RE: [digitalradio] Re: SlowfeldXPAS beacon on 10.143

[John Bradley]

 

For your info, Sholto is 7142Km from you and I am 6466km from you, almost on
the same bearing.

 

Sholto is 980km from me

 

I'll listen tonite until about 1300 UTC and try beaconing when the band is
open .will email when starting

 

Lowest power I can run is 5 watts

 

John

VE5MU

 

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: SlowfeldXPAS beacon on 10.143

[John Bradley]

So I d'loaded SlowfeldXPAS and have it set up on the same frequency, beacon
on as of 0500UTC October 14

 

Am running 5 watts, with my TS480SAT.

 

Thought that since Sholto is relatively close to me (within 1000km) he might
have some luck with copying

My beacon.  

 

John

VE5MU

 

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of radionorway
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:51 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: SlowfeldXPAS beacon on 10.143

 


The dial is set to 10.143,000 USB but the carrier is on 10143000 +
1000 = 10.144,00 ..I hope.

LA5VNA Steinar

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not yet Steinar, but will keep the radio on for a few hours tonight.
> 
> Just to confirm the carrier is exactly 10.143?
> 
> Sholto.
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "radionorway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:40 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: SlowfeldXPAS beacon on 10.143
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Char/min. Do you see any trace of me in the waterfall ?
> 
> LA5VNA Steinar
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 , "Sholto Fisher"  wrote:
> >
> > Steinar,
> > 
> > What speed are you running and is the carrier at 10.143? I will
try and 
> > capture your sig.
> > 
> > 73 Sholto
> > 
> > 
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "radionorway" 
> > To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:21 PM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: SlowfeldXPAS beacon on 10.143
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Sholto,
> > 
> > No I have not but, I am on air now in SlowfeldXPAS.
> > 
> > The frequency is 10.143 and I am running
> > about 2W.
> > 
> > I will let the beacon be on until to morrow. I think I will
> > turn it of around 12:00 UTC.
> > 
> > Try and catch me.
> > 
> > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 , "Sholto Fisher"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Steinar, have you ever tried Lionel's SlowfeldXPAS on 30m? just
> > wondered how
> > > well it would do on HF?
> > >
> > > http://www.lsear.freeserve.co.uk/aircraft%20scatter.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Sholto KE7HPV
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
> > > To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT2 beacon on 10.148,700 <= NB!
> > >
> > >
> > > > But are you able to copy me Dave ?
> > > > I will let the beacon be on for a while ( hope that is the right
> > > > expression.. )
> > > >
> > > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > dave.g0dja@ skrev:
> > > >>
> > > >> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> > > >> > Move to 10.148,700 (10.149,970)
> > > >> > Hope I not disturb anyone here ;)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > LA5VNA Steinar
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> Yep, I saw you retune. LOL
> > > >>
> > > >> Dave (G0DJA)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Jose A. Amador]

I had already grown tired of all of this before.

But there is no right to rest yet if somebody wants to trick us into 
silence
out of endlessly attempting to impose a senseless idea by making people 
grow
tired of confronting such an absurdity once and again.

There is no worse kind of blindness than that of those who refuse to see.

There are physical mechanisms in radio propagation that creates hidden 
stations.
So do losses, distance, natural obstacles, and finite propagation paths. 
I even
had thought it was a well known and accepted fact by knowledgeable 
people. But
seems it isn't, at least, yet.

While packet radio forwarding was more active, no one even dreamed of 
sitting
on a forwarding frequency on any other mode. Radio has been proved not 
to be
an ethernet backbone on which everybody hears everybody all around the 
world.

Automatic stations do have a place in the bandplans, so, if automatic
stations stay in those segments, I don't see reason, exception made of
emergencies, if any, to go there where the automatic stations are,
in any other mode and sit there. At least, in the well connected and
informed developed world.

Nobody in his right mind sits between the railroad tracks. Doing otherwise
is sort of cheap irrational old west bragging. In such a case, if the train
overruns you, you have no right to cry.

Even when an activity detector such as what SCAMP has tested, and has been
documented to work fairly well, as far as I know the code is not in the
public domain and noone has either convinced the author to publish it or
stepped forward to write out of scrap and openly publish a viable 
substitute
for all possible cases.

