[digitalradio] [Fwd: Beacon running]

[Les Keppie]

SHOULD HAVE SAID FREQ
14109.5 KHZ

 Original Message 
From: - Sun Oct 28 17:44:12 2007
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 0080
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:44:11 +1100
From: Les Keppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: L.A. & S.V. KEPPIE
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: digitalradio 
Subject: Beacon running
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi All
I shall run my RFSM8000 beacon in non-standard
mode from 0645 utc for 2 hours
Email address in included in beacon
Les VK2DSG

[digitalradio] Beacon running

[Les Keppie]

Hi All
I shall run my RFSM8000 beacon in non-standard
mode from 0645 utc for 2 hours
Email address in included in beacon
Les VK2DSG

Re: [digitalradio] Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Chuck Mayfield]

I don't think "10% of each HF ham band" is at all 
reasonable.  Perhaps "10% of each data b
and segment" would be more reasonable.  Your suggestion for automatic 
sub bands would take an unreasonably large part of most data sub bands.
see my notes below in [brackets]]

73,
Chuck  Mayfield - AA5J

But keep up working on it Bonnie... since
"Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance."
~ Samuel Johnson


At 10:57 PM 10/16/2007, expeditionradio wrote:
//snip//
A reasonable suggestion is that automatic sub bands be approximately
10% of each HF ham band. In other words, if an HF band is 350kHz wide,
then at least 35kHz of it should be available as an automatic sub band
for standard 3kHz bandwidth signals.
//snip//
>Here are some suggested expanded frequency ranges
>for HF automatic band segments.
>1805-1815 Worldwide
>1990-2000 North America [20/200Khz = 10%]
>3560-3610 North America
>3590-3630 Worldwide [70/100Khz = 70%]
>7100-7125kHz North America
>7100-7110kHz Worldwide (in the new international band)
>7035-7045kHz Worldwide  [35/125 = 28%
>10140-10150 Worldwide [10/50 = 20%]
>14085-14125kHz Worldwide (n 14099.5-14100.5 IARU beacon 
>net)  [40/140 = 26.7%]
>18100-18109.5kHz Worldwide  [ 9.5/42 = 22.6%]
>21090-21135kHz Worldwide  [ 45/200 = 22.5%]
>24920-24929.5kHz Worldwide   [ 9.5/40 = 23.75%]
>28100-28199.5kHz Worldwide[ 99.5/300 = 33.17%]

RE: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Rud Merriam]

This is to address the question of why a mode can work at -10 dB when
Shannon-Hartley indicates this is not possible for that mode. The
calculations adjust the reported dB for a 3kHz signal to the show the dB for
bandwidth of the mode. This is the dB applicable for Shannon-Hartley. 

I lacked the ambition this evening to calculate the Eb/N0 for the modes to
see how they compared on that basis. 

I just tossed in the theoretical channel capacity to show the theoretical
capacity. 

The results are also applicable to the threads on possible new modes of
operation.  

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB"
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:16 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation


Sorry but I may have missed something.
Your point is ? ? ? 

[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 Good

[Bill McLaughlin]

Agree,

After several ARQ FAE qsos and some via unproto, the ALE400 mode does
surprisingly well both on the lower and higher bands...well worth
further investigation.

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think Patrick may be on to something here, ALE400 with ARQ FAE
> worked very well in my QSO on 30M with Sholto KE7HPV.  ALE without a
> wide bandwidth !
> 
> GREETINGS TO ANDY FROM SHOLTO IN REPUBLIC, WA[23h51m29s] [AMD] [from
> KE7HPV  ] [to K3UK] (his BER=30 + SINAD= 7)
> 
> ok we got  a connect there Andy. copy me ok?
> the FAE mode is a lot easier than the AMD messages
> I am running around 30W here Andy.  Seems good so far. have u had many
> qso's in it yet?
> you can do most of the stuff u need in the 'aux functions' window.
> that's the way i use to call you. some[
> back again Andy. The ARQ was struggling there.
> Lots of QSB today
> yes i am Andy. without error too!
> our path is very marginal Andy. Better say 73 and CUL ok?
> K3UK DE KE7HPV SK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Introducing Digiital Radio Century Club numbers

[Andrew O'Brien]

Done.



