown as why dedicated PTT is better than CAT PTT? Thank you.
Re: [digitalradio] help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Hi Rick, At 09:59 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: In terms of CAT PTT, aren't you using some of the same interfacing with RS-232 serial connection for rig control? It seems a step backwards to set up two RS-232 serial ports considering that we also need to convert from USB. I admit that the ICOM CI-V might be less than perfect and could hang up in TX mode as I have had this happen. For unattended operation, maybe you would need a separate PTT, but for most users, keeping it as simple as possible commensurate with adequate rig control seems to me to be the goal with modern interfacing. I don't know where you keep getting this need for 2 serial ports to do hardware PTT from Rick? If that is your choice fine, but is not a requirement. Please read my previous post to Jon today for my comments that cover this subject matter. While the Rigblaster interfaces are used by many hams, I am not that impressed with their design if it requires two serial ports and I am not sure if they completely isolate both audio lines. It only requires the CAT RS-232 port with the use of a splitter Rick, the same for all RS-232 RTS/DTR keying. One of the most common interfaces seems to be the Tigertronics which keys the PTT line using computer audio, but I definitely do not recommend that approach:) I agree on that and its one situation where if the user has already committed to using such and if they have a CAT PTT capable radio, I suggest that for ALE use they enable CAT PTT as the Vox like hardware keying will not suffice for ALE in two way acty. To meet the spirit, and perhaps the legal requirements of Part 97, all ALE programs need to be able to monitor all transmissions. The last thing we need is a replay of Pactor modes which are problematical in monitoring and many of us, if given the choice, would ban the use of such modes. Nothing requires the actual application used by the Radio Amateur to be able to decode the data transmissions of a third party Rick, when you are linked and you can decode, that is all that counts, any other monitoring is not your concern as far at Part 97 is involved regardless of what your opinion of the spirit of Part 97 may be. However if you have the time and interest to decode and listen to everyone's QSO's then there are plenty of free PCSDM based tools about for ALE and even other modes in commercial offerings ( both PCSDM and dedicated hardware modem) that support most everything that you can make use of in your pursuits to even include those PACTOR modes you wish to monitor if you want to spend the money. /s/ Steve, N2CKH 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110
Luc , VE2???, is also playing around with this. Bonnie talked me through the up and I was able to make a link with Luc under fairly poor conditions. I will be happy to do some tests at 300 baud or less. Has anyone tried it at higher rates on 6M ? Andy K3UK On 8/6/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy, What software do you suggest? If PC-ALE will be able to key the PTT line via CAT interfacing with an upcoming new version, this should work for me with my main digital rig which is the ICOM 756 Pro 2. But if I understand it correctly, I could use my Ten Tec Argonaut V, although I don't normally have the fans plugged in since I mostly use this rig for QRP CW and for general monitoring. Since you can select the baud rates, if you work below 10 meters here in the U.S., you can just set the maximum rate at 300 bps and both the minimum and default values at 75 bps. For stations who are close together, say 30 miles, with modest antennas, or much farther with gain antennas, this should also work up to 1200 baud on 10 meters and higher on 6 meters and up. This won't give you an accurate lower band HF experience, but might give you some feel for how well (or not) the modes perform. Isn't anyone else trying out these software programs with MIL-STD-188-110 and can give us some feedback on their results? Is it due to lack of interest, or getting it to work with your equipment? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I have done some playing around with this Rick. Let me know if you want to try a QSO. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110
Rick et Luc, I have set mine to no more than 300 baud to make sure I am legal below 10M, let me know if you want to sked. Of course, with ALE...we should not need to sked, just call me :) Andy On 8/6/07, Luc Fontaine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I would like to do more tests with that mode when conditions will be good. Would like also to try at 300 bps. Luc VE2FXL - Original Message - *From:* Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2007 2:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110 Luc , VE2???, is also playing around with this. Bonnie talked me through the up and I was able to make a link with Luc under fairly poor conditions. I will be happy to do some tests at 300 baud or less. Has anyone tried it at higher rates on 6M ? Andy K3UK On 8/6/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy, What software do you suggest? If PC-ALE will be able to key the PTT line via CAT interfacing with an upcoming new version, this should work for me with my main digital rig which is the ICOM 756 Pro 2. But if I understand it correctly, I could use my Ten Tec Argonaut V, although I don't normally have the fans plugged in since I mostly use this rig for QRP CW and for general monitoring. Since you can select the baud rates, if you work below 10 meters here in the U.S., you can just set the maximum rate at 300 bps and both the minimum and default values at 75 bps. For stations who are close together, say 30 miles, with modest antennas, or much farther with gain antennas, this should also work up to 1200 baud on 10 meters and higher on 6 meters and up. This won't give you an accurate lower band HF experience, but might give you some feel for how well (or not) the modes perform. Isn't anyone else trying out these software programs with MIL-STD-188-110 and can give us some feedback on their results? Is it due to lack of interest, or getting it to work with your equipment? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I have done some playing around with this Rick. Let me know if you want to try a QSO. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110