Also, there is reasonably founded suspicion by the Winlink team that if
they used such a thing, there are people willing to create a sort of zombie
network to cause intentional QRM to grind the Winlink network to halt. 
Such an
attitude against pactor and Winlink DOES exist. Things could have been some
other way if such a threat had not been created.

So, lets get real. Science has already demonstrated that you can make rain
bombarding clouds with silver iodine, but hardly, by howling to the moon.
Facts are needed, in a material way. In the form of code, or a little 
hardware
gadget that blocks the PTT whenever it hears a hummingbird f*rt half a 
mile away,
reliably. And then, convince the proper people to use it.

What all of this should be is about getting someone capable enough to come
forward with a working solution available to all. So far, all the previous
preaching has proven unable to achieve so. Haven't we had enough of it 
already?


Jose, CO2JA

  ---

Dave Bernstein wrote:

 I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be made.
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

[digitalradio] PCALE with IC706IIG

[Kevin O'Rorke]

I have been trying to get PCALE functioning with my IC706IIG.
I cannot get the CAT function to work ie. scanning etc.
Transmits (individual call) fine with PTT via com 1.
I have tried using the "Generic Icom" and entering the correct address 
etc. and still no joy.
CAT works fine on "Commander" and "HRD".
Any help appreciated.

Kevin VK5OA

RE: [digitalradio] PCALE... it's making me insane!

[Peter G. Viscarola]

>
>OK... I just downloaded #5.
>
>Note that if I use PTT to key the radio, it WORKS (yay!) -- but if I
use
>CAT to key the radio, the radio will key but not unkey.
>

To follow-up my own post... With PTT, keying the radio works fine, but
CAT control (such as changing frequency) is intermittent.  It'll work
for a while and then just stop.

I suspect that there's some odd interaction between the radio control
implemented in PCALE and N8VB's vCOM drive.  But, as a result, I'm not
having any sustained luck running PCALE with PowerSDR.  I checked the
HFLINK archives, but didn't see anything specific to the SDR-1000 that
was helpful.

Just reporting what I'm experiencing,

de Peter K1PGV

[digitalradio] Re: Multiple ALE links at same time

[expeditionradio]

No problem with multiple links at the same time.

73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone have any general guidelines for multiple ALE links.  I had two
> stations link to me at the same time today, has does this impact the
> ALE channels and software performance ?
>  

[digitalradio] How to enter your own callsign in PCALE Re: ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[expeditionradio]

Oh, one more thing... for ham radio use of PCALE, I 
usually advise most operators when they are starting, 
it is best to use the correct procedure for loading 
your own callsign, rather than editing the QRG file 
using Notepad. This is because in ham radio we have 
several different nets, and the callsigns are loaded 
into the nets. There are other nuances to the QRG file 
that can create problems if the editing or saving 
of the QRG file isn't done exactly right. 

73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
 

[digitalradio] Multiple ALE links at same time

[Andrew O'Brien]

Anyone have any general guidelines for multiple ALE links.  I had two
stations link to me at the same time today, has does this impact the
ALE channels and software performance ?


5_'S!JE|+[20:56:35]<<[EA2AFR]NOT AT THE KEYS  .. 73 & CU ... -.-
[00:31:05]<<[VE3FWF]DE VE3FWF OTTAWA CANADA GRID:FN25EI 25 WATTS
[00:31:36]<<[VE3FWF]HI ANDY
hi andy
ALE QSO CONFIRMED 2007/10/14 00:33Z ON 7102. KHZ
[00:34:32]<<[K2MO]GREETINGS ANDY
[00:36:03]<<[K2MO]CALLSIGN PROBLEM SOLVED
[00:38:08]<<[K2MO]RGR KNOW ANYTHING ABT ALE BBS?
73 Andy and tnx


-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

Re: [digitalradio] how is JT65 counted for DXCC awards?

[Mike Blazek]

I'm pretty sure it counts as Digital. LoTW has a provision for JT65 
contacts.

Mike, N5UKZ

Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards? I checked the
> ARRL DXCC and Challenge web pages, but didn't see anything.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> __._,_

[digitalradio] How to enter your own callsign in PCALE Re: ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[expeditionradio]

> Andy K3UK wrote:
> Bonnie, I'm confused.  That is the method I am used to but was I
> imagining it or, I think the new version just pops up and asks your
> callsign.  No double click foolery.

