Re: [digitalradio] ANNOUNCE: PocketDigi 1.0.11 released

[Sholto Fisher]

Good job Vojtech! I don't have a Windows CE machine but I have the i386
version of PocketDigi on my Win2K system and it works very nicely. The
RS ID feature, by being incorporated in other software besides MultiPSK,
may be one of the best things 2008 will bring.

73 Sholto
KE7HPV.

[digitalradio] I'm a new guy

[Curt Givens]

Well at least relatively new. I've been a general since last February, but
was operating HF as an Army MARS operator for about 2 years before my
upgrade. I signed up here because I've discovered I have a bunch I want to
learn about digital modes. I hope this is the right place.

My experience so far has been with MT63, BPSK31, a little bit of Olivia and
this weekend an attempt to try RTTY during the Roundup. In about two 45
minute periods of casual working I managed to work 7 or 8 stations. A lot to
learn there also. 

Mode ID is a place to start I guess. I use MixW which to my knowledge
doesn't auto id modes. Is there anyplace with sound/pictures of what the
assorted modes sound and look like on the waterfall?

After my efforts last weekend to join the Olivia "party" I have several
questions there also but have rambled long enough here for the time.

Thanks for your patience,
73's,
Curt

Curt Givens  KC8STE, AAR5VR Army MARS
Earthdog and Special Programs Director
GCDOC/GCAC
Dayton, OH

"Registering lawful Americans who possess a gun to stop armed criminals, is
like registering virgins to stop prostitution."




___
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.1.4
http://www.iolo.com

Re: [digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions.

[kh6ty]

>
> 1.  Did anyone use it on VHF or UHF this weekend ?  It seems that it
> would be perfect for these quiet frequency ranges, file transfers at
> PSK250 should really be very useful

It is designed primarily for VHF in the choice of modes, narrow bandwidth 
and not handling much QSB so no need for wider multitone modes that work 
further into the noise.
>
> 2.  Did anyone try MFSK16 ARQ 

Does not work well, because the latency of MFSK16 means the first ARQ 
control code to start a sequence has passed before the decoder can decode 
it. Same problem with DominoEx. This was a desired choice also for VHF - 
wider, but less critical tuning, but the latency prevented it from working.
>
> 3.  Has anyone established a protocol for "who goes first" when a few
> stations beacon and hear each other ?

Not that I know of. We are going to disable having more than one station or 
two connected stations sending a message at the same time. Too confusing!
>
> 4.  Is there any practical use for the "email" feature.  It works well
> , but is it not easier to send via the Internet  unless in an emcomm
> situation ?

NBEMS is intended to be used primarily for personal emcomm messaging or 
point-to-point communications backup when all else fails. When the Internet 
is accessible, of course it is more desirable.

>
> 5.  Where should we "hang out" if we are looking for email?

Please don't hang out looking for email! If you are a served agency that 
assigns someone to monitor the band for traffic, or meet a sked, when normal 
communications are available, NBEMS is useful, but why clutter up the 
airwaves with email or messaging? The ham bands are primarily for amateur 
radio hobbiests to talk to other amateur radio hobbiests, not as a slow 
replacement for the Internet or text messaging.

>
> 6.  Anyone come up with some emcomm tasks for this software package?
> How do we test this for emergency communication drills/event ?

First the system must be validated and bugs worked out. Then it can be 
deployed by emcomm groups. We have only released NBEMS for beta testing, not 
for deployment, and are still making changes.

We do appreciate the members of this group for taking the time to give NBEMS 
a try.
>
> 7  Is ALE 400 better ?

Possibly, for HF where there is QSB to contend with. For VHF, PSK250 on a 
non-fading path has a speed advantage, I think.

>
> 8.  Is it just me, or does the passage of ARQ files between two
> stations invoke FLARQ reception on a third station that is on same
> frequency ?

It is not you. I have experienced the same thing. Of course a third-party 
station cannot request fills.

We are still refining flarq based on the experiences already gained on HF.

Hope this answers some of the questions, at least from my viewpoint. Other's 
may feel differently.

One undocumented feature is the ability of VBdigi to seek for a directional 
CQ, but still needs some work. The way this works is that a station with 
emergency traffic repetitively calls "CQ EM" for example, and VBdigi will 
scan the passband up and down until it stops on such a CQ. In a widescale 
disaster, there may be many stations trying to pass emergency messages, and 
VBdigi will be able to find them without the operator having to stop and 
decode each one manually. Still some work to do on this feature, but it can 
only work if a narrowband mode is used, so that there are many stations in 
the passband (in the same area of the band).

73, Skip KH6TY

[digitalradio] NBEMS experience today

[Rick]

Several of us were around the 10137 frequency earlier today and tried 
various combinations of modes, including NBEMS. We had at least KH6TY, 
K3UK, VE5MU, KC7GNM, and WD4KPD. Some attempts at making transfers was 
done. I sent Skip one of my standard messages which is the Gettysburgh 
Address. It took about 6 minutes or so to send with its 1419 character 
length.using the PSK63 speed.  I unfortunately did not record this 
exactly. Not really fast, but we had quite a few repeats due to 
conditions being marginal. Again, this mode is intended more for VHF, 
but it does work on HF, even with fairly modest signals. The main thing 
is that the message was completely accurate at the receiving station, 
something nearly impossible to do with most of the sound card modes.

What we probably should have done is try the same message with FAE 400 
mode and compare the throughput under similar conditions.

Eventually it sounds like NBEMS may have a chat mode, which I think 
would be a good thing, but you can easily switch back and forth between 
the flarq ARQ add-on and the basic VBdigi program. I wonder if it might 
be possible to eventually add the FAE 400 mode?

In fact, later on I was tuning around and VE5MU was down the band 
calling on FAE 400 and I just sort of set my cursor on the waterfall and 
I was connected. We had a lengthy chat and if you have used this mode, 
you know that it is hard to keep up with the throughput with less than 
40 wpm keyboard speed:) And that is when conditions are not the best.

