[digitalradio] Feld-Hell Club Sprint 1500 - 1700Z
Feld-Hell Club Sprint Rules: Date: The third Saturday of every month, from 1500 - 1700Z Open to:Any licensed amateur and SWL participants Mode: Feld-Hell (any flavor) Bands: 160 through 10 meters. No WARC bands Power: Limited to 100 watts Exchange: Feld-Hell Club members send: RST, S/P/C, Feld-Hell club number Non-Members send: RST, S/P/C, age (YLs may use 00) QSO Points: Member = 3 points Non-member = 1 point Multiplier: State/Province/Country for all bands. The same station may be worked on multiple bands for point credit. Bonus points: Bonus points will vary each month. Check the club email reflector for the monthly announcement. Final Score:Points (total for all bands) X SPCs + Bonus Points Suggested Frequencies: 1.804, 3.574, 7.084, 14.074, 21.074, 28.074 Log Submission: Please use the Sprint Autolog system If you don't have access to the Autolog system, please send a printed copy of your log and a score summary to: John Graf, WA6L 23085 Old Ranch Rd Alpine, CA 91901 Certificates: A certificate will be awarded to the top North American and Top DX station, and top SWL -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
Hi Mike, There are several types of Best :) Best power-efficient for QRP texting: Olivia 500/16. More QSOs on 20 meters when the band is open: PSK31. More likely to get a message through, any time: ALE. Bonnie KQ6XA QRP Other that PSK31, which digital modes are best suited for this type of operation? Thanks, Mike KD4SGN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Hi, If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a pactor pest or a plague. Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/ Have a nice day. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Demetre SV1UY skrev: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Demetre, I was not suggesting that hams would be using $5000 modems. I won't even buy the relatively low cost SCS modem for ~ $1000. The reason of course, is that we now have amateur sound card modes, and are likely to have more of them in the future, and they are for the most part at no additional cost for the hardware or software, once you buy the computer. My point was that the military and commercial users are buying these insanely expensive products and they may not work all that well:( Pactor 2 and 3 are commercial modes. It requires hardware/firmware/software that is available only from the commercial manufacturer. Same with the HAL Communications products, especially Clover 2000, which are almost never used by radio amateurs. The earlier Clover II was used by some of us but fell by the wayside as it was, quite frankly, was not that good. Even earlier was the Clover mode (Clover and Clover II were both invented by Ray, W7GHM), but that was strictly an amateur mode requiring complicated equipment and was mostly a proof of concept that then was carried over to the commercial world as Clover II, but on a DSP board instead of phase locking your frequency to a standard time signal. The sound card modes are primarily amateur modes whether MT-63, Olivia, PSK variants, MFSK16, DominoEX, etc., etc., Same concept as when we had hardware/firmware systems that adapted X.25 and used it for amateur radio as AX.25. Same thing with Sitor being adapted for amateur use as Amtor. Now we have ALE, which was primarily used for commercial purposes and is now available as a sound card mode and it is freely available and can work without the expensive hardware. If it only used hardware from commercial sources, ALE would rarely be used on amateur frequencies. If Pactor was the only new digital mode, more of us would spend the money for the hardware/firmware system, but because it is only one niche player, we thankfully don't have to do this. I abandoned Pactor (Hal P-38 card) many years ago and would never move back to hardware solutions again for amateur use. Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some tests that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I understand that some hams compared Clover products and presented the information at a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any details. Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how they work? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer, but this is not possible unfortunatelly. Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the military modes that use the $5000 modems. I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers. As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer, e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ, except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of 100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can. Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3 because the soundcard digital modes are all you need. I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and found that unless I could hear very well the signal of my corresponded I could not decode anything, and then it was very touchy to any noise on HF. Since HF are very
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a pactor pest or a plague. Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/ Have a nice day. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Hi Steinar, With all due respect it is a matter of preference. If you are serious about digital filetransfer, e-mail networking etc, then PACTOR 3 is the way to go at the moment. If you want Digital QSOs then PSK31 is OK. I use both, but I never call any mode a pest. After all Pactor 3 is in the in wideband portion of the band now. PACTOR 2 is where all the other DIGITAL modes are. RFSM2400 is in the wideband portion of the band too. Is this a Pest too? Is SSTV a pest too? Is DIGSSTV a pest too? Is FAX a pest too? Is Contesting a pest too? Is SSB voice a pest too? Don't tell me about the Winlink Mboxes that do not listen before they transmit because the SCS controllers have the option to listen before transmit. It is the Winlink people that have decided not to use it. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] What's so great about MT63
FWIW Pavel Jalocha's code is *very* easy to use, it took me just a couple of hours to get it running in DM780. It will be interesting to run a few QSO's next week - maybe even USA on 20m - who knows? Now back to the coding... Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien Simon, When MT63 was popular it was because of the expectation that it was a good mode for poor conditions and it was somewhat better than others for handling QRM. It appeared to die because there was a lot of criticism of the bandwidth it utilized. I rarely hear a signal these days but usually it is 14077 when I hear it. Andy.
