Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Hi Rick, Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise seem pretty good for weak signal. Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the direct signal, it cancels out the direct signal for a while and there is no mode that is going to print under that condition. The wider, multitone modes have less problem because the data is redundant and spread over the width of the signal, but even they are no completely immune. However, on our twice-weekly net, since we switched to DominoEx, the number of multipath problems is considerably down, even on SSB. Initial tests suggest that MFSK16 might even be better on FM, since it is the most sensitive mode we currently have with almost enough speed for messaging. It is completely unusable on VHF SSB, though, because many transceivers in the field are not frequency-stable enough to stay tuned. On FM, the carrier frequency sweeps over the entire passband, so only the audio frequency stability is important. DominoEx is especially valuable for drifting signals on SSB, because it can tolerate mistuning of 50% of the signal width. The IC-746Pro and the FT-857D, if without an optional TCXO, just drift too much to be usable on SSB, but are OK on FM, even though the S/N of FM is worse than on SSB. Note that any multipath cancellations simply cause repeated blocks when using ARQ, so they only slow down the transfer while the reflected signal is moving across the direct signal. Last night on our net, we had positive confirmation of the better performance of SSB over FM. The error rate between two stations was running at 6% on SSB, but when we all switched to FM, there was zero copy. The fact that there were any errors at all on SSB indicated that the stations were fringe area to each other, so it was a good demonstration of the advantage of SSB over FM. One station was beaming toward me and the other was 45 degrees away from the beampath of that station. It was the same as if a station with a high gain yagi were pointed away from me and even if I pointed directly at him, he was not radiating enough energy in my direction for me to copy him. We have to make more tests, but I think the secret of the OptimizedQuad is that the pattern is bulbous instead of being pencil-shaped - more like an omnidirectional pattern, but with gain over a wide beamwidth. Stacking OptimizedQuads vertically would increase the gain by 2.5 dB and still retain the wide beamwidth. It sure is interesting stuff! Your point is well taken that many of the hams who participate in public service activities, may tend to be the younger ones who are Technician class and can mostly operate on 6 meters and up with their vertical antennas and FM only rigs. The number of hams with the multimode/multiband rigs is increasing, at least in our area. It is not easy to get them to try SSB, much less SSB digital though. I have found that the main problem is lack of VOX with the FM transceivers, which cost under $200 for a single band one, so you need to spend another $100 for a SignaLinkUSB interface in order to use macros to do the PTT switching. The FM Transceiver Interface solves that problem for only $10. I have built 10 of them which I will be giving out to the first few people who want to join the net but have only FM transceivers, but they also need to have an OptimizedQuad, or small yagi, horizontally polarized. The claim about the ground gain for horizontal antennas may be true but I have not seen this definitely tested. Have you done some comparisons with low 2 meter antennas, such a mobile to low base antenna with V and H and found H consistently better? I don't hold too much stock in software modeling and only would go with empirical data for that kind of test. I have done only one test so far, as it is difficult to arrange, since both stations have to switch polarization, but that first test did show a huge advantage using horizontal polarization. Range on FM between a 5/8 wavelength whip mounted on a Prius and my quad turned for vertical polarization was only 25-30 miles, depending on whether or not the mobile was clear of trees, but 70 miles was a piece of cake between the OptimizedQuad and my own quad turned for horizontal polarization. We could have gone even farther if we had time. Next opportunity, we hope to be able to keep going. I am now more than convinced that the difference is real. There was once a reference, which I cannot find, that found that a quad near a ground surface retains a low takeoff angle, but the takeoff angle of a yagi of the same gain increases to as much at 40 degrees off
[digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Regarding horizontal antennas... they also have a big advantage in rejecting intermod due to being cross-polarized with most commercial services... --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip, Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise seem pretty good for weak signal. Your point is well taken that many of the hams who participate in public service activities, may tend to be the younger ones who are Technician class and can mostly operate on 6 meters and up with their vertical antennas and FM only rigs. The number of hams with the multimode/multiband rigs is increasing, at least in our area. It is not easy to get them to try SSB, much less SSB digital though. The claim about the ground gain for horizontal antennas may be true but I have not seen this definitely