I am wondering if it might be possible to have this mode eventually 
available on VBdigi as it clearly is the superior ARQ HF sound card mode 
at this time. You can use wide FAE for more speed, but it is no where 
near as sensitive as the 400 Hz narrower mode. And for those of us who 
really do not want to operate with moderate width modes (under 500 Hz), 
the 400 Hz wide mode is ideal. The 10130 to 10140 sub bands under the 
new Region 2 Band Plan recommends no more than 500 Hz bandwidth.

Questions about NBEMS:

1. I think I asked something like this before, but bear with me. It 
seems to be sending several blocks of data because you see the inserted 
characters that must be a checksum and if the receiving station decodes 
all correctly it knows that. Is this a CRC kind of check or something 
similar?

2. Am I correct that it only requests the parts that it can not decode 
properly? And it does this even though in between blocks are OK and so 
don't need ARQ? So you can send maybe three or more "blocks" with the 
check and if only one is bad it only resends that one?

3. If it needs to repeat one or more blocks, the transmitting station 
does the repeat, but then continues to send new data as well? Probably 
to fill a maximum number of bytes per transmission?

4. If you see someone sending the flarq beacon in VBdigit, and their 
callsign, is that just a general call to anyone? Or is there some way to 
differentiate who is to get the message?

5. And then when their callsign appears automatically in the flarq 
program, does that mean they are trying to connect specifically to your 
callsign, or is your flarq program just responding to any flarq beacon?

6. If it is a general call, how do we know when you receive a message or 
who it is supposed to go to?

73,

Rick, KV9U

[digitalradio] ANNOUNCE: PocketDigi 1.0.11 released

[Vojtěch Bubník]

Hi gang.

I released PocketDigi 1.0.11 at http://pocketdigi.sourceforge.net. There are 
following new features implemented: RSID, PSK63F, PSK125, sampling rate 
conversion, tx delay/tx tail/ats3 preamble/postamble settings, keyboard 
accelerators, Handheld PC 2000 improvements, Waterfall FFT optimization and 
basic Smartphone support.

RSID is the famous Reed Solomon ID of Patrick Lindecker F6CTE. Patrick added 
this feature into his MultiPSK software year ago. Until now only MultiPSK (and 
since last week also Cesco's FDMDV?) implemented this feature. Instead of CW ID 
or Image ID, a sequence of 15 MFSK tones is sent at the beginning of every TX 
to identify mode and center of frequency of the following data stream. RSID has 
very high redundancy, so if the RSID is decoded with zero or one error, there 
is extremely low probability of false detection. The feature is very handy to 
automatically detect mode and submode of rare modes and therefore encourages 
experimentation. Also it is easy to tune MFSK16 mode as no tuning is needed at 
all. I found RSID very useful with ATS-3b transceiver, at it has only narrow 
not very flat CW filter. Even if the whole digital signal does not fit into the 
filter, if the mode has high enough redundancy and is strong enough, it will be 
still decoded if tuned properly. But without seeing the whole spectrum of the 
signal on waterfall, it is very difficult to tune it. With RSID receive on, one 
only needs to get the RSID signal into receiver passband to make sure the 
signal will be tuned correctly.

PSK63F is a nice mode invented by Nino Porcino IZ8BLY. It is a crossbreed 
between MFSK16 and PSK63. It uses convolution code and varicode of MFSK16, but 
for hardware layer it uses binary phase shifting at 63.125Bd. PSK63F tries to 
fight ionospheric flutter by faster phase modulation and forward error 
correction. It is well known that BPSK31 does not survive polar flutter. BPSK63 
is better, but one loses 3dB. For DX work, PSK63F could gain back that 3dB and 
still show lower sensitivity for polar flutter.

PSK125 is nothing more than 2x faster, 2x wider and 3dB less sensitive BPSK 
than PSK63.

I finally added sample rate conversion. It took me a bit longer, because it is 
done in fixed point arithmetic again to make it computationally feasible on 
Windows CE devices. I have good experience with my iPaq 3630 and Jornada 720, 
they show very little clock error. But my new laptop shows as high as 4% error 
on TX and 2% on RX. Even PSK31 did not work at that level of clock error.

With the release of ATS-3b kit by Steve KD1JV, I received reports about having 
trouble to get the communication interface working. ATS-3b is controlled by 
Manchester modulation generated by sound card, which is translated to digital 
levels by a simple slicer. Some sound cards generate ugly transient response at 
the start and end of sound. I added four new parameters to control the shape of 
transient response: TX delay, TX tail, ATS3 preamble and ATS3 postamble. The 
first two are silence intervals. The next two are intervals of Manchester idle 
tone. The idle tone is shaped by raised cosine function now to minimize clicks, 
if it is longer than 50msec. Also Jornada 720 generates some ugly click about 
200msec after sound output opening. I was not able to find out the cause, but 
setting TX delay to 250ms either avoids the click or at least shifts the 
modulation after the click.

I added keyboard accelerators for accessing menu from keyboard. According to 
Microsoft GUI guidelines for Pocket PC platform, one shall not use keyboard 
accelerators. They work on my device though, so I leave them there. Menu pops 
up at Alt-T for tools, Alt-M for Modem, Alt-A for mAcros etc. F1-F12 execute 
macros on desktop.

Until now, I relied on testing of Handheld PC 2000 build by Helge Tefts. Last 
month I bought Jornada 720 on e-bay for whooping $40+shipping. I did some user 
interface improvements on that platform, made some missing features available 
like context menus on RX/TX windows etc. Jornada 720 has a two LiIon cell accu. 
I bet ATS-3b may be powered from the handheld's accu.

I replaced complex FFT by a real FFT for waterfall calculation, which lowers 
current consumption. Now all the DSP calculation uses less current than user 
interface updates + FEC and certainly less than backlight on my iPaq 3630. This 
is quite interesting. It shows that for HAM radio digital modems and PDA sized 
display, DSP CPU will be probably counter-productive as DSP is usually clumsy 
for general purpose computing. To improve current consumption even more, I 
would probably need to replace some stock user interface components from 
Microsoft like RX window by a custom one or get back to a custom design with 
very small monochrome display and simple user interface.