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
I'm very much a newcomer to digital modes, so please pardon this question. I'm interested in designing a QRP rig that uses digital modes for portable operation in the field, much like the KX-1 and ATS do for CW. Other that PSK31, which digital modes are best suited for this type of operation? Hello Mike. Look at the AT_Sprint group at yahoogroups. Look into files for manual for the ATS-3b transceiver kit. The little TRX is able to work not only CW, but PSK31/63, RTTYM, MFSK16, Olivia, Contestia and RTTYM (250Hz wide variants due to narrow receive filter). All you need is a Pocket PC device and two audio cables. If you are interested, hurry up to place your order. I am not sure how much kits will Steve sell this time, but the first 100 is sold out. BTW, KX1 hardware is able to work digital modes as the ATS-3b, only its firmware would need to be extended. The ATS-3b still needs Pocket PC to work digital modes. What is missing is a stand alone digital qrp transceiver with the keyboard and display built in, but I am not sure whether it makes sense to design it. The price of used Pocket PC is very low, probably lower than price of display, keyboard, some controller and custom PCB. In my opinion, PSK31, MFSK16 or Olivia 8/250 are all very good QRP modes. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
[digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Hello Patrick. Thanks for your explanation. Do I understand your S/N figures well? Let's say I am using a 100 watts transceiver. If transmitting * MT63 à 10 bauds: - 5 dB and 100 wpm, 1000 Hz bandwidth, crest factor 0.1 then I will be actually able to send energy equivalent only to 10 watts CW. If transmitting * Contestia 16-1K: Fast 16 tones, bandwidth=1000 Hz, speed=62.5 bauds, 78.2 wpm, lowest S/N =-9 dB, crest factor 0.76 then I will be actually able to send energy equivalent to 76 watts CW. Then I am losing another 10 * log10(76/10) = 8.8dB and I may say, that with the same 100W transceiver MT63 will perform 12.8dB worse at 100 wpm than Contestia at 78.2 wpm? It sounds pretty bad for MT63. I think there is another issue with ODFM of high number of tones. It is highly sensitive to linearity of the whole transmitting and receiving chain. If not linear, the tones will mix together, which will further decrease sensitivity. In my opinion, MT63 was a useful experiment, that has shown a dead way. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Votjech, Yes you are right the crest factor in MT63 is very low (mean power/ crest power = 0.1 (OFDM general problem) for 0.76 in Olivia... Other problems: due to the big number of carriers (64) you need a good calibration of the sound card. Otherwise, you decode nothing. The minimum S/N is not very good either and the latency time is big. If Olivia is too slow, another better option is to transmit in Contestia. For about S/N, it is only about 1 dB under Olivia but the speed is twice. Example: * MT63 à 10 bauds: - 5 dB and 100 wpm, 1000 Hz bandwidth * Contestia 16-1K: Fast 16 tones, bandwidth=1000 Hz, speed=62.5 bauds, 78.2 wpm, lowest S/N =-9 dB, No problem of crest factor (0.76), small latency time and no problem of sound card calibration. It's available in Mixw, Multipsk and perhaps Fldigi. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Vojtech Bubnik To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used? From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which implies low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure PA is not overdriven by peaks where the amplitude maxima of multiple carriers meet. Some argue that the mode is fast, but are not there Olivia submodes with the same throughput? 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
All good points, Demetre, While Pactor modes can not go as fast as the 8PSK2400 modes, I suspect that it does compete well with those modes in real world HF conditions when in the +5 to +20 dB S/N range. From everything I have been able to find, none of the $5000 ALE modems can operate much below -10 dB and even at -10 dB, they are likely having no actual throughput. You are very correct that Clover II was not a very good mode, especially considering the price, since it was only a bit faster than Pactor I and perhaps similar in ability to operate in weak signals. Pactor II was tremendously better. Pactor 3 is a very wide mode, but it is hard to criticize such a mode when you compare it to other wide modes. I would prefer to see wide modes in the voice segments and keep the 500 Hz and narrower modes in the digital text area here in the U.S. It is difficult to see what will happen in the future as many hams are more interested on keeping modes separate and not the bandwidths. The one thing that concerns me a great deal is that the automated stations are not listening before transmitting and at least here in the U.S. are operating illegally. And they even are open about this with comments made