Hi Andy,

It is possible to have multiple callsigns with ALE.
You may run your ham callsign on the set of ham channels,
and your SHARES callsign on the SHARES channels,
and your Red Cross callsign on the Red Cross channels.

These can all be running simultaneously, and ALE will 
sort out the callsigns and the channels as you make or
receive calls, or soundings. 

When you first load a fresh installation of PCALE, 
it asks for your starting callsign. However, the moment 
you load a QRG file, the file loads whatever callsigns 
are in the QRG file, including the "own callsign" of 
the QRG file.

It is much easier to have a QRG file set up your channels 
and other parameters, than it is for each operator to 
manually add each channel! 

Unlike softare that is only for ham radio, PCALE is 
interoperable and usable with any radio service, and 
with multiple radio services simultaneously. 

That is why there is a two step process to enter your 
own callsign in PCALE.

Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA

.

Re: [digitalradio] How to enter your own callsign in PCALE Re: ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[Andrew O'Brien]

Bonnie, I'm confused.  That is the method I am used to but was I
imagining it or, I think the new version just pops up and asks your
callsign.  No double click foolery.

Andy

Re: [digitalradio] ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[Andrew O'Brien]

Tony, this is common .  PC-ALE has a weird way of entering in one's
own call.  I'll send you my unfinished guide that may help.


On 10/13/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All:
>
>  Had to re-download PC-ALE  and noticed NOCALL was
>  being transmitted instead of my callsign. I
>  entered my call during the set-up process, but
>  NOCALL seems to be set as the default. I tried
>  deleting, but keep getting the "NOCALL" in use
>  message.
>
>  Any suggestions..
>
>  Tony K2MO
>
>



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I don't see the point of you mentioning it then.

>>>You brought it up, Demetre. You said you didn't understand. I 
simply offered an explanation.


Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you
keep coming back at it over and over. 

>>>I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be 
made.


Any interference caused in Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is 
not the PMBO's fault but the initiator's fault who is responsible for 
any QRM because he has to listen for a while before he transmits, and 
he should also keep listening when in session with the PMBO. 

>>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the 
initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing 
QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds 
clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station 
in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator 
cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her 
station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to 
the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Rick]

I would hope that we continue to be progressive and develop new modes. 
Are you seriously saying that you oppose further development for 
keyboarding?  And that we should no longer develop ARQ/robust modes 
because we have Pactor?

Several of the modes I had referred to, such as AM and phone patching 
are very old technology and would not be considered progressive by 
anyone that has been involved in amateur radio for any length of time. 
On the other hand, we need to use some restraint if some automated modes 
become so popular that they disrupt shared frequencies. Amateur radio is 
not like commercial frequencies, even though some of you want this to 
change.

All automated systems have some who are using it illegally to send 
commercial information. To think otherwise is very naive. I am not 
suggesting that Winlink 2000 is any different than other similar 
systems, only that we have no way of knowing because they do not share 
that information. They have shared that it does happen and that they do, 
in fact, remove and block people.

I am also not saying that hams should not use e-mail via radio on 
amateur frequencies. But I am saying that if it became extremely common 
and disruptive, then many of us would demand redress and I can guarantee 
you that we would be able to get the rules changed.

In terms of Pactor IV, if you noticed Steve H.'s recent comments on that 
very subject, it is likely that they would move toward the 8PSK2400 
single tone modulation in order to get increased speed. What did you 
think of the information in the single tone modem document?