Ondra OK1CDJ bought himself a Smartphone HTC S710. The device does not have a 
touch screen and did not show menu in PocketDigi-1.0.10. Smartphone only 
ac

[digitalradio] Re: Mode identification

[Bill McLaughlin]

Yes. A radio. No re sparkI even hear CW from time to time!

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin"  wrote:
> > One I had trouble with the other day, was
> > Clover, but had not heard it in so long I had forgotten what it
> > sounded like.
> > 
> You heard a Clover signal?!  What kind of time machine do you
> have there?  Heard any spark lately?
>

[digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions.

[Andrew O'Brien]

So, I had a weekend of playing around with the version of NBEMS that
works under Windows (VBdigi and FLARQ 2.6).  The feedback from others
seems to be that the ARQ file and email transfers seem to work as
advertised.  There are a few questions about this software package:

1.  Did anyone use it on VHF or UHF this weekend ?  It seems that it
would be perfect for these quiet frequency ranges, file transfers at
PSK250 should really be very useful

2.  Did anyone try MFSK16 ARQ 

3.  Has anyone established a protocol for "who goes first" when a few
stations beacon and hear each other ?

4.  Is there any practical use for the "email" feature.  It works well
, but is it not easier to send via the Internet  unless in an emcomm
situation ?

5.  Where should we "hang out" if we are looking for email?

6.  Anyone come up with some emcomm tasks for this software package?
How do we test this for emergency communication drills/event ?

7  Is ALE 400 better ?

8.  Is it just me, or does the passage of ARQ files between two
stations invoke FLARQ reception on a third station that is on same
frequency ?



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

[digitalradio] Clarification on Winlink

[Rick]

Winlink was a system that used MBOs (Mail Box Operations) around the 
world that you could connect to with Pactor and Clover II, to send mail 
to other hams. It was also tied in to the VHF packet structure at one time.

The owners then developed an internet based system called Winlink 2000, 
which is a VERY different paradigm, and which keeps most of the traffic 
off the HF bands and on the internet. It works through HF using Pactor, 
mostly P2 and P3 with a daily time limit, and also has many VHF 
connections using packet. This systems is not associated in any way with 
SCS and it is not a commercial operation since all usage is free to 
radio amateurs.

In some respects the old Winlink network lives on as the NTS/D (ARRL 
National Traffic System - Digital), but the Winlink 2000 Administrator 
has been very unhappy that it has continued to operate and has publicly 
stated that he wished they had installed time bombs in the software so 
it would have become inoperative. Needless to say, some of us do not 
support that kind of viewpoint.

73,

Rick, KV9U



David wrote:
> .i believe these PMBO's use Pactor 3 which is a commercial program 
> of SCS in Germany.i also believe that Winlink is a commercial 
> program by the same company.

[digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Dave Bernstein]

My attempt at installation failed with

NOTE: Now spawning the main Setup program 'Setup1.exe'

*** ERROR: Cannot start main setup program!  (CreateProcess() 
returned error code 0x0005H)

Did you customize Setup1?

Suggestions?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Should be http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. The k and h were transposed.
> 
> Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck Mayfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
> 
> 
> > Try:  http://www.w1khj.com/NBEMS
> >
> > CHUCK AA5J
> >
> > At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote:
> >
> >>Hello Haward,
> >>
> >>Happy New Year!
> >>
> >>Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a 
working 
> >>link.
> >>
> >>"Server not found
> >>Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com "
> >>
> >>73!
> >>
> >>Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote:
> >>
> >>k> Sent this email this morning:
> >>
> >>k> Good morning Charles,
> >>
> >>k> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, 
calling to 
> >>connect
> >>k> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test 
of the
> >>k> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on 
for half 
> >>an
> >>k> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM 
on 
> >>Sunday,
> >>k> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure 
out why you 
> >>may
> >>k> not have seen any activity on the frequency before 
transmitting for 
> >>WG3G.
> >>k> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we 
don't know
> >>k> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South 
Carolina. 
> >>One
> >>k> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in 
Fredonia, NY.
> >>
> >>k> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations 
sharing the
> >>k> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any 
of them,
> >>k> especially since I copied you perfectly.
> >>
> >>k> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is
> >>centered on the
> >>k> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you 
covered 
> >>up.
> >>
> >>k> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System 
around 
> >>this
> >>k> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be 
occupied.
> >>
> >>k> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten 
you. Since 
> >>you
> >>k> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in 
the test of 
> >>the
> >>k> NBEMS. If so to to 
http://www.w1khj/NBEMS
> >>for information and a link to
> >>k> download the software.
> >>
> >>k> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this 
collision
> >>k> happened.
> >>
> >>k> 73, Skip KH6TY
> >>
> >>--
> >>Best regards,
> >>Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date:
> >>1/6/2008 11:57 AM
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 
1/6/2008 
> 11:57 AM
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Chuck Mayfield]

Yes, Skip.  My bad.  You are correct except for the "." at the end of 
the link 
Sorry for the qrm...  that is little QRM, like psk31 is