by the administrator of Winlink 2000, that signal detection is not practical because they would never find an open frequency. This may be based upon their experiences with the SCAMP mode that they invented that clearly demonstrated a full ability to provide busy frequency detection. But the automatic users do not want to implement these technologies. The automatic ALE modes, which are similarly wide bandwidth modes ( 500 Hz), also seem to be operating illegally as I don't find a signal detection mode present. The stations that are sounding are skipping from one band to the other with short bursts on each band. Based on comments by some of the ALE proponents, they seem to believe they own a frequency, which is contrary to the FCC rules here in the U.S. As the FCC pointed out recently, all stations, even automatic stations, are required to follow the rules and MUST listen before transmitting and not transmit on a busy frequency. There is an attitude on the part of the automatic stations, that stations with operators present should not be using the automatic subbands unless they are trying to communicate with the automatic stations. The only mode that could compete with Pactor 3, at the higher speeds was the SCAMP mode at around 1000 wpm, but required close to + 10 dB S/N. If Pactor 3 drops to only a few wpm when deep in the noise, then the slower sound card modes may actually compete. The main problem is that they are not ARQ, so if a static burst or QRM blocks a character, the message is not correct as it would be with many tries with ARQ. Since Pactor 3 defaults to the Pactor 2 mode with only two tones during difficult conditions, it can not have that much throughput with many tries. But it would still work somewhat better than many other sound card modes. I have never seen direct comparisons on this other than rough graphs that have large gaps in the data. Thank you for the information on RFSM2400, as many of us suspected that it would require a very good signal to work well. Once you reach a threshold of adequate S/N, it probably works as they claim, but that may be well above zero dB. The need we have is to send ARQ data at moderate speeds above zero dB, say 1000 wpm or so, and yet have a fall back to a 100 wpm or even a bit less as the S/N deteriorates. As we found out the hard way, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF bands. Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so. 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer, but this is not possible unfortunatelly. Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the military modes that use the $5000 modems. I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers. As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer, e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ, except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Hello Vojtech, This problem of crest factor and linearity exist too with the Video ID (the one you see appear on the waterfall). If I send Contesta 16-50, due to the high number of carriers (CMT-Hell) I am going to have a crest factor equal to 1/(square root of n) so very small, so the mean power transmitted will be small. If I increase too much the output power, the signal will saturate, each carrier will create harmonics and the ID will be not readable. So the mic gain must be adjusted on the main mode (Contestia in the example) and not on the Video ID. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Vojtech Bubnik To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX Hello Patrick. Thanks for your explanation. Do I understand your S/N figures well? Let's say I am using a 100 watts transceiver. If transmitting * MT63 à 10 bauds: - 5 dB and 100 wpm, 1000 Hz bandwidth, crest factor 0.1 then I will be actually able to send energy equivalent only to 10 watts CW. If transmitting * Contestia 16-1K: Fast 16 tones, bandwidth=1000 Hz, speed=62.5 bauds, 78.2 wpm, lowest S/N =-9 dB, crest factor 0.76 then I will be actually able to send energy equivalent to 76 watts CW. Then I am losing another 10 * log10(76/10) = 8.8dB and I may say, that with the same 100W transceiver MT63 will perform 12.8dB worse at 100 wpm than Contestia at 78.2 wpm? It sounds pretty bad for MT63. I think there is another issue with ODFM of high number of tones. It is highly sensitive to linearity of the whole transmitting and receiving chain. If not linear, the tones will mix together, which will further decrease sensitivity. In my opinion, MT63 was a useful experiment, that has shown a dead way. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Votjech, Yes you are right the crest factor in MT63 is very low (mean power/ crest power = 0.1 (OFDM general problem) for 0.76 in Olivia... Other problems: due to the big number of carriers (64) you need a good calibration of the sound card. Otherwise, you decode nothing. The minimum S/N is not very good either and the latency time is big. If Olivia is too slow, another better option is to transmit in Contestia. For about S/N, it is only about 1 dB under Olivia but the speed is twice. Example: * MT63 à 10 bauds: - 5 dB and 100 wpm, 1000 Hz bandwidth * Contestia 16-1K: Fast 16 tones, bandwidth=1000 Hz, speed=62.5 bauds, 78.2 wpm, lowest S/N =-9 dB, No problem of crest factor (0.76), small latency time and no problem of sound card calibration. It's available in Mixw, Multipsk and perhaps Fldigi. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Vojtech Bubnik To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used? From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which implies low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure PA is not overdriven by peaks where the amplitude maxima of multiple carriers meet. Some argue that the mode is fast, but are not there Olivia submodes with the same throughput? 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are very correct that Clover II was not a very good mode, especially considering the price, since it was only a bit faster than Pactor I and perhaps similar in ability to operate in weak signals. Yet I have one friend who it is hard to interest in any of the newer modes because he loves the quasi-duplex nature of Clover.
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All good points, Demetre, [snip] Thank you for the information on RFSM2400, as many of us suspected that it would require a very good signal to work well. Once you reach a threshold of adequate S/N, it probably works as they claim, but that may be well above zero dB. The need we have is to send ARQ data at moderate speeds above zero dB, say 1000 wpm or so, and yet have a fall back to a 100 wpm or even a bit less as the S/N deteriorates. As we found out the hard way, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF bands. Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so. 73, Rick, KV9U OK Rick, First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good cause. Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in this case you canreport them to FCC. I think that this is called semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was it OK then and it is not OK now? What about all the contesters that transmit wherever they want without even asking if the frequency is on use? Do they own the frequency? PACTOR MBOs and maybe ALE systems are just lurking there and if the frequency is clear and someone calls them they respond. The way I use WINLINK PACTOR MBOs is to first listen for a while, make sure the frequency is not busy and the call. If the frequency is busy I QSY and try to contact another MBO, the same way as before. If all the frequencies that PACTOR MBOs are available are busy then I wait. It is not the end of the world if I do not get through to them straight away. But if my life or someone else's life is in danger, then I will use the most available power and QRM anyone who is in the same frequency. I think this is fair. As for your last comment, I also wish there was a soundcard mode or a system of combined soundcard modes that can do what PACTOR 3 can do. There isn't any though. There isn't any soundcard mode that can do even what PACTOR 2 can do. It is either impossible to develop as a soundcard mode (which is the most likely to be true), or programmers are too lazy to do it (which I don't believe so much), or programmers want to make some money if they ever find the time to develop such a beast. SCAMP is a perfect example of what cannot happen on HF. It was good only when there was no noise. It lost the link at the slightest noise. I followed this experiment all the way until it was abandoned, and I don't believe that WINLINK people are paid agents of SCS 'cause this is a story that has been mentioned as well by ignorant people in many mailing lists. I don't think you do either. In any case I am back to PACTOR 3 any day. I am not wasting my time with PSK in a soundcard because I could be wishing and waiting until 2050 or later, if I'm still alive then! hi hi hi!!! I still like PSK31 for a QSO because this is way to make DX though but not for filetransfers, e-mail etc over HF channels. And remember PACTOR 3 is not WINLINK. Winlink uses PACTOR 3 (it is not the only system that uses it) and if some think that they do not use it correctly, well it is a matter of opinion. Life is too short man, enjoy it while you can. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Demetre, the problem is not the bandwidth, but as Skip Teller, KH6TY try to point out: The number of times PACTOR stations override PSK31, PSK63, or CW communications is so great that the probability is that they seldom, if ever, listen first in their passion to use the ham bands as an automatic gateway to send and receive email to and from the Internet.. I have experienced this myself many times on 20m, and because of its great capability to keep the link, it never give up but squeeze you out. You will have this pitiful meeting with pactor almost all over the digital segment of 20m, from 14.065 to 14.120 with some small gaps.. I have no trouble understanding those who call this a pest. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Demetre SV1UY skrev: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a pactor pest or a plague. Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/ http://www.digipan.net/ Have a nice day. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Hi Steinar, With all due respect it is a matter of preference. If you are serious about digital filetransfer, e-mail networking etc, then PACTOR 3 is the way to go at the moment. If you want Digital QSOs then PSK31 is OK. I use both, but I never call any mode a pest. After all Pactor 3 is in the in wideband portion of the band now. PACTOR 2 is where all the other DIGITAL modes are. RFSM2400 is in the wideband portion of the band too. Is this a Pest too? Is SSTV a pest too? Is DIGSSTV a pest too? Is FAX a pest too? Is Contesting a pest too? Is SSB voice a pest too? Don't tell me about the Winlink Mboxes that do not listen before they transmit because the SCS controllers have the option to listen before transmit. It is the Winlink people that have decided not to use it. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre, the problem is not the bandwidth, but as Skip Teller, KH6TY try to point out: The number of times PACTOR stations override PSK31, PSK63, or CW communications is so great that the probability is that they seldom, if ever, listen first in their passion to use the ham bands as an automatic gateway to send and receive email to and from the Internet.. I have experienced this myself many times on 20m, and because of its great capability to keep the link, it never give up but squeeze you out. You will have this pitiful meeting with pactor almost all over the digital segment of 20m, from 14.065 to 14.120 with some small gaps.. I have no trouble understanding those who call this a pest. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Then you can report these stations Steinar. There are lids in every mode. I always listen before I transmit, whether I use CW, SSB, SSTV, PSK31 or PACTOR. Because some PACTOR operators are lids, it does not mean that we are all like that. I can only understand the necessity to transmit without listening only in an emergency situation. This is a hobby and it should be kept like it. Let's all try and educate whoever is a lid. But let's not condemn PACTOR 3 because of some lids. I can tell you thousands of lid stories especially among contesters. This does not make contests and the rest of the contesters bad. They like contests, let them have them. We can all share our bands happily. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
CW. No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as well leave the rig and computer at home. 73 de Brian/K3KO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Olivia. Andy K3UK On 9/14/07, newdendrite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm very much a newcomer to digital modes, so please pardon this question. I'm interested in designing a QRP rig that uses digital modes for portable operation in the field, much like the KX-1 and ATS do for CW. Other that PSK31, which digital modes are best suited for this type of operation? Thanks, Mike KD4SGN -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CW. No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as well leave the rig and computer at home. 73 de Brian/K3KO Ha ha ha, That's a good one. We might even invent a new mode, telepathy! Some people are probably doing it already on the 20 nanometer band and we don't know yet. No problems with PACTOR operators that do not listen before they transmit and spoil PSK QSOs there I guess. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] 14077 beta testing today
I will be on 14077 (dial) on and off today testing various digital mode applications, Dominoex, PSk125, MT63, etc, -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: 14077 beta testing today
Andy, Heard some digital tones around 14077 between 1845 to 1900 UTC, but signals was not strong enough to decode. Sounded like Throb or DominoEX? Jerry - K0HZI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be on 14077 (dial) on and off today testing various digital mode applications, Dominoex, PSk125, MT63, etc, -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] 14077 beta testing today
I will be monitoring with MT63 Joe WB6AGR ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[digitalradio] Rock star on Olivia
You never know who you are going to meet. you will find a guy named VITO ALBANO palying drums. He took my plasce when I quit the band in 1968 for college down here. We wer already -The studio, working on Tighhter, Tighter hat never got released, when y tticks over to VITo and taught him the riffs to use on Tighter, Tightin Tony...bada-bin)!!! 73 DE WB2HNP sk The band referred to is Alice and Kicking from the 70's.