In terms of computer OS preferences, I like to use the one that is 
commonly available and well supported so that my monitor can actually 
show proper resolution out of the box. XP and Vista does this 
flawlessly, Linux can not do this yet. Eventually it should do it. I 
have no problem with closed and proprietary software or FLOSS. I look 
for value and practical use as the most important things. Almost all the 
applications I use are open source or at least free software, whether 
Open Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, Media Monkey, and many ham programs. 
It is a constant progression from where we were at the beginning of 
computers. It won't suddenly stop, but will continue to evolve.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> We already have plenty of narrow soundcard modes for QSOing so I don't
> see the need for another one. We also have PACTOR I and II for QSOs
> which are ARQ and robust narrow modes. Plenty to pick from.
>
>   
>
> Yes OK let's ban everything progressive.
>   
>
> I am not aware of any illegal messages in WInlink2000. The authorities
> in USA are able to trace messages as they pass through Internet from
> the PMBOs, if this is your problem, so no need to worry about this.
> They would have been caught by now if it was a matter of illegal
> activities.
>
> So really only amateur traffic passes via the Winlink2000 system
> otherwise they would have been caught by the authorities. Anyone who
> mentions illegal traffic bashes Winlink2000, and you did.
>   
>
> Hmmm. So digital radio hams are not supposed to use ham radio for
> e-mail. Well good job you are not the one who decides about our hobby
> then.
>
>   
>
> Well keep using Microsoft then (a closed and proprietary system, just
> like an SCS modem) and stop complaining and preaching about open
> systems. I like to use both Linux and Microsoft even if I had to pay
> for Microsoft, just as I had to pay for my SCS modem, my HF radio etc,
> and even if Linux is more difficult, although I find UBUNTU and
> KUBUNTU a breeze to setup and use.
>
>   

[digitalradio] How to enter your own callsign in PCALE Re: ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[expeditionradio]

> Tony K2MO wrote:
> Had to re-download PC-ALE  and noticed NOCALL was 
> being transmitted instead of my callsign.  
> Any suggestions..

Hi Tony,

Here is a description with diagrams of how to 
set up your own callsign in PCALE:

http://www.hflink.com/pcale/setup/#loadcallsign

73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA

RE: [digitalradio] PCALE... it's making me insane!

[Peter G. Viscarola]

> A number of fellows tested the new radio control in PC-ALE v1.062H in
the latest builds 
> ( #5 being the most recent) with the SDR-1000 and all works just fine
I am told, 
> although I wrote it, I don't have one here to test with. 
>

OK... I just downloaded #5.

Note that if I use PTT to key the radio, it WORKS (yay!) -- but if I use
CAT to key the radio, the radio will key but not unkey.

Thanks, Steve, for your help... At least you told me it was SUPPOSED to
work :-)

de Peter K1PGV


 

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
> 
> >>>There are some who claim that email messages should not be 
> conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical 
> operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe 
> there's any merit to this claim.

I don't see the point of you mentioning it then.

> 
> >>>The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, 
> is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying 
> that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of 
> 97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or 
> maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio 
> communication or signal." A PMBO's transmission is not malicious,
> but its definitely willful.
> 

Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you
keep coming back at it over and over. Any interference caused in
Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is not the PMBO's fault but
the initiator's fault who is responsible for any QRM because he has to
listen for a while before he transmits, and he should also keep
listening when in session with the PMBO. Myself and many others do
this i n every session, even when in QSO using PSK31. Whoever does not
do this does not follow good radio amateur practices, full stop.
Automatic operation is only what F6FBB BBSes do in PACKET radio when
they start MAIL FORWARDING. Winlink2000 PMBOs use only the Internet
for exchanging traffic among them. Winlink2000 PMBOs don't even
transmit beacons on HF every so often, like other systems do on HF.
They only respond if and when they are called by a client and the
client is responsible for the QRM they cause. So any claims that they
cause willful interference is not true. 

> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

73 de Demetre SV1UY

[digitalradio] how is JT65 counted for DXCC awards?

[Dave Bernstein]

Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards? I checked the 
ARRL DXCC and Challenge web pages, but didn't see anything.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] PCALE... it's making me insane!

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Peter,

A number of fellows tested the new radio control 
in PC-ALE v1.062H in the latest builds ( #5 being 
the most recent) with the SDR-1000 and all works 
just fine I am told, although I wrote it, I don't 
have one here to test with. If you are using DIG 
instead of USB, you need to select USB-D using 
CHANNEL > MODIFY, otherwise USB is fine. You need 
to ask your questions of the SDR-1000 owner/users 
of PC-ALE via the HFlink forum.


/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 06:16 PM 10/13/2007, you wrote:

I’ve tried to use the PCALE program several 
times now.  Each time I try to use it, I have zero luck.