73 Chuck   AA5J

> >
> > At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote:
> >
> >>Hello Haward,
> >>
> >>Happy New Year!
> >>
> >>Sorry, 
> <http://www.w1khj/NBEMS>http://www.w1khj/NBEMS 
> is not a working
> >>link.
> >>
> >>"Server not found
> >>Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com "
> >>
> >>73!
> >>
> >>Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote:
> >>
> >>k> Sent this email this morning:
> >>
> >>k> Good morning Charles,
> >>
> >>k> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to
> >>connect
> >>k> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the
> >>k> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half
> >>an
> >>k> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on
> >>Sunday,
> >>k> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you
> >>may
> >>k> not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for
> >>WG3G.
> >>k> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know
> >>k> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina.
> >>One
> >>k> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY.
> >>
> >>k> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the
> >>k> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them,
> >>k> especially since I copied you perfectly.
> >>
> >>k> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is
> >>centered on the
> >>k> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered
> >>up.
> >>
> >>k> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around
> >>this
> >>k> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied.
> >>
> >>k> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since
> >>you
> >>k> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of
> >>the
> >>k> NBEMS. If so to to 
> <http://www.w1khj/NBEMS>http://www.w1khj/NBEMS
> >>for information and a link to
> >>k> download the software.
> >>
> >>k> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision
> >>k> happened.
> >>
> >>k> 73, Skip KH6TY
> >>
> >>--
> >>Best regards,
> >>Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date:
> >>1/6/2008 11:57 AM
> >
> >
>
>--
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008
>11:57 AM
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 
>1/6/2008 11:57 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[kh6ty]

Should be http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. The k and h were transposed.

Skip KH6TY


- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck Mayfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M


> Try:  http://www.w1khj.com/NBEMS
>
> CHUCK AA5J
>
> At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote:
>
>>Hello Haward,
>>
>>Happy New Year!
>>
>>Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a working 
>>link.
>>
>>"Server not found
>>Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com "
>>
>>73!
>>
>>Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote:
>>
>>k> Sent this email this morning:
>>
>>k> Good morning Charles,
>>
>>k> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to 
>>connect
>>k> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the
>>k> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half 
>>an
>>k> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on 
>>Sunday,
>>k> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you 
>>may
>>k> not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for 
>>WG3G.
>>k> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know
>>k> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. 
>>One
>>k> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY.
>>
>>k> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the
>>k> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them,
>>k> especially since I copied you perfectly.
>>
>>k> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is
>>centered on the
>>k> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered 
>>up.
>>
>>k> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around 
>>this
>>k> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied.
>>
>>k> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since 
>>you
>>k> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of 
>>the
>>k> NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMS
>>for information and a link to
>>k> download the software.
>>
>>k> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision
>>k> happened.
>>
>>k> 73, Skip KH6TY
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date:
>>1/6/2008 11:57 AM
>
>





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 
11:57 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Chuck Mayfield]

Try:  http://www.w1khj.com/NBEMS

CHUCK AA5J

At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote:

>Hello Haward,
>
>Happy New Year!
>
>Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a working link.
>
>"Server not found
>Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com "
>
>73!
>
>Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote:
>
>k> Sent this email this morning:
>
>k> Good morning Charles,
>
>k> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to connect
>k> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the
>k> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an
>k> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday,
>k> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you may
>k> not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G.
>k> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know
>k> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One
>k> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY.
>
>k> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the
>k> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them,
>k> especially since I copied you perfectly.
>
>k> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is 
>centered on the
>k> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up.
>
>k> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this
>k> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied.
>
>k> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you
>k> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of the
>k> NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMS 
>for information and a link to
>k> download the software.
>
>k> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision
>k> happened.
>
>k> 73, Skip KH6TY
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 
>1/6/2008 11:57 AM

Re: [digitalradio] 160M PSK activity?

[Andrew O'Brien]

There was some last night on 1807-1810

On Jan 6, 2008 6:26 PM, Gary  - N3JPU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Been trolling the low end of 160M for a while, is there any PSK users on
>  160M?
>
>  Gary Mitchelson
>  N3JPU Montgomery Co. MD FM19
>  http://www.mitchelson.org/
>
>  



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

[digitalradio] 160M PSK activity?

[Gary - N3JPU]

Been trolling the low end of 160M for a while, is there any PSK users on
160M?

Gary Mitchelson
N3JPU Montgomery Co. MD  FM19
http://www.mitchelson.org/ 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Dave AA6YQ]

In my experience, most users of digital modes beyond RTTY and PSK-31 stay
up-to-date with whatever software they are using because

1. they need the defect repairs

2. they want the new features and modes

Using CW (or any other "universal mode") for identification does not require
registration or registration databases. It simply requires an option that
when enabled automatically appends your callsign and mode in CW to the end
of a transmission if you haven't ID'd in the past 10 minutes. Most hams want
to do the right thing; if we got the ball rolling and set a good example,
many would jump on the bandwagon.

However many modes there are today, there will be lots more by this time
next year (counting variants).

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jack Chomley
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:28 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M


At 08:18 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:



  IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, requires no
decoding software, and is trivial to implement.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


OK, ask ALL software developers to bury that function in their
program.so it can't be switched OFF and IDs at fixed agreed intervals.
ID fixed at program reg time (cannot be edited) ALL programs registered, or
they don't work. Developers to keep databases of registration.
Won't fix a thingpeople would simply keep using old versions of
software.
No, it all comes with a mode awareness campaign and some dedicated software,
to work as a decoder.
So...how MANY modes are there?

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[David]

Hi Jackboth multipsk and fldigi have a feature where you can monitor 
your transmit signal..one way to learn what they look like is to 
turn the feature on and the try transmitting the various modes and learn 
to see what they look like.

there is more than one way of killing the cat as they say...

73 David VK4BDJ






Jack Chomley wrote:


At 08:18 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:

IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, 
requires no decoding software, and is trivial to implement.
 
73,
 
Dave, AA6YQ
 


OK, ask ALL software developers to bury that function in their 
program.so it can't be switched OFF and IDs at fixed agreed 
intervals. ID fixed at program reg time (cannot be edited) ALL 
programs registered, or they don't work. Developers to keep databases 
of registration.
Won't fix a thingpeople would simply keep using old versions of 
software.
No, it all comes with a mode awareness campaign and some dedicated 
software, to work as a decoder.

So...how MANY modes are there?