On 10/23/07, Mike Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Hi Andy,
>
> Please add me to the list. I'm not  real active, but maybe that will
> change. The call is KC9DOA.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> *Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote:
>
> It took a while, but I have mined the information associated with the
> 2900 plus members of the Digitalradio mail list and created membership
> numbers from those that were obvious amateur radio call signs. Of the
> 2900+, I managed to find 1415 call signs. Just about 50%
>
> You can find the membership list , by call sign and number, at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drccalpha.xhtml
>
> I will also upload the list sorted alphabetically and by number to the
> files sections of this mail list
>
> To find your call sign , you can use the FIND command in your browser,
> I will put up a more sophisticated database that you can search when I
> figure out how (advice/ideas accepted).
>
> If you are not listed, it is because I could not find your call sign
> in the Yahoo groups roster. Just email me and I will add you. New
> members, henceforth, will automatically be assigned a number when
> they join.
>
> I assigned LOW numbers to some of the well known digital hams and to
> some of the people that have posted here recently. I have reserved 70
> or so other low numbers for people that I may have missed or those
> with a high number who want to advocate for a lower one. Low numbers
> will have special multiplier significance in future digital mode contests.
>
> So what do you do with the numbers?
>
> The numbers will have two purposes:
> 1. They will be used for future digital mode contests (as part of the
> exchange) and
>
> 2. will be used in casual QSOs where both parties (if members of
> Digitalradio) will exchange their "DRCC Number" (Digital Radio Century
> Club number). I stole the idea from the Straight Key Century Club , a
> CW club that I belong to .
>
> There will be several awards announced in the next few weeks but the
> first ones will be
>
> DRCC . Have a digital QSO and collect 100 DRCC numbers (PSK,
> MFSK16/8, ALE 8FSK, Olivia, PACTOR, PACKET, DominoEx, Hell, MT63, PAX,
> RTTY, SSTV, Throb, etc , etc) Upon receiving the DRCC award, a special
> letter will be affixed to your membership number. Your membership
> number will then worth more points in a digital modes contest.
>
>
> DRCC Multimode : Exchange 100 individual DRCC numbers in FIVE
> different digital modes (100 in each mode). Upon receiving the DRCC
> Multimode award, a special letter will be affixed to your membership
> number. Your membership number will then worth even more points in a
> digital modes contest.
>
> Certificates will be emailed to each successful applicant upon
> submission of a log detailing each QSO
> (date/time/band/mode/callsigns/RST and both DRCC numbers exchanged)
> The QSOs must have taken place SINCE September 30 , 2007.
>
> A web based submission process will eventually be developed.
>
> Email me for more details.
>
> Andy K3UK
> Owner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> 
>



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

[digitalradio] ALE400 Good

[Andrew O'Brien]

I think Patrick may be on to something here, ALE400 with ARQ FAE
worked very well in my QSO on 30M with Sholto KE7HPV.  ALE without a
wide bandwidth !

GREETINGS TO ANDY FROM SHOLTO IN REPUBLIC, WA[23h51m29s] [AMD] [from
KE7HPV  ] [to K3UK] (his BER=30 + SINAD= 7)

ok we got  a connect there Andy. copy me ok?
the FAE mode is a lot easier than the AMD messages
I am running around 30W here Andy.  Seems good so far. have u had many
qso's in it yet?
you can do most of the stuff u need in the 'aux functions' window.
that's the way i use to call you. some[
back again Andy. The ARQ was struggling there.
Lots of QSB today
yes i am Andy. without error too!
our path is very marginal Andy. Better say 73 and CUL ok?
K3UK DE KE7HPV SK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Rick,

>When I use PSK31, isn't the bandwidth pretty much set by the baud rate 
The baud rate and the windowing (square, cosine...) chosen...

>down to say 100 Hz, is this changing anything in terms of its practical 
>ability to work deeper into the noise?
There will be no change if you have only gaussian noise, but if you have QRM it 
is another story.

>Or do they use a 3000 Hz BW for testing purposes and compare modes that way?
Yes to compare. For example, I want to compare modes at S/N=-10 dB: 
I send a a signal of 1 mWatt and 10 mW of noise in 3KHz (so 3.33 mW per KHz).
Now among this noise you can send your 1 mWatt signal in the way you want 
(RTTY, PSK...), the bandwidth you want (within 3 KHz) and also the coding you 
want.
The judge will be the error rate: 2% is good, almost 100 % is bad.

>Doesn't this tend to favor the wider modes when it comes to claims of SNR?
No it is indifferent.

73
Patrick



 

 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Rick 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 1:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation


  The part that I don't fully understand is the bandwidth calculation.

  When I use PSK31, isn't the bandwidth pretty much set by the baud rate 
  and width of the signal? Often it is expressed as around double the baud 
  rate or ~ 60 Hz.

  Now if I have my rig wide open with the 3.6 kHz bandwidth and tighten it 
  down to say 100 Hz, is this changing anything in terms of its practical 
  ability to work deeper into the noise?

  Or do they use a 3000 Hz BW for testing purposes and compare modes that way?

  Doesn't this tend to favor the wider modes when it comes to claims of SNR?