A year or so ago, I downloaded it and couldn’t 
get it to control my TS-2000.  But I heard there 
was a new version in the works, so I vowed not to write it off.


A couple of weeks back, I downloaded the latest 
version of PCALE.  Now, instead of using my 
TS-2000 I’m using an SDR-1000 (that emulates a 
TS-2000).  I religiously followed the 
instructions at 
http://hflink.com/pcale/setup/ 
about setup.   I got things linked up, more or 
less… seemingly got CAT control working 
(57.6Kbps, 8N1 – exactly how I setup MixW – 
Kenwood, etc) because I could change 
frequencies… but I couldn’t transmit (using CAT 
control).  PCALE would TRY to transmit, but I’d 
get zero output.  Worse, after exiting from 
PCALE, I couldn’t get anything ELSE on my system 
to transmit either.  Arrrgh.  After several 
restarts of the applications, and reboots of the 
system, I removed and re-installed the Virtual 
Audio Cable driver.  I didn’t get ALE to work, 
but I was able to use MixW again with my radio.  Enough success for that day.


Today, just a few minutes ago, I decided to try 
to get PCALE to work again.  ALE OTAW and all… 
what better time, right?  Yet, again, after 
diligently following the directions on 
HFLINK.COM (not that they tell you WHAT you’re 
doing, but they tell you what to DO anyhow)… my results were mixed:


a)  One time PCALE transmitted (the “@@@” 
test message – what IS that by the way?), and at 
the end of the transmission didn’t unkey the rig.


b)  Another time PCALE transmitted (the 
“@@@” test message again) and actually managed to unkey the radio properly


c)  Thereafter… no rig control, no transmit.

S… it seems like I’m having a CAT control problem.  Or something.

If I do that “@@@” thing, and my message is 
getting out, should it show up on the Bonnie 
Super Locator Whizzy Keen web page??


Anybody have any guidance they can offer as to 
what the problem may be?   I suspect bad rig 
control in PCALE, but hey… what do I know?


de Peter K1PGV

[digitalradio] PCALE... it's making me insane!

[Peter G. Viscarola]

I've tried to use the PCALE program several times now.  Each time I try
to use it, I have zero luck.

A year or so ago, I downloaded it and couldn't get it to control my
TS-2000.  But I heard there was a new version in the works, so I vowed
not to write it off.

A couple of weeks back, I downloaded the latest version of PCALE.  Now,
instead of using my TS-2000 I'm using an SDR-1000 (that emulates a
TS-2000).  I religiously followed the instructions at
http://hflink.com/pcale/setup/ about setup.   I got things linked up,
more or less... seemingly got CAT control working (57.6Kbps, 8N1 -
exactly how I setup MixW - Kenwood, etc) because I could change
frequencies... but I couldn't transmit (using CAT control).  PCALE would
TRY to transmit, but I'd get zero output.  Worse, after exiting from
PCALE, I couldn't get anything ELSE on my system to transmit either.
Arrrgh.  After several restarts of the applications, and reboots of the
system, I removed and re-installed the Virtual Audio Cable driver.  I
didn't get ALE to work, but I was able to use MixW again with my radio.
Enough success for that day.

Today, just a few minutes ago, I decided to try to get PCALE to work
again.  ALE OTAW and all... what better time, right?  Yet, again, after
diligently following the directions on HFLINK.COM (not that they tell
you WHAT you're doing, but they tell you what to DO anyhow)... my
results were mixed:

a)  One time PCALE transmitted (the "@@@" test message - what IS
that by the way?), and at the end of the transmission didn't unkey the
rig.
b)  Another time PCALE transmitted (the "@@@" test message again)
and actually managed to unkey the radio properly
c)  Thereafter... no rig control, no transmit.

S... it seems like I'm having a CAT control problem.  Or something.

If I do that "@@@" thing, and my message is getting out, should it show
up on the Bonnie Super Locator Whizzy Keen web page??

Anybody have any guidance they can offer as to what the problem may be?
I suspect bad rig control in PCALE, but hey... what do I know?

de Peter K1PGV

Re: [digitalradio] ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[Andrew O'Brien]

Tony, this is common .  PC-ALE has a weird way of entering in one's
own call.  I'll send you my unfinished guide that may help.


