Re: [digitalradio] DM780 now with Olivia 2000/128 and 2000/256
so how do we get a copy to play with? MixW 2000/128 worked well started with 1000/32 and needed a good signal, moved to 2000/128 and were both able to drop down to under 10Watts over 2500+km John VE5MU - -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1027 - Release Date: 9/24/2007 11:27 AM
[digitalradio] Re: jt65a
WinWarbler's macro is limited to a maximum of 25 repetitions with listening intervals of no more than 15 seconds between repetitions. It thus cannot be used for unattended beaconing. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Exactly , Bill. Winwarbler , Multipsk, and otehr software packages allow a > user to program "beacons" of varying digital modes. I can set my CQ message > to repeat every 60 seconds. This is not unattended modes that we are > talking about when mentioning PACTOR. > Andy K3UK > > On 9/24/07, Bill McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes, > > > > In a sense - it actually switches to the next *manually selected* > > sequence when the time clicks; it is in no-way linked to any "over" > > by another station (I know you know this Leigh, but just to clarify > > for others). > > > > It is the same as sending any macro or otherwise pre-canned message > > on about any mode I can think of; although I would be hard pressed to > > fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-automatic" > > or "automatic" operation. > > > > 73, > > > > Bill N9DSJ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > > "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." > > > > wrote: > > > > > > WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled, > > automatically > > > switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The > > transmit > > > times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute > > > boundaries. > > > > > > From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF) > > > > > > Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and > > receive > > > periods > > > > > > Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a > > cup of > > > coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while WSJT > > itself > > > goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed as > > the > > > next message in sequence. > > > > > > However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is > > already > > > in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding > > > willy-nilly. > > > > > > In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a sliding > > > scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT > > operation > > > possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended > > initiation > > > of QSOs. > > > > > > 73, > > > Leigh/WA5ZNU > > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > > > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that > > some > > > > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > > David Michael Gaytko // > > WD4KPD > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> The same is true for > > > >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule > > > >> > > > >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing > > it > > > > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended > > operations. > > > > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run > > by > > > > the california group. > > > >> > > > >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have > > an > > > > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode > > with > > > > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for > > some > > > > portions of its program. > > > >> > > > >> david/wd4kpd > > > >> > > > >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andy K3UK > www.obriensweb.com > (QSL via N2RJ) >
[digitalradio] New MixW release soon.
FYI, one of the MixW mail lists recently included a post from Nick stating that a new release of MixW is due in a week or so. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] DM780 now with Olivia 2000/128 and 2000/256
For those recently experimenting with Olivia at 2000 HZ and 128 or 256 tones, DM780 beta releases now include these mode settings. The beta is not public, but if you do have access, the parameters may be useful. Some have already experimented with this via MixW. -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: jt65a
Exactly , Bill. Winwarbler , Multipsk, and otehr software packages allow a user to program "beacons" of varying digital modes. I can set my CQ message to repeat every 60 seconds. This is not unattended modes that we are talking about when mentioning PACTOR. Andy K3UK On 9/24/07, Bill McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, > > In a sense - it actually switches to the next *manually selected* > sequence when the time clicks; it is in no-way linked to any "over" > by another station (I know you know this Leigh, but just to clarify > for others). > > It is the same as sending any macro or otherwise pre-canned message > on about any mode I can think of; although I would be hard pressed to > fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-automatic" > or "automatic" operation. > > 73, > > Bill N9DSJ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled, > automatically > > switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The > transmit > > times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute > > boundaries. > > > > From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF) > > > > Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and > receive > > periods > > > > Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a > cup of > > coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while WSJT > itself > > goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed as > the > > next message in sequence. > > > > However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is > already > > in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding > > willy-nilly. > > > > In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a sliding > > scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT > operation > > possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended > initiation > > of QSOs. > > > > 73, > > Leigh/WA5ZNU > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that > some > > > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > David Michael Gaytko // > WD4KPD > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> The same is true for > > >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule > > >> > > >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing > it > > > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended > operations. > > > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run > by > > > the california group. > > >> > > >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have > an > > > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode > with > > > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for > some > > > portions of its program. > > >> > > >> david/wd4kpd > > >> > > >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: jt65a