[digitalradio] sstvpal
looking for a help file for VK4AES sstvpal + 17nov02. david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] QRV MT63
All: Looking for MT63 contacts this weekend -- QRV 14109.5. Tony, K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Since Pactor 3 can't be decoded with soundcard software and the SCS decoder is relatively expensive, most hams can't decode Pactor 3 messages. Thus when QRM'd by an unattended Pactor 3 station, most hams can't determine the offending callsign and so can't initiate an appropriate action. Independent of protocol, it would be a good idea for unattended digital mode stations to identify in CW at the beginning of each 5 minute interval of operation; without this, the amateur community cannot effectively police itself. Such stations should be either be equipped with effective busy frequency detectors, or not permitted to run unattended. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good cause. I doubt whether this has ever happened. What if the robot interferes with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed? There is no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without listening first. Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly violate this basic principle of amateur radio. Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in this case you canreport them to FCC. Often the Pactor stations don't even ID. I think that this is called semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was it OK then and it is not OK now? Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands in which live QSOs usually were absent. The Pactor stations, inexplicably, insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which live QSOs are present. Further, the packet stations were few, and operating at least in the USA under a limited STA. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
The only mode I have ever used that comes close to the feel of Clover II, is the new ALE FAE mode. Currently, it is a non-standard form of ALE and only available on Multipsk. But after you make the connection, you don't have to switch back and forth. I did not have good luck with the mode working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF. Additional testing would be helpful. Also, is anyone else testing this mode? Any results to share? 73, Rick, KV9U jhaynesatalumni wrote: Yet I have one friend who it is hard to interest in any of the newer modes because he loves the quasi-duplex nature of Clover.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Hi all, I would like to add my two cents. Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer, but this is not possible unfortunatelly. Something that is NEVER argued, but is very real Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. Addition to the list: HF AFSK 300 baud packet radio using Bell 103 tones. PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the military modes that use the $5000 modems. I also agree here. When I switched the FBB BBS forwarding from packet using Bell 103 tones to Pactor II it meant an average tenfold increase in daily forwarding traffic, from 100 kB to 1 MB. NOt bad for HF radio. On packet, I had to run my linear at times, on pactor I had a perfcetly good link with Africa (1 hop away from Europe) with only 25 watts. My regard is that some military modems rely too much in high power. After all, overpowering seems to be the entrenched line of thought in their minds. Something I see as unfair in rating the modems: As the S/N rating is based on a 3 kHz channel, it makes the wider modes look worse. A fair rating would be something based on densities per hertz occupied. With non rectangular spectrums, it is hard to rate fairly. I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers. As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer, e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ, except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of 100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can. There is a conflict: keyboarders do not like long latencies, so their rating is based on slickness, and speed above the average typing speeds does not matter much, while those engaged in moving traffic prefer the more robust and faster modes. I see nothing with common characteistics to please all. Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3 because the soundcard digital modes are all you need. I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and found that unless I could hear very well the signal of my corresponded I could not decode anything, and then it was very touchy to any noise on HF. Since HF are very noisy I got sick of it and abandoned it. I have heard that the military modes that some have implemented to work with soundcards perform in the same way more or less because all the above need a good signal to work. I have not tried it but raw speed is not what only matters. For HF radio QPSK or QAM are the most complex constallations advisable. Now if I have to buy a 1 KW linear amplifier, a 3 element Yagi, a tower and an expensive rotator in order to make the soundcard modes work, thanks very much. I might save $1000 from the SCS modem but I would have to pay at least $5000 for a decent linear and a Yagi/tower/rotator combo. Or build your own... I did 30 years ago, for DXing and contesting. This makes the PACTOR 3 modem really cheap because I can work PACTOR 3 and send/receive e-mail or make a filetransfer on HF with my FT-817 and a piece of wire tossed at a nearby tree or to a fishing pole if there are no trees around, and use a dead cheap secondhand laptop. Factual truth, isn't it ? If this is not cheap for a decent HF Digital ARQ mode then I do not know what it is. Nevertheless I would happily get rid of my PACTOR 3 controllers if I saw something that can do half as good as PACTOR 3 and it can perform well with a low power portable radio, and of course if it manages to transfer intact files on HF, not half intact as pure FEC systems can. It seems that nothing is as elaborate or well thought as the SCS modems... 73, Jose, CO2JA __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63
I've been avoiding 109.5 , left it alone for th ALE folks. Drop down to 14077. K3UK On 9/15/07, Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All: Looking for MT63 contacts this weekend -- QRV 14109.5. Tony, K2MO -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63
I will be monitoring 14,077.5 tomorrow. Today the only thing I heard was a noise that sounded like someone playing a flute badly. Joe WB6AGR Modesto Ca ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[digitalradio] Pactor modes vs. sound card modes
The reason that the Winlink2000 owners do not want busy frequency detect is that they invented a particularly effective version of such a mode and found that they would have extreme difficulty finding a wide enough bandwidth to operate. The signal detection circuit would be reset to standby until a clear frequency was available. A human operator is always going to be on one side of the circuit for semi-automatic operation, but it does not insure that the hidden transmitter effect would not occur since the human operator would not be able to hear what the robot station can hear. In the past, there were complaints about the packet forwarding stations. These stations were mostly fully automatic, by which we mean they had robots at both ends with no human intervention. I believe that this is also true of other automatic forwarding systems, such as Aplink and Winlink, both of which have been discontinued for many years. Most HF packet BBS auto store and forward systems have also been discontinued as well. The Winlink 2000 system went primarily to using the internet and does not currently have the capability to operate without internet, except in a special case where a local group gets permission to set up a local hubbing PMBO server. Then you can at least communicate between stations that can reach the PMBO, but you can not forward to other servers. My understanding is that they are working on changes to their system to eventually allow forwarding to other servers via RF, instead of the current internet only system. While there is currently no sound card mode that can do exactly what P2 and P3 can do, the SCAMP mode proved that you could use a very basic waveform, e.g, RDFT, not necessarily optimized for HF use, and get it to send messages amazingly fast. It really was an enormous breakthrough because it proved it could be done. But unlike P2 and P3, it had no mechanism for weaker signals and the programmer simply gave up on further development and then did not publish the sourcecode either. I am probably in the minority who believe that this has been a major loss to the amateur community, but imagine if this was a programmer who was not working with the Winlink2000 owners and was interested in furthering messaging and willing to work with others to develop a serious ham to ham communications mode as well as provide internet e-mail capability as needed by setting up an ad hoc server anyplace that internet service could be obtained. At this time the only system that can do this is PSKmail, although at a very slow speed and may or may not be practical, particularly due to running under Linux at this time. When I look at the computer simulations done by Rick, KN6KB, the SCAMP inventor (using an average of ionospheric conditions) he shows: At the best conditions of +10 dB, P3 at 225 cps, SCAMP 97 cps, P2 50 cps, P1 20 cps, MT-63 20 cps At +5 dB -- P3 ~ 150 cps, P2 ~ 40 cps, P1 20 cps, MT-63 20 cps At zero dB -- P3 ~ 66 cps, P2 ~ 25 cps, P1 20 cps, MT-63 20 cps At -5 dB -- P3, P2, at or below 20 cps cps = characters per second As you can see, P1 is about the same as MT-63 (20cps at the wider 2000 Hz mode). He claims