On 10/13/07, Tony  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All:
>
>  Had to re-download PC-ALE  and noticed NOCALL was
>  being transmitted instead of my callsign. I
>  entered my call during the set-up process, but
>  NOCALL seems to be set as the default. I tried
>  deleting, but keep getting the "NOCALL" in use
>  message.
>
>  Any suggestions..
>
>  Tony K2MO
>
>



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I don't understand why all this bashing about illegal and commercial
about Winlink2000. I wonder is it jealousy? Looks like it. Also I
don't understand why a radio ham should not get/send e-mail via his
radio! Is it illegal too? How can you expect anyone to participate in
an emergency situation if he doesn't know how to operate his rig? He
is not going to be enlightened by the holy spirit when the need
arises. He needs to operate every day, more or less, in order to be
proficient at it.

>>>There are some who claim that email messages should not be 
conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical 
operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe 
there's any merit to this claim.

>>>The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, 
is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying 
that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of 
97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or 
maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio 
communication or signal." A PMBO's transmission is not malicious, but 
its definitely willful.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre,
> 
> We only need a modem with adaptive abilities for emergency 
> communications messaging and files plus the use of e-mail or similar 
> message store and forward systems. For normal keyboard use such 
> modes 
> are of limited value and since most take up a large amount of 
> bandwidth, 
> are to be avoided unless you need to use it. As an example, I would 
> not 
> normally use 2 kHz Olivia or MT-63 for a keyboard contact as that 
> would 
> be very poor operating procedures. 

Hi Rick,

We already have plenty of narrow soundcard modes for QSOing so I don't
see the need for another one. We also have PACTOR I and II for QSOs
which are ARQ and robust narrow modes. Plenty to pick from.


> However, if the conditions warrant 
> the need for a better mode, I can support the wider modes. So a lot 
> depends upon your operating interests. Very few hams are involved 
> with 
> emergency digital communications or with e-mail at this time. If 
> e-mail 
> actually became very popular, my view is that it would eventually 
> have 
> to be banned since it would take up too much band width. Same thing 
> for 
> phone patching, AM DSB operation, eSSB, etc. But since these niche 
> interests are not done that much, they should have minimal impact on
> the 
> majority of operators.

Yes OK let's ban everything progressive.

> 
> It is my understanding that right now, the PC-ALE software program 
> has 
> the 8PSK2400 modem. While it can not be used on the text digital 
> parts 
> of the bands, it should be useful for at least testing the 
> capabilities 
> on the voice/image portions of the bands. Thus far, no one has come 
> forward with any testing results. The only results we have heard 
> about 
> the Russian high speed modem, which uses the same 8PSK2400 waveform,
> or 
> at least something very similar, is that it does not perform all 
> that 
> well. It may be that the reason for silence from the ALE proponents,
> who 
> have built these modems into the programs, is that they don't work 
> very 
> well. I have asked many times and no response thus far.
> 
> FAE is basically a slightly modified STANAG modem using the 8FSK125 
> mode.

I have used the Russian modem and FAE program a few times and today I
had quite a few FAE QSOs on 20 m. Well FAE is OK when conditions are
good, just like AX25 HF Packet, but it loses the link very easily if
there is a slight QRM and noise. Not very effective in poor conditions
which prevail the Ham HF bands. On 40 or 80m these modes don't have a
lot of hopes because of the QRM and all the noise that prevail in
these bands.

> 
> By the way, I would like to test this 8PSK2400 modem on the 
> voice/image 
> portions of the bands (as required here in the U.S.) and if anyone 
> would 
> like to test this, please contact me privately and we can try things 
> out. We should be able to send picture files for sure.
> 

Well I bet this mode will fail too, otherwise they have been bragging
about it.

> What bashing do you see towards Winlink 2000 in anything I have 
> said? 
> There is a very good likelihood that some illegal traffic is being 
> sent 
> since it is not possible for normal monitoring of other hams and, 
> practically speaking, this is true even if you have the $1000 modem.
> We 
> do know that some fake "illegal" messages were sent from EU in the 
> past 
> to test how well the system worked to detect business type messages.
> I 
> don't know how many messages get through but some apparently do. 
> Eventually, if the offenders are caught, they are blocked from using
> the 
> system. The rules here in the U.S. are no different than when BBS 
> systems are handling similar traffic.