Yes, In a sense - it actually switches to the next *manually selected* sequence when the time clicks; it is in no-way linked to any "over" by another station (I know you know this Leigh, but just to clarify for others). It is the same as sending any macro or otherwise pre-canned message on about any mode I can think of; although I would be hard pressed to fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-automatic" or "automatic" operation. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled, automatically > switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The transmit > times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute > boundaries. > > From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF) > > Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and receive > periods > > Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a cup of > coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while WSJT itself > goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed as the > next message in sequence. > > However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is already > in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding > willy-nilly. > > In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a sliding > scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT operation > possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended initiation > of QSOs. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some > > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD > > wrote: > >> > >> The same is true for > >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule > >> > >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing it > > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. > > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by > > the california group. > >> > >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an > > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with > > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some > > portions of its program. > >> > >> david/wd4kpd > >> > >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" > >> > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Re: jt65a
Yes, In a sense - it actually switches to the next *manually selected* sequence when the time clicks; it is in no-way linked to any "over" by another station (I know you know this Leigh, but just to clarify for others). It is the same as sending any macro or otherwise pre-canned message on about any mode I can think of; although I would be hard pressed to fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-automatic" or "automatic" operation. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled, automatically > switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The transmit > times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute > boundaries. > > From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF) > > Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and receive > periods > > Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a cup of > coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while WSJT itself > goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed as the > next message in sequence. > > However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is already > in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding > willy-nilly. > > In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a sliding > scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT operation > possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended initiation > of QSOs. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote: > > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some > > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD > > wrote: > >> > >> The same is true for > >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule > >> > >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing it > > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. > > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by > > the california group. > >> > >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an > > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with > > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some > > portions of its program. > >> > >> david/wd4kpd > >> > >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" > >> > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-Ale & TS-480
Hi Joe, You must be using PC-ALE v1.062H ( build #2 should be used) for the support of the IC746PRO data port, when you use ADD or MODIFY channels you need to select USB-D and not USB. When using the "Radio Type" selection of 746PRO you need to use the factory address and 19,200 baud, if you want to use other then you need to select GENERIC ICOM and use the "Radio Port" interface and enter the Address and select Split VFO as well. I recommend that you use the normal 746PRO selection. I also recommend that AUTO BAUD not be used. You will find lots of users on the HFlink forum that have the 746RPO in use that you can chat with. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 05:49 PM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >I am not able to get the program to work with an Icom IC746 Pro. >Nothing works. I selected the 746 and set the address to 66 and >nothing works, PTT, Scan or anything else. I am using the DATA jack >on the rear. > >Joe >W4JSI >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-Ale & TS-480
I am not able to get the program to work with an Icom IC746 Pro. Nothing works. I selected the 746 and set the address to 66 and nothing works, PTT, Scan or anything else. I am using the DATA jack on the rear. Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: Steve Hajducek To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-Ale & TS-480 Hi John, I sent you a direct e-mail with screen caps that should get you going. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 04:32 PM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >well I d'loaded the not quite latest version as Steve suggested, and , as >before, I can copy stations but cannot transmit anything, except using VOX. > >The comms port just doesn't see my rig under this software, but it works >fine with the Kenwood CAT program, Mix W and MultiPSK. The CAt side is not >working since I cannot change frequencies or scan using PCALE. > >I am not using an interface, rather chose to go direct from the data port to >the computer as Kenwood suggested, and have the serial cable >running from the rig to the computer for rig control. With other digital >software I have been using VOX for TX/RX , which has worked fine, >and also used the PTT functions as well from time to time. > >I deleted the ALE.dat file as you suggested, to no avail. I have also cold >booted my computer and the software several times during this >process , again without any effect. > >Would be very interested in the settings you are using, at least would be a >starting point. please include the menu settings on the Kenwood as well >so that I can duplicate what you are using. > >Thanks > >John >VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: jt65a
WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled, automatically switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The transmit times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute boundaries. From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF) Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and receive periods Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a cup of coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while WSJT itself goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed as the next message in sequence. However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is already in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding willy-nilly. In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a sliding scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT operation possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended initiation of QSOs. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote: > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The same is true for >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule >> >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing it > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by > the california group. >> >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some > portions of its program. >> >> david/wd4kpd >> >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" >> > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] ALE yes ... or no?