73s

Jack VK4JRC

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:33 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:



>Hi Dave CW id is not universally understood..i for one have 
>a hearing problem and CW is very difficult for me to hear let alone 
>decode...also what about those who are deaf...we do have a number of 
>them around the world... most are now using digital modesi have 
>worked a deaf op on PSK31 and i wouldnt have known he was deaf until 
>he told me...
>today there are also many new hams who havent had to learn CW as it 
>is no longer a requirement for a HF licence in most countries...
>
>73 David VK4BDJ

You are right David. Sorry, I forgot your aspect.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[David]

Dave AA6YQ wrote:


IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, requires 
no decoding software, and is trivial to implement.
 
73,
 
Dave, AA6YQ
 
-Original Message-
*From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Jack Chomley

*Sent:* Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:28 PM
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

At 04:57 AM 1/7/2008, Rick wrote:

>I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400
>around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
>frequency.
>
>It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just
>plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
>Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
>station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
>before that happened.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

I bet that guy did not have a clue, he has a hardware box that can
only use Amtor/Pactor. probably PSK31 and a couple of other
modes.most of which he can't, or has never used. He has probably
never been on any Internet forums or newsgroups, so he has not a clue
what is going on in the digital world of Ham Radio, nor does he 
probably care.

I would cite a lack of knowledge of modes and bandwidths etc on his
part, maybe he thinks the various digital modes all have retrys and
error correction..so it will just sort itself out and all modes
will simply "share" frequencies!
Yesterday, I was on 20m and I heard a stack of signals which were not
Pactor (I had a Pactor sked setup) I switched to PSK31 on my hardware
boxno go. I fired up HRD on my SLUSB, still no go :-( I was not
sure what signals they were, to be able to try and resolve them,
being just interested in what they were. Being a little tone deaf and
not having an intimate knowledge of all the modes and what they sound
like, did not help me.
Were they MT63? PSK250? I don't know If you run Digipan,
you have no hope!
With the increasing number of new modes being developed, the problem
will get worse :-( Add the coming of improved propagation and this
will become a spectrum quagmire in which no one will be able to
operate easily.
We have all helped create the mess we have. A gazillion software
programs, all doing their "own thing" some with many modes and
expanding more modes, nearly daily, others that don't have so many modes.
No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify
signal" menu. Unless the software guys can come up with something
like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle
will get worse.
IF people can identify a signal, with callsigns, they will be less
inclined to interfere with it, if a operator can't resolve a
signal.they probably care a lot less about any interference to it.
Sadly, only soundcard software solutions can be given this signal
decoder ability, hardware boxes are a different deal. You need
operator digital modes knowledge too, many people do not know what
all the modes sound like, I know I don't, even though I have a
recording of mode sounds that someone on the group was good enough to 
post!

Now, this is not bagging all the good people, who do software
development for the benefit of Hams, for little or no cost BUT..
Someone bright enough to do it...is going to have to write that
"signal decoder" program very soon.otherwise this whole
problem will get worse. Fixing the WinLink problem is another deal 
altogether.


73s

Jack VK4JRC

 
Hi Dave CW id is not universally understood..i for one have a 
hearing problem and CW is very difficult for me to hear let alone 
decode...also what about those who are deaf...we do have a number of 
them around the world... most are now using digital modesi have 
worked a deaf op on PSK31 and i wouldnt have known he was deaf until he 
told me...
today there are also many new hams who havent had to learn CW as it is 
no longer a requirement for a HF licence in most countries...


73 David VK4BDJ

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:18 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:

IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, 
requires no decoding software, and is trivial to implement.


73,

Dave, AA6YQ



OK, ask ALL software developers to bury that function in their 
program.so it can't be switched OFF and IDs at fixed agreed 
intervals. ID fixed at program reg time (cannot be edited) ALL 
programs registered, or they don't work. Developers to keep databases 
of registration.

Won't fix a thingpeople would simply keep using old versions of software.
No, it all comes with a mode awareness campaign and some dedicated 
software, to work as a decoder.

So...how MANY modes are there?

73s

Jack VK4JRC

RE: [digitalradio] DXKeeper APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE field

[Dave AA6YQ]

There's no rule proposed, Patrick; I think of it as a mode-specific comment.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:54 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] DXKeeper APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE field



Hello Dave,

>Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field;
>it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone
>constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can
>convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.
Yes it would be nice to add some more information (speed and shift in RTTY,
for example, as you can do standard RTTY but also RTTY with 23 Hz of shift
(even if RTTY MSK is not very used...), or as you propose number of tones
and bandwidth in Olivia or Contestia, or type of SSTV standard...).

Is there some rule about this new field? I will see directly with you for
more details.

73
Patrick

- Original Message -
  From: Dave Bernstein
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:58 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests


  15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half with European
  stations, all on 20m. There was an MFSK-16 station QRV that
  threatened my sanity; it wasn't the QRM, it was listening to 2 hours
  of that moronic "music" that made me feel like Red Buttons in "the
  Longest Day". MFSK-16 definitely deserves its own band segment,
  preferably with padded soundproof walls. Too bad Pactor III doesn't
  sound like that; Winlink would have had their own private band
  segment years ago.

  Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field;
  it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone
  constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can
  convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >
  > Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be.
  >
  > The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions
  >
  > Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity
  was
  > , according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
  >
  > Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
  > are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
  > signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
  >
  > Some folks mistook their local time for UTC time.
  >
  > Several ZL's, VKs, and JA's on the JT65A contest
  >
  >
  >
  > As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
  > The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
  >
  > JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for
  conventional
  > contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
  > with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
  >
  > Olivia should have been easier, I did see 4 QSO's taking place in
  > Olivia 500/8 at the same time on 40M, some die-hards stuck with
  500/4
  > !
  >
  >
  > Andy K3UK
  >

[digitalradio] Re: Mode identification

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> One I had trouble with the other day, was
> Clover, but had not heard it in so long I had forgotten what it
> sounded like.
> 
You heard a Clover signal?!  What kind of time machine do you
have there?  Heard any spark lately?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Dave AA6YQ]

IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, requires no
decoding software, and is trivial to implement.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jack Chomley
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:28 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M