tested. Have you done some comparisons with low 2 meter antennas, such a mobile to low base antenna with V and H and found H consistently better? I don't hold too much stock in software modeling and only would go with empirical data for that kind of test. We will probably bite the bullet eventually and put a rotor back up on the low tower and maybe go with a Gulf Alpha 11 element V and H antenna for some reasonable gain. Then we could do the test. The ham that was going to help us lost his QTH and will not be able to relocate his VHF antenna farm. Of course they are quite high so maybe there would not have been as much difference in such a case. One of the best known VHF ops in my Section says that after running many tests he has never found either polarization is any different. But he has high antennas so maybe that accounts for it. We hope at least soon do some digital mode comparisons on 2 meters, whether SSB or FM. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Hi Rick, Thank you for your comments on Howard's and my posts. Of course, we prefer using SSB on VHF, because the range is longer. First tests indicate that DominoEX with SSB has at least a 3 dB advantage over using FM with DominoEx. We are arranging more tests to be sure. However, the fact that today, maybe half of the U.S. amateurs hold only a Technician license, and do not have access to full HF priviledges, together with the fact that many hams only have inexpensive FM-only transceivers (but only a relative few may have VHF or multimode 2m transceivers with SSB capability), we have decide to explore ways that more hams can participate in emcomm activities, which means finding out how to use FM-only transceivers without repeater assistance. Although you have previously pointed out that many hams already have vertical antennas, the fact remains that a vertical antenna close to the ground (2 wavelengths), has about 6 dB less gain than the same antenna horizontally polarized. At VHF, a 6 dB disadvantage is an enormous disadvantage, plus many of the directive antennas used for FM are fixed on a particular repeater, and cannot currently be rotated anyway. Just model a vertically-polarized antenna over real ground at 2 wavelengths and compare the gain to the same antenna rotated 90 degrees to horizontal polarization to see the difference. In order to confirm Cebik's assertion about the gain difference, I did the modeling myself and found that he is absolutely correct. No difference in free space, but a huge difference over real ground. So, putting it all together, we can get significantly more range by simply investing in a horizontally-polarized antenna, using the same FM transceiver that people already have, and, better yet, in an inexpensive TV antenna rotator so we can communicate in any direction. The optimized two- element quad that we used for the FM/DominoEx tests (7.5 dBi in free space) can be built for less than $15 in an hour with all parts from Lowes, plus a SO-239 connector, and turned with a $60 Philips TV antenna rotator from Walmart, because its wind loading and boom length (13) is so small. A picture of the little quad is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OptimizedQuad.jpg. It is only 20 x 20 x 13, so it will fit in the trunk of a car without having to be dismanteled. Construction uses schedule 40 PVC, fiberglass driveway markers for spreaders, and #14 insulated house wire, so it is very rugged. I wish that all existing equipment could be used intead, but without a gain antenna and horizontal polarization, range without repeater assistance appears to be just too limited. It would be useful to know how much range you can get in your hilly rural area by using FM, DominoEx, and horizontal antennas on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Very good information, Skip, If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating between the stations? How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a difference? 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Hi Rick, Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise seem pretty good for weak signal. Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the direct signal, it cancels out the direct signal for a while and there is no mode that is going to print under that condition. The wider, multitone modes have less problem because the data is redundant and spread over the width of the signal, but even they are no completely immune. However, on our twice-weekly net, since we switched to DominoEx, the number of multipath problems is considerably down, even on SSB. Initial tests suggest that MFSK16 might even be better on FM, since it is the most sensitive mode we currently have with almost enough speed for messaging. It is completely unusable on VHF SSB, though, because many transceivers in the field are not frequency-stable enough to stay tuned. On FM, the carrier frequency sweeps over the entire passband, so only the audio frequency stability is important. DominoEx is especially valuable for drifting signals on SSB, because it can tolerate mistuning of 50% of the signal width. The IC-746Pro and the FT-857D, if without an optional TCXO, just drift too much to be usable on SSB, but are OK on FM, even though the S/N of FM is worse than on SSB. Note that any multipath cancellations simply cause repeated blocks when using ARQ, so they only slow down the transfer while the reflected signal is moving across the direct signal. Last night