  73,

  Rick, KV9U

  Rud Merriam wrote:
  > Jose,
  >
  > Just as you were posting this message I was stumbling on a web site that
  > agreed with your comment.
  >
  > With further searching I think I have the relationship. The QEX article has
  > the statement that to go from the 3kHz bandwidth used you "subtract 34 dB
  > and add 10 log of the desired bandwidth in Hz". But I think he has it wrong.
  >
  >
  > My search found that you adjust by taking 10log(BWoriginal/BWdesired) and
  > adding it to the given figure. I think the author neglected to consider that
  > the power of the signal is unchanged during the calculation. The result is
  > you need to add 19.82 dB to the reported values to obtain the SNR for a
  > 31.25 Hz signal.
  >
  > As proof (I hope ):
  >
  > Signal: 3000 Noise (3kHz): 3000 SNR(dB): 0
  > Signal: 3000 Noise (31.25Hz): 31.25 SNR(dB): 19.82
  >
  > Where the noise is 1 Watt-s per Hz. 
  >
  > The article reports that PSK-31 work down to -12 dB in AWGN this actually
  > means it work to 7.82 dB. The channel capacity for that SNR per
  > Shannon-Hartley is 88 bps. PSK-31 attains less that half the channel
  > capacity.
  >
  > 



   

[digitalradio] Re: HF to Cell Phone Texting - SMS

[Bruce Sawtelle]

Hi Bonnie,

I've gone through the link below and unfortunately, haven't seen any 
details on how to send SMS messages. Is there a step-by-step link I'm 
missing?

tnx es 73

Bruce- W3NJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cell Phone texting, also known as SMS, can provide 24/7 access for
> emergency/disaster relief purposes. It enables immediate alerting 
and
> messaging with personnel.
> 
> For more information that includes an example of how SMS via HF is
> being used for Emcomm, please see the presentation "ALE for 
Emergency
> / Disaster Relief Communications" on the web at:
> http://www.hflink.com/garec/
> 
> When cell sites are congested during disasters or communications
> emergencies, SMS texting may still function in some cases, even when
> voice service is down. This situation was experienced in some parts 
of
> the Katrina disaster zone.
> 
> More and more, disaster response organisations are using SMS and 
short
> text email to meet their needs. Hams involved with Emcomm should 
work
> to support this also.
> 
> Hams can send/receive SMS text messages on HF without a computer. 
For
> more information about how to do this, see the website:
> http://hflink.com/hfn
> 
> 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
>

RE: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Sorry but I may have missed something.
Your point is ? ? ? 

At 07:11 PM 10/27/2007, you wrote:
>I took the dB results from the authors web page and calculated the bandwidth
>adjusted dB and the Shannon-Hartley channel capacity:
>
>   Report
>SNRBWBW Adj Adjusted   Capacity
>Mode   (dB)   (Hz) 10log(3k/b)  SNR (dB) (bps)
>SSB   9  3000 0.009.00   9482
>CW  -155017.782.78 77
>PSK31   -1131.25 19.828.82 97
>PSKFEC  -1231.25 19.827.82 88
>RTTY -5   21511.456.45524
>MFSK16  -13   316 9.77   -3.23177
>MFSK8   -14   316 9.77   -4.23146
>FeldHell-11   450 8.24   -2.76276
>FMHell (105)-105517.377.37148
>Olivia32/1000   -12  1000 4.77   -7.23250
>Olivia8/500  -9   500 7.78   -1.22406
>Olivia16/500-12   500 7.78   -4.22232
>DominoEX11  -11   26210.59   -0.41245
>DominoEX11FEC   -13   26210.59   -2.41171
>DominoEX8   -12   346 9.38   -2.62218

RE: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Rud Merriam]

I took the dB results from the authors web page and calculated the bandwidth
adjusted dB and the Shannon-Hartley channel capacity:

   Report
SNRBWBW Adj Adjusted   Capacity
Mode   (dB)   (Hz) 10log(3k/b)  SNR (dB) (bps)
SSB   9  3000 0.009.00   9482
CW  -155017.782.78 77
PSK31   -1131.25 19.828.82 97
PSKFEC  -1231.25 19.827.82 88
RTTY -5   21511.456.45524
MFSK16  -13   316 9.77   -3.23177
MFSK8   -14   316 9.77   -4.23146
FeldHell-11   450 8.24   -2.76276
FMHell (105)-105517.377.37148
Olivia32/1000   -12  1000 4.77   -7.23250
Olivia8/500  -9   500 7.78   -1.22406
Olivia16/500-12   500 7.78   -4.22232
DominoEX11  -11   26210.59   -0.41245
DominoEX11FEC   -13   26210.59   -2.41171
DominoEX8   -12   346 9.38   -2.62218

I took BW numbers from various web sites so if anyone disputes the values
used feel free to tell me so. I can recalculate the values. I suspect that
the BW used is sufficient to give a better feel for understanding the
performance. 

In another message I see Rick wondering about the BW for PSK-31. I saw some
other values reported but did not pursue that question and went with the
conventional usage. For CW I just used a number for reasonable character
speed.
 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rud Merriam
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:47 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation


Jose,

Just as you were posting this message I was stumbling on a web site that
agreed with your comment.

With further searching I think I have the relationship. The QEX article has
the statement that to go from the 3kHz bandwidth used you "subtract 34 dB
and add 10 log of the desired bandwidth in Hz". But I think he has it wrong.