At 04:57 AM 1/7/2008, Rick wrote:

>I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400
>around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
>frequency.
>
>It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just
>plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
>Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
>station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
>before that happened.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

I bet that guy did not have a clue, he has a hardware box that can
only use Amtor/Pactor. probably PSK31 and a couple of other
modes.most of which he can't, or has never used. He has probably
never been on any Internet forums or newsgroups, so he has not a clue
what is going on in the digital world of Ham Radio, nor does he probably
care.
I would cite a lack of knowledge of modes and bandwidths etc on his
part, maybe he thinks the various digital modes all have retrys and
error correction..so it will just sort itself out and all modes
will simply "share" frequencies!
Yesterday, I was on 20m and I heard a stack of signals which were not
Pactor (I had a Pactor sked setup) I switched to PSK31 on my hardware
boxno go. I fired up HRD on my SLUSB, still no go :-( I was not
sure what signals they were, to be able to try and resolve them,
being just interested in what they were. Being a little tone deaf and
not having an intimate knowledge of all the modes and what they sound
like, did not help me.
Were they MT63? PSK250? I don't know If you run Digipan,
you have no hope!
With the increasing number of new modes being developed, the problem
will get worse :-( Add the coming of improved propagation and this
will become a spectrum quagmire in which no one will be able to
operate easily.
We have all helped create the mess we have. A gazillion software
programs, all doing their "own thing" some with many modes and
expanding more modes, nearly daily, others that don't have so many modes.
No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify
signal" menu. Unless the software guys can come up with something
like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle
will get worse.
IF people can identify a signal, with callsigns, they will be less
inclined to interfere with it, if a operator can't resolve a
signal.they probably care a lot less about any interference to it.
Sadly, only soundcard software solutions can be given this signal
decoder ability, hardware boxes are a different deal. You need
operator digital modes knowledge too, many people do not know what
all the modes sound like, I know I don't, even though I have a
recording of mode sounds that someone on the group was good enough to post!
Now, this is not bagging all the good people, who do software
development for the benefit of Hams, for little or no cost BUT..
Someone bright enough to do it...is going to have to write that
"signal decoder" program very soon.otherwise this whole
problem will get worse. Fixing the WinLink problem is another deal
altogether.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] DXKeeper APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE field

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Dave,

>Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field; 
>it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone 
>constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can 
>convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.
Yes it would be nice to add some more information (speed and shift in RTTY, for 
example, as you can do standard RTTY but also RTTY with 23 Hz of shift (even if 
RTTY MSK is not very used...), or as you propose number of tones and bandwidth 
in Olivia or Contestia, or type of SSTV standard...).

Is there some rule about this new field? I will see directly with you for more 
details.

73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
  From: Dave Bernstein 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:58 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests


  15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half with European 
  stations, all on 20m. There was an MFSK-16 station QRV that 
  threatened my sanity; it wasn't the QRM, it was listening to 2 hours 
  of that moronic "music" that made me feel like Red Buttons in "the 
  Longest Day". MFSK-16 definitely deserves its own band segment, 
  preferably with padded soundproof walls. Too bad Pactor III doesn't 
  sound like that; Winlink would have had their own private band 
  segment years ago. 

  Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field; 
  it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone 
  constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can 
  convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >
  > Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be.
  > 
  > The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions
  > 
  > Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity 
  was
  > , according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
  > 
  > Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
  > are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
  > signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
  > 
  > Some folks mistook their local time for UTC time.
  > 
  > Several ZL's, VKs, and JA's on the JT65A contest
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
  > The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
  > 
  > JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for 
  conventional
  > contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
  > with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
  > 
  > Olivia should have been easier, I did see 4 QSO's taking place in
  > Olivia 500/8 at the same time on 40M, some die-hards stuck with 
  500/4
  > !
  > 
  > 
  > Andy K3UK
  >



   

[digitalradio] Updated NBEMS files avialble

[Andrew O'Brien]

http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/

[digitalradio] Updated NBEMS files avialble

[Andrew O'Brien]

http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[David]

Jack Chomley wrote:


At 04:57 AM 1/7/2008, Rick wrote:

>I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400
>around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
>frequency.
>
>It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just
>plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
>Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
>station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
>before that happened.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

I bet that guy did not have a clue, he has a hardware box that can
only use Amtor/Pactor. probably PSK31 and a couple of other
modes.most of which he can't, or has never used. He has probably
never been on any Internet forums or newsgroups, so he has not a clue
what is going on in the digital world of Ham Radio, nor does he 
probably care.

I would cite a lack of knowledge of modes and bandwidths etc on his
part, maybe he thinks the various digital modes all have retrys and
error correction..so it will just sort itself out and all modes
will simply "share" frequencies!
Yesterday, I was on 20m and I heard a stack of signals which were not
Pactor (I had a Pactor sked setup) I switched to PSK31 on my hardware
boxno go. I fired up HRD on my SLUSB, still no go :-( I was not
sure what signals they were, to be able to try and resolve them,
being just interested in what they were. Being a little tone deaf and
not having an intimate knowledge of all the modes and what they sound
like, did not help me.
Were they MT63? PSK250? I don't know If you run Digipan,
you have no hope!
With the increasing number of new modes being developed, the problem
will get worse :-( Add the coming of improved propagation and this
will become a spectrum quagmire in which no one will be able to
operate easily.
We have all helped create the mess we have. A gazillion software
programs, all doing their "own thing" some with many modes and
expanding more modes, nearly daily, others that don't have so many modes.
No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify
signal" menu. Unless the software guys can come up with something
like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle
will get worse.
IF people can identify a signal, with callsigns, they will be less
inclined to interfere with it, if a operator can't resolve a
signal.they probably care a lot less about any interference to it.
Sadly, only soundcard software solutions can be given this signal
decoder ability, hardware boxes are a different deal. You need
operator digital modes knowledge too, many people do not know what
all the modes sound like, I know I don't, even though I have a
recording of mode sounds that someone on the group was good enough to 
post!