OK but how about the question I had? Are you saying that 3G will include the MIL-STD-188-141A 8FSK125 waveform as the method for linking? Or it won't? When you use the term ALE, do you mean the related MIL-STD/FED-STD/STANAG protocols, or do you mean the linking part only, particularly using the 8FSK125 waveform? When I use the term ALE, I am using it as a sort of shorthand for the whole series of protocols, some of which may be adopted by radio amateurs. When I use the term 3G, it refers to the "newer" protocols. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > Hi Rick, > > That reference is to Government/Military HF e-mail topology which has > evolved to the STANAG 5066 standard pretty much across the board, > however not everyone is there yet due to costs and time to update > their network infrastructures. STANAG 5066 can basically be thought > of as what you know the Internet to be via your PC and ISP provider, > however its done via HF radio, HF and above. > > ALE is what it has always been to the network topology for selecting > the best ranked LQA channel for follow on traffic, that has not and I > do not any time soon see that changing. > > It is the follow on traffic that continues to evolve whereas the > Government and Military user needs speed to support the traffic load > they have and thus the use of newer waveforms on MIL-STD-118-110B modems. > > There are many things that are dumped into 3G ALE, just remember > this, if we are talking an ALE network, then ALE (or AQC-ALE) is > always used to establish the link on the best LQA ranked channel. > > However there are also point-to-point links, backbones and networks > in operation that just make use of the the high speed modems and > protocols due to their particular support scenarios where either > nodes are plentiful or ground wave is all that is being covered or > operations are VHF+ etc. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > At 10:10 AM 9/24/2007, you wrote: > > > >> Do the 3G protocols still support the 8FSK125 waveform and this is used >> for the initial signaling and linking and then you switch over to the >> other PSK modes? If they do, then what is he saying in his above statement? >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-Ale & TS-480
Hi John, I sent you a direct e-mail with screen caps that should get you going. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 04:32 PM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >well I d'loaded the not quite latest version as Steve suggested, and , as >before, I can copy stations but cannot transmit anything, except using VOX. > >The comms port just doesn't see my rig under this software, but it works >fine with the Kenwood CAT program, Mix W and MultiPSK. The CAt side is not >working since I cannot change frequencies or scan using PCALE. > >I am not using an interface, rather chose to go direct from the data port to >the computer as Kenwood suggested, and have the serial cable >running from the rig to the computer for rig control. With other digital >software I have been using VOX for TX/RX , which has worked fine, >and also used the PTT functions as well from time to time. > >I deleted the ALE.dat file as you suggested, to no avail. I have also cold >booted my computer and the software several times during this >process , again without any effect. > >Would be very interested in the settings you are using, at least would be a >starting point. please include the menu settings on the Kenwood as well >so that I can duplicate what you are using. > >Thanks > >John >VE5MU
[digitalradio] Re: PC-Ale & TS-480
well I d'loaded the not quite latest version as Steve suggested, and , as before, I can copy stations but cannot transmit anything, except using VOX. The comms port just doesn't see my rig under this software, but it works fine with the Kenwood CAT program, Mix W and MultiPSK. The CAt side is not working since I cannot change frequencies or scan using PCALE. I am not using an interface, rather chose to go direct from the data port to the computer as Kenwood suggested, and have the serial cable running from the rig to the computer for rig control. With other digital software I have been using VOX for TX/RX , which has worked fine, and also used the PTT functions as well from time to time. I deleted the ALE.dat file as you suggested, to no avail. I have also cold booted my computer and the software several times during this process , again without any effect. Would be very interested in the settings you are using, at least would be a starting point. please include the menu settings on the Kenwood as well so that I can duplicate what you are using. Thanks John VE5MU - Original Message - From: "merv0728" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:25 AM Subject: PC-Ale & TS-480 > Hi John, > I have been following the thread & although there are quite a few > replies none seem to offer you much help. > > I have a TS-480 connected to a Signalink USB with the appropriate data > cable, & also a serial conection to the PC. I had problems getting mine > to work but eventualy after contacting Steve Hajdecuk I have now got it > working. My solution was in deleting the ALE .DAT file. I still get a > message about "Serial Port 5 not available for PTT" but that doesn't > seem to affect anything. > If you would like any of my settings in the "Configuration" let me know > & I will send them to you. > > 73 > Alan G3VLQ > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007 1:53 PM > >