My search found that you adjust by taking 10log(BWoriginal/BWdesired) and
adding it to the given figure. I think the author neglected to consider that
the power of the signal is unchanged during the calculation. The result is
you need to add 19.82 dB to the reported values to obtain the SNR for a
31.25 Hz signal.

As proof (I hope ):

Signal: 3000  Noise (3kHz): 3000  SNR(dB): 0
Signal: 3000  Noise (31.25Hz): 31.25  SNR(dB): 19.82

Where the noise is 1 Watt-s per Hz. 

The article reports that PSK-31 work down to -12 dB in AWGN this actually
means it work to 7.82 dB. The channel capacity for that SNR per
Shannon-Hartley is 88 bps. PSK-31 attains less that half the channel
capacity.

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 2:26 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation


Yes, a 3 kHz voice channel...not the inmediate environment of the 
digital signal, but much, much farther away. And as noise floor is 
related to bandwidth...


Your mileage may vary...

73,

Jose, CO2JA



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Rick]

The part that I don't fully understand is the bandwidth calculation.

When I use PSK31, isn't the bandwidth pretty much set by the baud rate 
and width of the signal? Often it is expressed as around double the baud 
rate or ~ 60 Hz.

Now if I have my rig wide open with the 3.6 kHz bandwidth and tighten it 
down to say 100 Hz, is this changing anything in terms of its practical 
ability to work deeper into the noise?
 
Or do they use a 3000 Hz BW for testing purposes and compare modes that way?

Doesn't this tend to favor the wider modes when it comes to claims of SNR?

73,

Rick, KV9U


Rud Merriam wrote:
> Jose,
>
> Just as you were posting this message I was stumbling on a web site that
> agreed with your comment.
>
> With further searching I think I have the relationship. The QEX article has
> the statement that to go from the 3kHz bandwidth used you "subtract 34 dB
> and add 10 log of the desired bandwidth in Hz". But I think he has it wrong.
>
>
> My search found that you adjust by taking 10log(BWoriginal/BWdesired) and
> adding it to the given figure. I think the author neglected to consider that
> the power of the signal is unchanged during the calculation. The result is
> you need to add 19.82 dB to the reported values to obtain the SNR for a
> 31.25 Hz signal.
>
> As proof (I hope ):
>
> Signal: 3000  Noise (3kHz): 3000  SNR(dB): 0
> Signal: 3000  Noise (31.25Hz): 31.25  SNR(dB): 19.82
>
> Where the noise is 1 Watt-s per Hz. 
>
> The article reports that PSK-31 work down to -12 dB in AWGN this actually
> means it work to 7.82 dB. The channel capacity for that SNR per
> Shannon-Hartley is 88 bps. PSK-31 attains less that half the channel
> capacity.
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] XT2C : Well, a nice LOTW suprise

[W4LDE-Ron]

Andy,

Congratulations, I also received four confirming band/modes including 
the RTTY QSO, nice to see some DX Expo's using LOTW

Ron W4LDE

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Details   K3UKXT2C2007-01-15 X40M RTTY7.038   
> BURKINA FASO
>
>
> I don't seriously chase confirmation via cards any more, just QSL the
> folks that send me theirs.  Other than that, I rely on dribs and drabs
> from LOTW.  So today's XT2C card was quite a pleasant surprise.  40M
> no less! RTTY.
>
>
>   

RE: [digitalradio] XT2C : Well, a nice LOTW suprise

[Peter G. Viscarola]

Well, how about THAT.  I'm glad you mentioned it, cuz I didn't even
notice the LoTW confirmation -- they must have just up loaded their
QSOs.

XT2C was very prompt sending out their hardcopy cards... I got min back
in April.  First ever Burkina Faso for me, so it was a big deal.

But if I can get it via LoTW, I figure that's one less card to haul to
Newington :-)

de Peter K1PGV

[digitalradio] XT2C : Well, a nice LOTW suprise

[Andrew O'Brien]

Details K3UKXT2C2007-01-15 X40M RTTY7.038   
BURKINA FASO


I don't seriously chase confirmation via cards any more, just QSL the
folks that send me theirs.  Other than that, I rely on dribs and drabs
from LOTW.  So today's XT2C card was quite a pleasant surprise.  40M
no less! RTTY.


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

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Propagation Tests

[Rick]

Steve,

If MT-63 is robust relative to MIL-STD-188-110, then the latter may not 
be all that robust! I do not find MT-63 to be all that robust, and it is 
not as sensitive as other modes since it does not work well into the noise.

Do you have any real world amateur tests yet on the MIL-STD-188-110 
modems using the PC-ALE software approach?

I have tested this out on 6 meters and it seems to transmit OK. I don't 
have anyone close by with the capability to run the program who can also 
operate digital modes.

Also, have you found anyone who has run this software on HF here in the 
U.S. in the voice/image portions of the bands?