that his simulation showed that MT-63 and PSK31 failed at just below zero dB, but I don't know how he could possibly come to such a conclusion. The point of all this is that a sound card mode can definitely be competitive in speed with P2, although much wider, and still be reasonably competitive with P3. And it is not difficult to imagine that a new mode, that is similar to P3 would be very practical to do as a sound card mode. The basic building block is a multi tone PSK OFDM kind of mode that drops off tones if it needs to be more robust, and uses some basic control signals between the stations to determine how many tones and what modulation constellation should be used. The SCS development of P3 suggests that ONLY DBPSK and DQPSK should be used and the baud rate kept at or below 100 baud. This gives you ability to withstand polar flutter better than slower baud rates, and yet the multipath may be able to be corrected by using a coded modulation. Maybe improved Turbo codes instead of Viterbi? The only other way would be to go to a single tone modem, such as the military/governments tend to use with an extreme baud rate with compensating codes. I think a key issue here is to come up with a compromise baud rate and not change it. P3 could have had higher rates like P2, but they chose not to do this. I think that is due to their finding that switching baud rates can be counterproductive. G-Tor from Kantronics could do 100, 200, or 300 baud and I have heard would spend way too much time figuring out which baud rate to use. But as you say, for keyboard use, the sound card modes work well. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63
That was my daughter. On 9/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be monitoring 14,077.5 tomorrow. Today the only thing I heard was a noise that sounded like someone playing a flute badly. Joe WB6AGR Modesto Ca -- See what's new at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP0030001170and Make AOL Your Homepagehttp://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP0030001169 . -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
The same happens with pactor, keyboard mode (also on packet). You type, the message accumulates in the buffer, until you press the ENTER key, or exceed the buffer set size. Jose, CO2JA Rick wrote: The only mode I have ever used that comes close to the feel of Clover II, is the new ALE FAE mode. Currently, it is a non-standard form of ALE and only available on Multipsk. But after you make the connection, you don't have to switch back and forth. I did not have good luck with the mode working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF. Additional testing would be helpful. Also, is anyone else testing this mode? Any results to share? 73, Rick, KV9U __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Roger J. Buffington wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good cause. I doubt whether this has ever happened. What if the robot interferes with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed? There is no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without listening first. Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly violate this basic principle of amateur radio. What lifesaving operation hes been hampered by a pactor robot? Please name one instance of this happening. Factual data, please. Does common law work on factual, or on imaginary precedents? I think that this is called semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was it OK then and it is not OK now? Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands in which live QSOs usually were absent. The Pactor stations, inexplicably, insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which live QSOs are present. Further, the packet stations were few, and operating at least in the USA under a limited STA. With packet forwarding, there was noone even attempting to park on a HF forwarding frequency. Common sense prevailed (even when a few crazy contesters sometimes attempted to overpower the BBS forwarding, specially on CW and RTTY contests. Nobody even whined about it). As I remember, packet BBS's were not so few. Quite a few could be found between 14090 and 14115, just to remember the 20 meters activity. I have been a BBS sysop using only radio links since 1991 (three FBB/JNOS BBS's and multiband nodes, and cooperated in setting up another three) and operated in several bands in different seasons. Jose, CO2JA PS: Doing whatever is interesting, fun or novel in ham radio since 1972. Also, hoping this day is not the start of another anti-Winlink rant flood campaign on digitalradio. Please, spare us the undeserved suffering...this is not an appropiate forum for that anti-Winlink whining. Most of us on this list are NOT Winlink 2K MBO operators. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63
Sorry ! ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