[digitalradio] Re: jt65a
Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The same is true for > > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule > > i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing it all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by the california group. > > jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some portions of its program. > > david/wd4kpd > > "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN" >
Re: [digitalradio] ALE standards work fine Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
It would be interesting to implement a "pluggable" version of the ALE state machine so that we could experiment with different modulations and compare their efficacy for the link establishment / link management role of ALE. Obviously everything has tradeoffs, and an ALE on top of a "weak signals" mode is going to require significantly slower scans (thus fewer users before saturation), but it would still have value toward understanding what does and doesn't work. In general, the BER values are just that: Bit errors. To discover SNR (which isn't actually ultimately useful for digital link characterization), you need to know the decoder sensitivity, inter-symbol interference sensitivity, etc. ALE's design is somewhat unusual (in the pure data transfer world) in that the reason it uses FEC is not to guarantee accurate transfer, but rather to measure the "headroom" on the channel: As long as *any* message decodes, you have the data needed to be able to build the "best channel per user" database, and the number of erroneous bits detected and corrected by the FEC tells you how good or bad this channel is at reaching that user. This (along with channel-scan timing issues) is why the sounding repeats the same message multiple times per channel. Personally, I would like to (and am planning to) develop a "breadboard ALE" so that experiments with modulation and state-machine changes can be done in a controlled fashion. It seems to me after reading much theory and even more reports of "in practice" reality, that the main advantage that the current ALE system has is that it interoperates with military (and military-surplus) hardware ALE radios. I'm not sure that that is a particularly telling advantage given the pricing and capabilities of those radios. It may be that some variation (and possibly simplification) would fit the amateur needs better.
RE: [digitalradio] ALE standards work fine Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
Hi Rud, In my opinion there is already a better ALE, it is Alternate Quick Call (AQC) ALE which improves upon ALE in a number of ways as detailed in MILl-STD-188-141B where a number new features have been added ( such as shorter linking cycles, 6 character maximum SELCALs, PSK burst mode etc.) and some older aspects of ALE have been dropped that result in a much faster and more robust 8FSK ALE system. However the ALE hardware manufacturers have not jumped on it aside from those providing real Military Grade ALE radios and then charging even more money for them. You can't find AQC-ALE in CODAN, MICOM or other commercial ALE radios yet, but for years now AQC-ALE has been in PC-ALE and MARS-ALE, I know of no other software ALE tools that have support for AQC-ALE in two-way communications at this time. In my opinion, Amateur Radio operators should move forward to all AQC-ALE operations, but that is just my opinion. Anyhow, tell me if what you are seeking is in the way of the following type of information after you have time to read the report at: http://www.hfindustry.com/jun02/presentations/wp9c_rpt.doc /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 11:06 AM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >Hi Steve, > >My first response to you may have been over the top because of others >previous messages. My apologizes. > >I want to compare the ALE waveforms with other existing waveforms. This is >difficult because the values reported by ALE do not conform to normal >standards for digital communications. I think I can roughly map the ALE SN >to standard analog SNR. The bit error rate is elusive. I am working from the >ALE milspec. I am asking that you show me some numbers for the assertion >that > >"ALE is not just a possible candidate, for the fastest and most >reliable means of connecting with stations of interest on HF on the >best BER/SNR channel it is the best !" > >I ask not because I am trying to trash ALE but to determine where >improvements are needed so in 2-5 years there are better ham digital >protocols. > > >Rud Merriam K5RUD >ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX >http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] ALE yes ... or no?