It has been several weeks and I have not received any response back from 
ARRL yet on my tentative submission to the FCC for an interpretation of 
these regulations. Perhaps some are holding back because they consider 
the modes not legal in the voice/image areas? My reading of the rules 
says that it should be proper to use this software.

Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts as to why these modes are not 
being at least tested on HF?

73,

Rick, KV9U


Steve Hajducek wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three 
> modes for comparison. I can tell you that next to 
> the various 75bps Robust mode on the 
> MIL-STD-188-110/STANAG modem, its very robust. 
> However under such conditions nothing but an ARQ protocol will really suffice.
>
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sub Channel DQPSK

[Rick]

Have you found particular combinations of Olivia BW and tones that seem 
to work the best for various conditions?

My frustration with Olivia is that it is impractically slow for keyboard 
chats unless you use the higher baud speeds to get the wpm to at least 
30 wpm. But then it does not seem to work as well.

But if the choice was some communication instead of no communication, 
there would be times that it would be a good choice. My main interest is 
in using sound card modes that work well for emergency communication 
with lower power and lesser quality antennas, particularly on HF NVIS.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Jose Amador wrote:
>
> As all differentially encoded modulations, it has a price, in the form 
> of burst errors following a wrong bit.
>
> For me, Olivia is far better than any Domino EX modes, including  Domino 
> with FEC.With FEC it is more robust,
> but becomes slower than Olivia, without reaching the same degree of 
> robustness. It is my impression with actual
> tests on the air.
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sub Channel DQPSK

[Jose Amador]

Vojtech Bubnik escribió:

>  PSK as well as MFSK will be affected by multipath, it will create
>  another type of inter symbol interference - time overlap. DominoEX
>  with its incremental MFSK tries to cope with it, but there is a price
>  for that. I am not convinced yet that the incremental MFSK is the
>  best thing.

As all differentially encoded modulations, it has a price, in the form 
of burst errors following a wrong bit.

For me, Olivia is far better than any Domino EX modes, including  Domino 
with FEC.With FEC it is more robust,
but becomes slower than Olivia, without reaching the same degree of 
robustness. It is my impression with actual
tests on the air.

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] Digital Propagation Tests

[Jose Amador]

Real attempts on 40 meters have had the same results for me.
On 20 it works far better, almost perfect..

MT63 is robust but too slow, and "waving the carpet" leaves it dizzy.

Being too slow, even slow doppler has a too high impact on it.

Jose, CO2JA

---

Tony escribió:

>  Hi Steve,
>
> > Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three modes for
> > comparison.
>
>  I did try MT63 at 2k, 1k and 500hz (squelch off). Copy was completely
>  garbled with the harsh path delay and frequency spread settings
>  used. I tried removing the AWGN noise channel from the simulator to
>  see if it was an SNR issue, but still no copy.
>
>  Tony - K2MO


__

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] Digital Propagation Tests

[Tony]

Hi Steve,

>Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three modes for comparison.

I did try MT63 at 2k, 1k and 500hz (squelch off). Copy was completely 
garbled with the harsh path delay and frequency spread settings used. I 
tried removing the AWGN noise channel from the simulator to see if it 
was an SNR issue, but still no copy.

Tony - K2MO





- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Hajducek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital Propagation Tests