I am not aware of any illegal messages in WInlink2000. The authorities
in USA are able to trace messages as they pass through Internet from
the PMBOs, if this is your problem, so no need to worry about this.
They would have been caught by now if it was a matter of illegal
activities.

So really only amateur traffic passes via the Winlink2000 system
otherwise they would have been caught by the authorities. Anyone who
mentions illegal traffic bashes Winlink2000, and you did.

> I agree that if we don't use a system regularly, then when we need 
> it, 
> we won't know how to use it, or little things will not be in place, 
> etc. 
> and it may not work. That is really the only reason that I can 
> support 
> e-mail via ham radio. If it was not for the emergency component or 
> public service, I would strongly oppose this.

Hmmm. So digital radio hams are not supposed to use ham radio for
e-mail. Well good job you are not the one who decides about our hobby
then.

> 
> As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with
> my 
> equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good 
> as 
> MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I 
> have 
> tried Linux off and on for

Re: [digitalradio] ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Guys,

You need to either use an ASCII editor like NOTEPAD and use find and 
replace on NOCALL to change to your callsign and reload the .QRG file

OR


Select an unused SCAN GROUP  where no OWN is being used and starting 
at the top menu selection Address > Modify > Own and select NOCALL 
from the pull down, click OK and edit your callisign and click OK and 
then select the SCAN GROUP of choice and then restart the tool.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 04:58 PM 10/13/2007, you wrote:
>Tony wrote:
> >
> > All:
> >
> > Had to re-download PC-ALE and noticed NOCALL was
> > being transmitted instead of my callsign. I
> > entered my call during the set-up process, but
> > NOCALL seems to be set as the default. I tried
> > deleting, but keep getting the "NOCALL" in use
> > message.
> >
> > Any suggestions..
> >
> > Tony K2MO
> >

Re: [digitalradio] ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[David]

Tony wrote:
>
> All:
>
> Had to re-download PC-ALE and noticed NOCALL was
> being transmitted instead of my callsign. I
> entered my call during the set-up process, but
> NOCALL seems to be set as the default. I tried
> deleting, but keep getting the "NOCALL" in use
> message.
>
> Any suggestions..
>
> Tony K2MO
>
>  
Hi Tony...found this happen to me also once i added the .qrg file i 
couldnt get my call in and it wouldnt go out of no call.dont know 
the answer.. have to get some of the better brains to tell us...hi hi

73 David VK4BDJ

[digitalradio] ALE NOCALL ISSUE

[Tony]

All:

Had to re-download PC-ALE  and noticed NOCALL was 
being transmitted instead of my callsign. I 
entered my call during the set-up process, but 
NOCALL seems to be set as the default. I tried 
deleting, but keep getting the "NOCALL" in use 
message.

Any suggestions..

Tony K2MO 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Rud Merriam]

I keep trying Linux with the same reaction. In the past I worked on as many
as three different computer systems and OSs with embedded system
development. I could always easily adapt to whichever machine I was on.
Linux just always drives me nuts trying to get aspects of it to work. I am
trying it again but the network setup is fighting me.

I am getting close to having HF digital running. The wire is on the fence
and I just replaced the power connector on the IC706 with Powerpoles so it
is ready to go. A Rigblaster interface is "in the mail". I may operate from
the backyard table for a little while to make sure the wire is an antenna
that does something. Then I have to figure out how to bring the coax into
the house.
 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:02 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with my 
equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good as 
MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I have 
tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I have 
used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am sorry to 
report that, because I really thought that I would like it, considering 
the intense hype about Linux.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Rick]

Demetre,

We only need a modem with adaptive abilities for emergency 
communications messaging and files plus the use of e-mail or similar 
message store and forward systems. For normal keyboard use such modes 
are of limited value and since most take up a large amount of bandwidth, 
are to be avoided unless you need to use it. As an example, I would not 
normally use 2 kHz Olivia or MT-63 for a keyboard contact as that would 
be very poor operating procedures. However, if the conditions warrant 
the need for a better mode, I can support the wider modes. So a lot 
depends upon your operating interests. Very few hams are involved with 
emergency digital communications or with e-mail at this time. If e-mail 
actually became very popular, my view is that it would eventually have 
to be banned since it would take up too much band width. Same thing for 
phone patching, AM DSB operation, eSSB, etc. But since these niche 
interests are not done that much, they should have minimal impact on the 
majority of operators.