Hi Andy, In the U.S. ( correct me if I am wrong) which you are located, 300bps for MIL-STD-188-110 is not legal for data on HF, nothing is due to the symbol rate. Anyhow, what ever, who ever, where ever does using MIL-STD-188-110 within the ARS, the standard 1800hz PSK carrier and 2400bps symbol rate necessitates a 3Khz BW, so if you are not at least at 2.7Khz IF BW, the results using the standard modem settings will be poor and the higher the data rate the worst the results under perfect channel conditions, add in QSB and the like and you get the picture. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 06:24 PM 8/6/2007, you wrote: Rick et Luc, I have set mine to no more than 300 baud to make sure I am legal below 10M, let me know if you want to sked. Of course, with ALE...we should not need to sked, just call me :) Andy On 8/6/07, Luc Fontaine mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I would like to do more tests with that mode when conditions will be good. Would like also to try at 300 bps. Luc VE2FXL - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Andrew O'Brien To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110 Luc , VE2???, is also playing around with this. Bonnie talked me through the up and I was able to make a link with Luc under fairly poor conditions. I will be happy to do some tests at 300 baud or less. Has anyone tried it at higher rates on 6M ? Andy K3UK On 8/6/07, Rick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy, What software do you suggest? If PC-ALE will be able to key the PTT line via CAT interfacing with an upcoming new version, this should work for me with my main digital rig which is the ICOM 756 Pro 2. But if I understand it correctly, I could use my Ten Tec Argonaut V, although I don't normally have the fans plugged in since I mostly use this rig for QRP CW and for general monitoring. Since you can select the baud rates, if you work below 10 meters here in the U.S., you can just set the maximum rate at 300 bps and both the minimum and default values at 75 bps. For stations who are close together, say 30 miles, with modest antennas, or much farther with gain antennas, this should also work up to 1200 baud on 10 meters and higher on 6 meters and up. This won't give you an accurate lower band HF experience, but might give you some feel for how well (or not) the modes perform. Isn't anyone else trying out these software programs with MIL-STD-188-110 and can give us some feedback on their results? Is it due to lack of interest, or getting it to work with your equipment? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I have done some playing around with this Rick. Let me know if you want to try a QSO. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110
I am hoping that the new PC-ALE version will be out so that we can try this with my ICOM rig. By the way, was looking at the various K3UK helpers and worked N2SLB on CW using the SKCC Helper. Almost worked an Olivia DX station listed on the Digital one but a German station beat me to it:) Tom, KC9ECI is a somewhat local ham who I understand was a major player in starting SKCC. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: Rick et Luc, I have set mine to no more than 300 baud to make sure I am legal below 10M, let me know if you want to sked. Of course, with ALE...we should not need to sked, just call me :) Andy On 8/6/07, *Luc Fontaine* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I would like to do more tests with that mode when conditions will be good. Would like also to try at 300 bps. Luc VE2FXL - Original Message - *From:* Andrew O'Brien mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2007 2:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Experiences from users of MIL-STD-188-110 Luc , VE2???, is also playing around with this. Bonnie talked me through the up and I was able to make a link with Luc under fairly poor conditions. I will be happy to do some tests at 300 baud or less. Has anyone tried it at higher rates on 6M ? Andy K3UK On 8/6/07, *Rick* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy, What software do you suggest? If PC-ALE will be able to key the PTT line via CAT interfacing with an upcoming new version, this should work for me with my main digital rig which is the ICOM 756 Pro 2. But if I understand it correctly, I could use my Ten Tec Argonaut V, although I don't normally have the fans plugged in since I mostly use this rig for QRP CW and for general monitoring. Since you can select the baud rates, if you work below 10 meters here in the U.S., you can just set the maximum rate at 300 bps and both the minimum and default values at 75 bps. For stations who are close together, say 30 miles, with modest antennas, or much farther with gain antennas, this should also work up to 1200 baud on 10 meters and higher on 6 meters and up. This won't give you an accurate lower band HF experience, but might give you some feel for how well (or not) the modes perform. Isn't anyone else trying out these software programs with MIL-STD-188-110 and can give us some feedback on their results? Is it due to lack of interest, or getting it to work with your equipment? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I have done some playing around with this Rick. Let me know if you want to try a QSO. Andy K3UK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.6/938 - Release Date: 8/5/2007 4:16 PM