Hi Tony,

Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three
modes for comparison. I can tell you that next to
the various 75bps Robust mode on the
MIL-STD-188-110/STANAG modem, its very robust.
However under such conditions nothing but an ARQ protocol will really 
suffice.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 12:31 AM 10/27/2007, you wrote:
>All,
>
>For what it's worth, I ran several digital modes through a 
>high-latitude
>ionospheric path simulator and recorded the results. The signal spread
>was set to 30Hz and path delay was 7 milliseconds. With these settings,
>the audio sounds much llike the most extreme polar path distortion and
>the simulator did a real number on throughput.
>
>Signal-to-noise (AWGN) was set at a threashold that allowed the most
>robust mode to print at 90 percent. In this case, that mode was Olivia
>1000/32. Although far from conclusive, mode performance seemed to
>compare well with on-air experience under the most disturbed 
>conditions.
>
>See below...
>
>Tony K2MO
>
>
>
>OLIVIA 1000HZ / 32 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>OLIVIA 500HZ / 16 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FO6 JUMPS OVE< THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUIMK LROWN FOX JUMPS OVEn THE LAZY DOG
>QHA QUICK BROWN FOp JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>OLIVIA 500HZ / 8 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICKRhWN ~ JUMPS OVER jELAZY UOG
>THKUICK BROWN FOi JUMPS OVER THE cAZv
>THF7yICK BROWN FO_ J$9=SGOVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>CONTESTIA 1000HZ / 32 TONE
>
>/THE QUICK BAOWN FOX J+M*S ,VER THE & ZJFDOG
>$H 4.ICK B8OWN FOX JUMPS 5E QUIY<:A,OWN FONMATSR THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX J(LPS OVE0 TLE LAZY DOG
>
>CONTESTIA 500HZ / 16 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OV&U THE LXZ_ DJG
>TME QUI/K BRON FOX JUM?S OVERTHE LAZY DOQ
>TH' QUGCK BROWN G-C?JU/PS,OVFL5LE L"Z  DOG
>THE QUIKK BQOWN:#OX JUM!S OVERXTHE LAZT D5G
>
>CONTESTIA 500HZ / 8 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN F#- T65IIRLI4L DJ! DO64I)(+
>QUICKCAH23DOX^6XMK-_,[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ,J<^'
>OWN'C!5TWNTQV0GRSM9OT
>
>MFSK-16
>
>u ÊICK BÀêe òt*ePÒct if'cÃlPøh vci]pdgeldt
>N¢án i!i   - ís=te.aOaÍC=iòYÃHE LAZY eeAxn1E
>^Àn±uQ1yaPitvén iafDel²ePS uh  ueo ^um P
>
>RTTY 170HZ SHIFT / 45 BAUD
>
>WAHXQAICC VBU  IDGTX KMLDJLUDUSTHE KLARFBJMY
>YHJNJ VBBBDQMBMPZX DFHPYU YLNKXK YHVEQQCPZWP
>OGTYD QPPWX!99 8!=9 YLDACVRDJFDDJ6!5),?''?
>
>PSK-31
>
>  i R  ® n  waeaoo o-  oeo   yietotreo ieP
>goe   },iitE,ã re o $ree" o  l i osehest
>e  n_ I t dvee  ruiTa e do e ro D e r
>e_n- § 3e o ti  e- }   dohItQ   s-e ty
>eottor eo1keo ele roetahe eeÀiefA seg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
>  Hi Roger, He worked with Glenn yesterday and Glenn is gone for the
>  week-end. Of course he doesn't want to wait. He says the interface
>  shows he is keying and the radio shows it is keying. But, he is
>  getting nothing out. I told him to try raising his ALC some and to
>  also check the cable. It looks like he must be getting the PTT but,
>  no data into the radio. I have a different radio and use my
>  soundcard. So, I'm not all that much help to him. Tom has psk working
>  with his Winpsk.
>
>  TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP

OK, I think I know the problem.  The little control program that comes 
with the Navigator may have defaulted to 15db (attenuated).  Be sure ch1 
and ch2 (atten) are set to NORMAL in the NavOptions program.  I'll bet 
that is the problem.  Try it now.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[John B. Stephensen]

RTTY is binary FSK so the bandwidth is approximately the deviation (170 Hz) 
plus the baud rate or 215 Hz.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 01:04 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation


  How wide is 45 baud RTTY ?

  At 07:52 PM 10/26/2007, Rick, KV9U wrote in part:
  >How do you make a wider bandwidth for a given mode? Isn't the bandwidth 
  >based on the baud rate to begin with?



   

[digitalradio] Re: Sub Channel DQPSK

[Vojtech Bubnik]

> Would the phase distortion that can corrupt a PSK signal occur the
same on a
> M-PSK signal?

Phase and frequency modulation are two sides of the same coin. There
is a baseband transformation to translate from phase to frequency
modulation and vice versa - integration / derivation. Integrate
baseband signal for phase modulator to get baseband for frequency
modulator, derive baseband signal for frequency modulator to get
baseband signal for phase modulator.

The same phase distortion rendering PSK signal unreadable shows as a
Doppler shift making the signal leaking into a neighbor frequency
bins. Generally, there will be some inter symbol interference, but
MFSK will still work, if the bins are not too narrow.

PSK as well as MFSK will be affected by multipath, it will create
another type of inter symbol interference - time overlap. DominoEX
with its incremental MFSK tries to cope with it, but there is a price
for that. I am not convinced yet that the incremental MFSK is the best
thing.

> If the phase distortion affects all the sub channels then doing
differential
> PSK among the sub channels would work where symbol to symbol DxPSK
would not
> work.

It is rather not the case. Polar flutter is frequency dependent.

It seems you are jumping on the train very fast. I hope you will help
me to make PocketDigi better, because my time for PocketDigi will be
shortened as I am slowly getting busy with the Father project, hi.

73, Vojtech OK1IAK

RE: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Dave Sloan]

Hi Roger,
   He worked with Glenn yesterday and Glenn is gone for the week-end. Of
course he doesn't want to wait. He says the interface shows he is keying and
the radio shows it is keying. But, he is getting nothing out. I told him to
try raising his ALC some and to also check the cable. It looks like he must
be getting the PTT but, no data into the radio. I have a different radio and
use my soundcard. So, I'm not all that much help to him. Tom has psk working
with his Winpsk.