Hi Rick, That reference is to Government/Military HF e-mail topology which has evolved to the STANAG 5066 standard pretty much across the board, however not everyone is there yet due to costs and time to update their network infrastructures. STANAG 5066 can basically be thought of as what you know the Internet to be via your PC and ISP provider, however its done via HF radio, HF and above. ALE is what it has always been to the network topology for selecting the best ranked LQA channel for follow on traffic, that has not and I do not any time soon see that changing. It is the follow on traffic that continues to evolve whereas the Government and Military user needs speed to support the traffic load they have and thus the use of newer waveforms on MIL-STD-118-110B modems. There are many things that are dumped into 3G ALE, just remember this, if we are talking an ALE network, then ALE (or AQC-ALE) is always used to establish the link on the best LQA ranked channel. However there are also point-to-point links, backbones and networks in operation that just make use of the the high speed modems and protocols due to their particular support scenarios where either nodes are plentiful or ground wave is all that is being covered or operations are VHF+ etc. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:10 AM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >Do the 3G protocols still support the 8FSK125 waveform and this is used >for the initial signaling and linking and then you switch over to the >other PSK modes? If they do, then what is he saying in his above statement? > >73, > >Rick, KV9U
RE: [digitalradio] ALE standards work fine Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
Hi Steve, My first response to you may have been over the top because of others previous messages. My apologizes. I want to compare the ALE waveforms with other existing waveforms. This is difficult because the values reported by ALE do not conform to normal standards for digital communications. I think I can roughly map the ALE SN to standard analog SNR. The bit error rate is elusive. I am working from the ALE milspec. I am asking that you show me some numbers for the assertion that "ALE is not just a possible candidate, for the fastest and most reliable means of connecting with stations of interest on HF on the best BER/SNR channel it is the best !" I ask not because I am trying to trash ALE but to determine where improvements are needed so in 2-5 years there are better ham digital protocols. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net
[digitalradio] HF JT65A Demo on You Tube
HF JT65A Demo on You Tube Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] WA3LTB Date: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:48 am ((PDT)) Hello All, I have placed a demo 20 Meter JT65A QSO on You Tube at: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wa3ltb Click on the link to View it if you are interested. 73's Terry...WA3LTB Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Re: [digitalradio] ALE yes ... or no?
It could be that either I am misreading the information, or the information is too old and was superseded by a change in the proposed 3G MIL-STD-188-141B Appendix C, messaging protocol. I am referring to one of E. Johnson's documents where he writes: "The use of standard internet applications (such as E-mail) over wireless transmission media (specifically HF) creates heightened technical challenges which are not met adequately by existing HF communications protocols. The existing protocols do not provide effective channel access mechanisms, and, as a result, tend to break down due to collisions and congestion under heavy network loads. The current ALE and data link standards use very different modulation formats (8-ary FSK vs. serial tone PSK), resulting in a performance mismatch between the linking subsystem and the message delivery subsystem. Current HF ARQ protocols require complicated methods for matching the waveform and/or data rate to the channel conditions." They list various BW waveforms and 8FSK is not among them as they appear to all be PSK ary forms. Do the 3G protocols still support the 8FSK125 waveform and this is used for the initial signaling and linking and then you switch over to the other PSK modes? If they do, then what is he saying in his above statement? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > Hi Rick, > > Patricks FAE ARQ is an excellent protocol, it is the best example to > date in my opinion of a PCSMD based ARQ protocol developed for Amateur Radio. > > The ALE 8FSK is not being replace by serial tone modem use for its > Sounding/LQA/Calling/Linking, believe me that is not going to happen. > Just what will replace ALE as we know it now will likely be AQC-ALE > at some point, but that is not happening fast what will the large > number standard ALE systems in use and the cost of hardware AQC-ALE systems. > > What has already taken place in the U.S. Government/Military and NATO > world is a transition to the MIL-STD-188-110B modem and various > waveforms for heavy follow on data requirements in peer-to-peer and > networking where STANAG 5066 is the topology for distributed > networking where you must have speed what with its HTML support, > after all you for all intents and purposes talking the full Internet > via HF radio with STANAG 5066 ( not to be confused with S5066 DLP). > > However, the good old 100wpm FEC 8FSK is still used for an awful lot > of ALE signaling, remote orderwire command and control and > communications just using the basic AMD protocol. It gets a lot of > use for signaling application where Radio Amateurs would use DTMF, > automated phone patches are a heavy user of AMD actually, the ACP193 > protocol and SWALE protocol are fine examples of just what can be > done with the excellent AMD basic protocol. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > >
[digitalradio] jt65a
The same is true for > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing it all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by the california group. jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some portions of its program. david/wd4kpd "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN"
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
OK John You have had your say NOW MINE. ONE LAST TIME . I just sent out in MAY 2007 110 QSL cards all worked on ssb between 50.110 and 50.350 and at 50.400 was a group of AM boys. this time I had to pass on working them. 6 IS used if you want a dead band you need to save 10 meters it just as dead here too. IF your band plan was 53 - 54 MHz why did you ask for 50.3 - 54 and the legacy modes could have 50.0 -50.3 ? IF you had asked for spots between 50.7 - 51 FEW would have found a problem with it your mode has VERY SMALL NUMBERS and that spot is almost unused nation wide. On 2 meters again 144.300 - 148.000 for 100 kHz wide no breaks for any other mode 1,000's of repeaters and few of you but again if it's LEGAL you would have the right to be ANYWHERE in that range and run as much power as you need over that 100 khz wide range. NO ONE believes you or any other can run high ERP's and not cause problems and if it became legal proving interference would be next to impossible. You have 219 mhz I'm on 223 since the mid 70's and there is NO ONE using that band open or not. You have lots of room already there. Why not UHF 420 and up is yours too lots of room very few users. WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS again and again This is why wideband ANYTHING below the 220 band will not go over well with other users. I just bought a new digiboard ( SIGNALINK ) and right now I'm debugging it for guess what .. 6 and 2 METER DIGITAL. HERE IN TAMPABAY ( PODUNK USA ) we have many active on HF/VHF on psk-31 APRS and a number of other modes. I am not a CAVEMAN and work in the radio field so CHANGE I'm use to ... in fact our radios at work are being changed out right now to NARROW modes a FCC requirement. The problem for the ARRL is that many of us DO NOT TRUST the them this goes back to the 60's when they came up with incentive licensing many older hams never rejoined the league SO here we are 40 years later and WE are the older hams and many again can't TRUST the league.. Bruce Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
Re: [digitalradio] EasyPal New Version 21/sep/07
Probbly because that file is no longer there just go to the KC1CS site - then the digital page and download the latest version there de les . wrote: > Andrew; > > The URL does not work. > > 73 > > Omar YK1AO > > > - Original Message - > From: Andrew O'Brien > To: DIGITALRADIO > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:11 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] EasyPal New Version 21/sep/07 > > > New Vwersion EasyPal > http://www.kc1cs.com/EasyPal-21-SEP-07.zip > > >
Re: [digitalradio] EasyPal New Version 21/sep/07
Andrew; The URL does not work. 73 Omar YK1AO - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: DIGITALRADIO Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:11 PM Subject: [digitalradio] EasyPal New Version 21/sep/07 New Vwersion EasyPal http://www.kc1cs.com/EasyPal-21-SEP-07.zip
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
I have a P&P attached to my laptop. I can do transmit things but not receive. putting a microphone into the audio and speaking into the that mic seems to pick up the audio. For the moment I am trying to use packet to connect to a near by kantronics TNC mailbox. Placing a head set into the P&P speaker jack I hear my radio's transmission signals. I cannot hear the response signal received by my radio. Should I hear transmit and recieved audio signals from my P&P speaker jack? 73 peter KG6OUE