Now, this is not bagging all the good people, who do software
development for the benefit of Hams, for little or no cost BUT..
Someone bright enough to do it...is going to have to write that
"signal decoder" program very soon.otherwise this whole
problem will get worse. Fixing the WinLink problem is another deal 
altogether.


73s

Jack VK4JRC

 
Hi Jack.you didnt mention the 20m frequency that you were on and 
heard the digital signal that you could not recognise or decodei 
have been a digital op since 2000 and even i get problems with some 
digital modes..im usually on 14076 most evenings using 
JT65A..this looks like a carrier on the left side and tone dotes out 
to the right.it is part of the WSJT suite of modes.every night i 
get what are obviously "Winlink" PMBO's at around 14075.2 and 
14075.6they come on even when there are strong signals on the freq 
so they must be auto and unattended..i believe these PMBO's use 
Pactor 3 which is a commercial program of SCS in Germany.i also 
believe that Winlink is a commercial program by the same company.
there was a RTTY contest on this week end.14076 was unusable as many 
RTTY stations just used what freq they liked...some of us qsy'd to 
18102 to see if we could get any VK to EU propagation..i put out a 
JT65A CQ and was immediatly clobbered by a very strong RTTY 
station.deliberate interference...by the look of his signal he was 
not calling CQ and there is no contests allowed on WARC bands any 
way.i continued to call CQ and he went away after about 5 minutes..
i agree Jack it looks like a mess and we ops have made it sothere 
has been some attempt to get areas for each one but once again there are 
ops who who dont know or wont comply with gentlemens agreements..
for those ops using Windows the program Multipsk has the most digital 
modes in it  BUT not all of them as new ones are being made all the time


73 David VK4BDJ

[digitalradio] Re: Mode identification

[Bill McLaughlin]

Understood; RS ID "tells" the other station the mode and frequency. I
think you are correct in that analysis of a signal is difficult. Some
modes are very easy to recognize by ear (Throb, for example), others
are much more difficult. One I had trouble with the other day, was
Clover, but had not heard it in so long I had forgotten what it
sounded like.

73.

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> Yes, but the RS ID signal has to be transmitted.
> 
> I believe that Jack refers to some thing like a function PK-232's
had to 
> analyze and identify the mode.
> 
> Something could be done using MultiPSK Analysis function.
> 
> But for an example, today I attempted to decode a signal tha APPARENTLY
> was PSK250 on 10138, and could not reach a conclusive copy or ID.
> 
> It is not that simple, after all, at least, so far.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---
> 
> Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> > Hello Jack,
> > 
> > In MultiPSK, the "RS ID" provides this function...automatically
> > changes mode and frequency also, when implemented. Not sure of any
> > other software that uses this function but it works very well and can
> > decode mode and center frequency fairly deep into the noise.
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley 
wrote:
> > {snip}
> > 
> >> No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify 
> >> signal" menu.  Unless the software guys can come up with something 
> >> like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle 
> >> will get worse.
> > 
> > {end of snip}
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 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] Mode identification

[Jose A. Amador]

Yes, but the RS ID signal has to be transmitted.

I believe that Jack refers to some thing like a function PK-232's had to 
analyze and identify the mode.

Something could be done using MultiPSK Analysis function.

But for an example, today I attempted to decode a signal tha APPARENTLY
was PSK250 on 10138, and could not reach a conclusive copy or ID.

It is not that simple, after all, at least, so far.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Bill McLaughlin wrote:

> Hello Jack,
> 
> In MultiPSK, the "RS ID" provides this function...automatically
> changes mode and frequency also, when implemented. Not sure of any
> other software that uses this function but it works very well and can
> decode mode and center frequency fairly deep into the noise.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bill
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {snip}
> 
>> No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify 
>> signal" menu.  Unless the software guys can come up with something 
>> like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle 
>> will get worse.
> 
> {end of snip}


__

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] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hello Jack,

In MultiPSK, the "RS ID" provides this function...automatically
changes mode and frequency also, when implemented. Not sure of any
other software that uses this function but it works very well and can
decode mode and center frequency fairly deep into the noise.

73,

Bill

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
{snip}

> No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify 
> signal" menu.  Unless the software guys can come up with something 
> like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle 
> will get worse.

{end of snip}

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 04:57 AM 1/7/2008, Rick wrote:

>I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400
>around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
>frequency.
>
>It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just
>plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
>Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
>station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
>before that happened.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

I bet that guy did not have a clue, he has a hardware box that can 
only use Amtor/Pactor. probably PSK31 and a couple of other 
modes.most of which he can't, or has never used. He has probably 
never been on any Internet forums or newsgroups, so he has not a clue 
what is going on in the digital world of Ham Radio, nor does he probably care.
I would cite a lack of knowledge of modes and bandwidths etc on his 
part, maybe he thinks the various digital modes all have retrys and 
error correction..so it will just sort itself out and all modes 
will simply "share" frequencies!
Yesterday, I was on 20m and I heard a stack of signals which were not 
Pactor (I had a Pactor sked setup) I switched to PSK31 on my hardware 
boxno go. I fired up HRD on my SLUSB, still no go :-(  I was not 
sure what signals they were, to be able to try and resolve them, 
being just interested in what they were. Being a little tone deaf and 
not having an intimate knowledge of all the modes and what they sound 
like, did not help me.
Were they MT63? PSK250? I don't know If you run Digipan, 
you have no hope!
With the increasing number of new modes being developed, the problem 
will get worse :-( Add the coming of improved propagation and this 
will become a spectrum quagmire in which no one will be able to 
operate easily.
We have all helped create the mess we have. A gazillion software 
programs, all doing their "own thing" some with many modes and 
expanding more modes, nearly daily, others that don't have so many modes.
No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify 
signal" menu.  Unless the software guys can come up with something 
like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle 
will get worse.
IF people can identify a signal, with callsigns, they will be less 
inclined to interfere with it, if a operator can't resolve a 
signal.they probably care a lot less about any interference to it.
Sadly, only soundcard software solutions can be given this signal 
decoder ability, hardware boxes are a different deal. You need 
operator digital modes knowledge too, many people do not know what 
all the modes sound like, I know I don't, even though I have a 
recording of mode sounds that someone on the group was good enough to post!
Now, this is not bagging all the good people, who do software 
development for the benefit of Hams, for little or no cost BUT.. 
Someone bright enough to do it...is going to have to write that 
"signal decoder" program very soon.otherwise this whole 
problem will get worse.  Fixing the WinLink problem is another deal altogether.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Roger J. Buffington]