TNX & 73,
Dave N0EOP


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:48 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
> A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
> problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
> Navigator?
>
> TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP

It is slightly tricky to set up, but once you get it set up it works 
wonderfully, and in a trouble-free fashion. If your friend has trouble 
have him contact Glenn at US Interface support, and he'll have it 
squared away quickly.

de Roger W6VZV
 

[digitalradio] Re: PSK under ionospheric flutter, was: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Vojtech Bubnik]

> Up to PSK31, you can see this phenomenon. But if you increase the
speed (PSK63), you decrease the sensitivity to Doppler but also
increase (with 3 dB) the minimum S/N. All is a question of compromise.

Yes, my point was that adding convolutional encoder, coding gain could
 somehow eliminate the 3db S/N loss of double bandwidth.

> For comparison of modes, I think it would be, ideally, interesting
to normalize to the same text throughput  so to be able to consider
all the parameters of the performance, as for example, the degree of
redundancy introduced by the mode (example MFSK16 or PSK63F: 2,
Olivia: about 9). This because if, for example, MFSK16 would be
transmitted at the same throughput as Olivia 32/1000, its minimum S/N
would be 3 dB better that the present S/N (-16,5 dB instead of -13.5 dB).

Thanks for that note. In my opinion Olivia trades easy tuning against
decreased speed and S/N capability if compared to MFSK16.

73, Vojtech OK1IAK

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Roger J. Buffington]

Dave Sloan wrote:
>
>  A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
>  problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the
>  Navigator?
>
>  TNX & 73, Dave N0EOP

It is slightly tricky to set up, but once you get it set up it works 
wonderfully, and in a trouble-free fashion.  If your friend has trouble 
have him contact Glenn at US Interface support, and he'll have it 
squared away quickly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Propagation Tests

[Steve Hajducek]

Hi Tony,

Too bad you did not also run MT-63 at all three 
modes for comparison. I can tell you that next to 
the various 75bps Robust mode on the 
MIL-STD-188-110/STANAG modem, its very robust. 
However under such conditions nothing but an ARQ protocol will really suffice.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

At 12:31 AM 10/27/2007, you wrote:
>All,
>
>For what it's worth, I ran several digital modes through a high-latitude
>ionospheric path simulator and recorded the results. The signal spread
>was set to 30Hz and path delay was 7 milliseconds. With these settings,
>the audio sounds much llike the most extreme polar path distortion and
>the simulator did a real number on throughput.
>
>Signal-to-noise (AWGN) was set at a threashold that allowed the most
>robust mode to print at 90 percent. In this case, that mode was Olivia
>1000/32. Although far from conclusive, mode performance seemed to
>compare well with on-air experience under the most disturbed conditions.
>
>See below...
>
>Tony K2MO
>
>
>
>OLIVIA 1000HZ / 32 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>OLIVIA 500HZ / 16 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FO6 JUMPS OVE< THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUIMK LROWN FOX JUMPS OVEn THE LAZY DOG
>QHA QUICK BROWN FOp JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>OLIVIA 500HZ / 8 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICKRhWN ~ JUMPS OVER jELAZY UOG
>THKUICK BROWN FOi JUMPS OVER THE cAZv
>THF7yICK BROWN FO_ J$9=SGOVER THE LAZY DOG
>
>CONTESTIA 1000HZ / 32 TONE
>
>/THE QUICK BAOWN FOX J+M*S ,VER THE & ZJFDOG
>$H 4.ICK B8OWN FOX JUMPS 5E QUIY<:A,OWN FONMATSR THE LAZY DOG
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX J(LPS OVE0 TLE LAZY DOG
>
>CONTESTIA 500HZ / 16 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OV&U THE LXZ_ DJG
>TME QUI/K BRON FOX JUM?S OVERTHE LAZY DOQ
>TH' QUGCK BROWN G-C?JU/PS,OVFL5LE L"Z  DOG
>THE QUIKK BQOWN:#OX JUM!S OVERXTHE LAZT D5G
>
>CONTESTIA 500HZ / 8 TONE
>
>THE QUICK BROWN F#- T65IIRLI4L DJ! DO64I)(+
>QUICKCAH23DOX^6XMK-_,[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ,J<^'
>OWN'C!5TWNTQV0GRSM9OT
>
>MFSK-16
>
>u ÊICK BÀêe òt*ePÒct if'cÃlPøh vci]pdgeldt
>N¢án i!i   - ís=te.aOaÍC=iòYÃHE LAZY eeAxn1E
>^Àn±uQ1yaPitvén iafDel²ePS uh  ueo ^um P
>
>RTTY 170HZ SHIFT / 45 BAUD
>
>WAHXQAICC VBU  IDGTX KMLDJLUDUSTHE KLARFBJMY
>YHJNJ VBBBDQMBMPZX DFHPYU YLNKXK YHVEQQCPZWP
>OGTYD QPPWX!99 8!=9 YLDACVRDJFDDJ6!5),?''?
>
>PSK-31
>
>  i R  ® n  waeaoo o-  oeo   yietotreo ieP
>goe   },iitE,ã re o $ree" o  l i osehest
>e  n_ I t dvee  ruiTa e do e ro D e r
>e_n- § 3e o ti  e- }   dohItQ   s-e ty
>eottor eo1keo ele roetahe eeÀiefA seg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?