It is my understanding that right now, the PC-ALE software program has 
the 8PSK2400 modem. While it can not be used on the text digital parts 
of the bands, it should be useful for at least testing the capabilities 
on the voice/image portions of the bands. Thus far, no one has come 
forward with any testing results. The only results we have heard about 
the Russian high speed modem, which uses the same 8PSK2400 waveform, or 
at least something very similar, is that it does not perform all that 
well. It may be that the reason for silence from the ALE proponents, who 
have built these modems into the programs, is that they don't work very 
well. I have asked many times and no response thus far.

FAE is basically a slightly modified STANAG modem using the 8FSK125 mode.

By the way, I would like to test this 8PSK2400 modem on the voice/image 
portions of the bands (as required here in the U.S.) and if anyone would 
like to test this, please contact me privately and we can try things 
out. We should be able to send picture files for sure.

I should mention that in addition to contacting the ARRL CTO a while 
back about some of the questions I have vis a vis the FCC regulations, I 
had a number of further questions which I plan to send to the FCC. But 
before I did that, I sent them to the ARRL Regulatory Information 
Department and advised them that I had previously sent some of the 
questions to the CTO. They were not able to answer any of the questions 
that I had and forwarded them to the CTO, and I expect a response back 
soon. Then I will be sending a request to the FCC to determine their 
position (or lack thereof) on a number of digital issues that have not 
been dealt with here in the U.S. and I believe need to be fully vetted. 
Then we will have a better idea of what we can and can not do. And what 
we may want to request be changed.

What bashing do you see towards Winlink 2000 in anything I have said? 
There is a very good likelihood that some illegal traffic is being sent 
since it is not possible for normal monitoring of other hams and, 
practically speaking, this is true even if you have the $1000 modem. We 
do know that some fake "illegal" messages were sent from EU in the past 
to test how well the system worked to detect business type messages. I 
don't know how many messages get through but some apparently do. 
Eventually, if the offenders are caught, they are blocked from using the 
system. The rules here in the U.S. are no different than when BBS 
systems are handling similar traffic.

I agree that if we don't use a system regularly, then when we need it, 
we won't know how to use it, or little things will not be in place, etc. 
and it may not work. That is really the only reason that I can support 
e-mail via ham radio. If it was not for the emergency component or 
public service, I would strongly oppose this.

As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with my 
equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good as 
MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I have 
tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I have 
used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am sorry to 
report that, because I really thought that I would like it, considering 
the intense hype about Linux.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>> Well exactly! In ham radio we need a robust mode that can function in
>> bad conditions as well as in good conditions and using only our modest
>> 100 watts HF radios with our 2.4 KHZ filters. That is why we need a
>> good modem that can do all that. 
>>
>> Well I hope we can soon see some decent results from soundcard modes,
>> which I doubt will happen soon. Also ALE for me is ALE and STANAG is
>> STANAG. Better not mix the 2. There is also ARQ FAE, which isn't ALE
>> either. ALE can use any mode after the link has been established,
>> unless I'm wrong.
>>
>>
>> 

[digitalradio] One more gee-wiz aspect of ALE

[Andrew O'Brien]

One other VERY useful aspect of ALE and the system that Bonnie has
set-up at hflink.com.  I load  up my ALE software,  send out a station
ID on a few bands and in less than a minute receive confirmation that
I am...

being heard in NJ  and Quebec on 40M and Georgia and Illinois on 30M

N2CKH:   [17:28:24][ 7. MHz] Station ID By [K3UK]   BER 26 SN 07
VE2FXL: [17:28:31][ 7. MHz] Station ID By [K3UK]BER 29 SN 09
KM4BA:  [17:29:19][ 10 MHz] Station ID By [K3UK]BER 30 SN 13
NJ7C:   [17:29:09][ 10 MHz] Station ID By [K3UK]BER 28 SN 05

i ALSO GET A SIGNAL REPORT.

22 different ALE call-signs active in the past hour as reported by
http://hflink.net/qso/


-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)