Rick wrote:
>
>  I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>  exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>  Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE
>  400 around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over
>  our frequency.
>
>  It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is
>  just plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call
>  it. The Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if
>  that station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some
>  time before that happened.

I was working an MFSK QSO Saturday, and a Pactor station fired up right 
on our frequency.  He obviously couldn't have cared less at the 
initiating end that we were there.  And of course at the other end there 
was no human being to curb this illegal activity.  The QRM was intense, 
but I QROed to 200 watts and eventually it went away.  Plain and simple 
illegal behavior by the Pactor station. 

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Sholto Fisher]

It is getting a bit crazy on 30m. I have been seeing a lot of Winlink
QRM lately.

If anyone doubts this, put your receiver on 10.140 USB and watch the
PSK31 QSOs for a while. You can guarantee you won't have to wait very
long before some Pactor station & Winlink server switch to Pactor-3 and
cover everyone up. I find it hard to believe that the initiating station
couldn't hear at least one of the PSK31 signals.

73 Sholto
KE7HPV.




- Original Message - 
From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M


> I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
> exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
> Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE
400
> around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
> frequency.
>
> It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is
just
> plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
> Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
> station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
> before that happened.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> kh6ty wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > It is an honest attempt to work together to resolve a continuing
problem.
> > WG3G has been off the air for months, I believe, so the question is
why is
> > his transmitter automatically trying to connect with WG3G. I'll bet
he
> > doesn't even know it. Wouldn't you like to know? WG3G is in Trinidad
> > according to ZS5S.
> >
> > No thanks for the sarcasm.
> >
> > Maybe you can help if you are so inclined...Would you like to?
> >
> > Skip
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Rick]

I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than 
exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.

Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400 
around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our 
frequency.

It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just 
plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The 
Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that 
station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time 
before that happened.

73,

Rick, KV9U


kh6ty wrote:
> Andy,
>
> It is an honest attempt to work together to resolve a continuing problem. 
> WG3G has been off the air for months, I believe, so the question is why is 
> his transmitter automatically trying to connect with WG3G. I'll bet he 
> doesn't even know it. Wouldn't you like to know? WG3G is in Trinidad 
> according to ZS5S.
>
> No thanks for the sarcasm.
>
> Maybe you can help if you are so inclined...Would you like to?
>
> Skip
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[kh6ty]

Andy,

It is an honest attempt to work together to resolve a continuing problem. 
WG3G has been off the air for months, I believe, so the question is why is 
his transmitter automatically trying to connect with WG3G. I'll bet he 
doesn't even know it. Wouldn't you like to know? WG3G is in Trinidad 
according to ZS5S.

No thanks for the sarcasm.

Maybe you can help if you are so inclined...Would you like to?

Skip


- Original Message - 
From: "Andreas Rehberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M


> Skip,
>
> you don't really mean that!
>
> Any witches to burn.. thieves to cut the hands off..
>
> I'll go now and monitor the bands.. woe betide I find
> a NBEMS signal that interferes another signal..
>
> Andy, DF4WC
>
>  Original-Nachricht 
>> Datum: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:50:52 -0500
>> Von: "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> An: "Jim Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Miller" 
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> CC: "Greg Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Albert Schramm" 
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
>
>> Sent this email this morning:
>>
>> Good morning Charles,
>>
>> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to
>> connect
>> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the
>> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an
>> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday,
>> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you
>> may
>> not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G.
>> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know
>> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. 
>> One
>> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY.
>>
>> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the
>> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them,
>> especially since I copied you perfectly.
>>
>> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on
>> the
>> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up.
>>
>> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this
>> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied.
>>
>> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you
>> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of
>> the
>> NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to
>> download the software.
>>
>> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision
>> happened.
>>
>> 73, Skip KH6TY
>
> -- 
> Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
> Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10
>





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 
11:57 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Andreas Rehberg]

Skip,

you don't really mean that!

Any witches to burn.. thieves to cut the hands off..

I'll go now and monitor the bands.. woe betide I find
a NBEMS signal that interferes another signal..

Andy, DF4WC

 Original-Nachricht 
> Datum: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:50:52 -0500
> Von: "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: "Jim Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "Greg Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Albert Schramm" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

> Sent this email this morning:
> 
> Good morning Charles,
> 
> It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to
> connect
> with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the
> NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an
> hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday,
> January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you
> may
> not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G.
> Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know
> where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One
> of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY.
> 
> We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the
> frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them,
> especially since I copied you perfectly.
> 
> Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on
> the
> diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up.
> 
> We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this
> frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied.
> 
> You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you
> already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of
> the
> NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to
> download the software.
> 
> We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision
> happened.
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY

-- 
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10

Moderator : Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?

[Andrew O'Brien]

Please refrain from generalized statements about professions that one
does not like.  They can be construed as personal attacks.


Andy K3UK


On Jan 6, 2008 1:57 AM, Demetre SV1UY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
>
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > Hey, Demetre, you got something against lawyers?
>  >
>  > We lawyers LOVE digital radio. Down with anti-lawyer bigotry.
>
>  He he Roger,
>
>  Some people don't like pactor and some don't like lawyers!!
>
>  >
>  > de Roger W6VZV
>  >
>
>  73 de Demetre SV1UY
>
>  



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