[Dave Sloan]

 A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having
problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the Navigator?

TNX & 73,
Dave N0EOP

RE: [digitalradio] Sub Channel DQPSK

[Rud Merriam]

Thanks, John.
 
I was thinking of posting a message directed at California operators to see
what their experience was going over the pole to Europe. Your VE-land
experience provides the same information.
 
It is interesting sorting out the anecdotal reports, including yours, the
theory / studies, and the realities.


Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
http://TheHamNetwork.net   

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 8:45 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Sub Channel DQPSK



For what it's worth Rud, PSK31 appears much more susceptible to phase
distortion that wider modes such as MFSK and OLIVIA.

 

Here, we are just over 50 degrees north latitude and have many more
occasions to experience the 

Northern "flutter" from the aurora. This phase distortion knocks out PSK31
pretty fast. Also makes SSB ops

Sound like Donald Duck

 

There are times when this will show up on relatively short hops (less than
500km) on 80 and 40 M

 

John

VE5MU

 

Would the phase distortion that can corrupt a PSK signal occur the same on a
M-PSK signal? 

If the phase distortion affects all the sub channels then doing differential
PSK among the sub channels would work where symbol to symbol DxPSK would not
work.


Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
  http://TheHamNetwork.net 



 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation

[Jose A. Amador]

Rud Merriam wrote:

> Jose,
> 
> Just as you were posting this message I was stumbling on a web site that
> agreed with your comment.
> 
> With further searching I think I have the relationship. The QEX article has
> the statement that to go from the 3kHz bandwidth used you "subtract 34 dB
> and add 10 log of the desired bandwidth in Hz". But I think he has it wrong.

I have not seen such article yet.

> My search found that you adjust by taking 10log(BWoriginal/BWdesired) and
> adding it to the given figure. 

Makes sense, in the way it takes the extra bandwidth into consideration.

> I think the author neglected to consider that
> the power of the signal is unchanged during the calculation. The result is
> you need to add 19.82 dB to the reported values to obtain the SNR for a
> 31.25 Hz signal.

Seems to be in the ballpark. I had mentally derived some 17 dB as a 
correction factor, but did not actually calculate it.

As Patrick explained, the 3 kHz bandwidth is a sort of equal yardstick 
to measure up the different modes.

> As proof (I hope ):
> 
> Signal: 3000  Noise (3kHz): 3000  SNR(dB): 0
> Signal: 3000  Noise (31.25Hz): 31.25  SNR(dB): 19.82
> 
> Where the noise is 1 Watt-s per Hz. 
> 
> The article reports that PSK-31 work down to -12 dB in AWGN this actually
> means it work to 7.82 dB. The channel capacity for that SNR per
> Shannon-Hartley is 88 bps. PSK-31 attains less that half the channel
> capacity.

Seems it is time to dust off my copy of Sklar's book

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] Sub Channel DQPSK

[Jose A. Amador]

Of course it is. PSK31 goes raw, while MFSK and Olivia have FEC added.
So, stand a better chance of being decoded correctly.

When nature starts stirring the gas above, all it reflects (refracts) 
suffers the same effect as it had passed thru the house of mirrors, 
making giants look like dwarfs and tiny thin people look like King Kong 
for an instant, and then, become the contrary, and so on.

No wonder SSB becomes Donald Duck squared...

73,

Jose, CO2JA



John Bradley wrote:

> For what it’s worth Rud, PSK31 appears much more susceptible to phase 
> distortion that wider modes such as MFSK and OLIVIA.
> 
> Here, we are just over 50 degrees north latitude and have many more 
> occasions to experience the Northern “flutter” from the aurora. 
 > This phase distortion knocks out PSK31 pretty fast.
 > Also makes SSB ops sound like Donald Duck……..
> 
> There are times when this will show up on relatively short hops (less 
> than 500km) on 80 and 40 M
> 
> John
> 
> VE5MU



__

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


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Sub Channel DQPSK

[John Bradley]

For what it's worth Rud, PSK31 appears much more susceptible to phase
distortion that wider modes such as MFSK and OLIVIA.

 

Here, we are just over 50 degrees north latitude and have many more
occasions to experience the 

Northern "flutter" from the aurora. This phase distortion knocks out PSK31
pretty fast. Also makes SSB ops

Sound like Donald Duck

 

There are times when this will show up on relatively short hops (less than
500km) on 80 and 40 M

 

John

VE5MU

 

Would the phase distortion that can corrupt a PSK signal occur the same on a
M-PSK signal? 

If the phase distortion affects all the sub channels then doing differential
PSK among the sub channels would work where symbol to symbol DxPSK would not
work.

  
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
  http://TheHamNetwork.net