on our net, we had positive confirmation of the better performance of SSB over FM. The error rate between two stations was running at 6% on SSB, but when we all switched to FM, there was zero copy. The fact that there were any errors at all on SSB indicated that the stations were fringe area to each other, so it was a good demonstration of the advantage of SSB over FM. One station was beaming toward me and the other was 45 degrees away from the beampath of that station. It was the same as if a station with a high gain yagi were pointed away from me and even if I pointed directly at him, he was not radiating enough energy in my direction for me to copy him. We have to make more tests, but I think the secret of the OptimizedQuad is that the pattern is bulbous instead of being pencil-shaped - more like an omnidirectional pattern, but with gain over a wide beamwidth. Stacking OptimizedQuads vertically would increase the gain by 2.5 dB and still retain the wide beamwidth. It sure is interesting stuff! Your point is well taken that many of the hams who participate in public service activities, may tend to be the younger ones who are Technician class and can mostly operate on 6 meters and up with their vertical antennas and FM only rigs. The number of hams with the multimode/multiband rigs is increasing, at least in our area. It is not easy to get them to try SSB, much less SSB digital though. I have found that the main problem is lack of VOX with the FM transceivers, which cost under $200 for a single band one, so you need to spend another $100 for a SignaLinkUSB interface in order to use macros to do the PTT switching. The FM Transceiver Interface solves that problem for only $10. I have built 10 of them which I will be giving out to the first few people who want to join the net but have only FM transceivers, but they also need to have an OptimizedQuad, or small yagi, horizontally polarized. The claim about the ground gain for horizontal antennas may be true but I have not seen this definitely tested. Have you done some comparisons with low 2 meter antennas, such a mobile to low base antenna with V and H and found H consistently better? I don't hold too much stock in software modeling and only would go with empirical data for that kind of test. I have done only one test so far, as it is difficult to arrange, since both
[digitalradio] signalink
Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information?
RE: [digitalradio] signalink
I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] signalink
Are you running it in digital mode or leaving the radio in USB mode. As well does it receive ok or is that all gibberish as well? Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
I'm using the same rig with the signalink and have never had any problem with MT63. John, W0JAB At 06:11 PM 11/27/2008, you wrote: Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating between the stations? To date, we have been able to use a cell phone. How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? We send 50eroids.(..). Anything that is not a period is easily recognized as an error. Three on-perionds equates to a 6% error rate. If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? The test was a vertically polarized quad to a 5/8 wavelength whip, and a horizontally polarized quad to a horizontally polarized quad. The quad had 7.5 dBi of gain versus perhaps 5 dBi of gain for the vertical whip. That makes up about 2.5 dBi of the 6 dBi, and the rest is an approximation of the S/N as measured by flidit in both cases. As you can imagine, it is extremely difficult to make exact quantitative measurements under such conditions, but even modeling shows the 6 dB that Cebik references. Our experience is that the 6 dB is about correct. Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a difference? Based on two different modeling programs, and our own simple tests, I think so. The most significant finding is that we lose communicaton over about 30 miles using vertical-to-vertical, but easily over 70 miles using horizontal-to-horizontal, even though the horizontal antenna on the mobile end is 5 feet higher than the whip is. In the end, anectodal evidence from others also suggests a 15 to 20 mile range with vertical whips, and we already know we can exceed 70 miles in flat country using a low, horizontally-polarized quad instead of a vertical, and that is all that is important to our purpose. It would be nice to have more and better controlled tests, but you can just imagine the difficulty in arranging for such tests without doing it on an antenna range. You have to switch polarization on both ends, and one existing antenna may be on a tower, 50 feet in the air. Of course, any such tests are possible, but the difficulty of finding people to participate is difficult, at best. As far as we are concerned, together with the common knowledge that all weak signal communications on 2m use horizontal polarization, TV stations use horizontal polarization because long ago it was found to be better for propagation, and the confirming results from modeling, are sufficient enough reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization for distances longer than a repeater can provide. Add to that the probability that many existing vertical beams are not mounted on rotators, and the change to horizontal polarization appears to be well worth the effort, based on available information. You can also include the possibility that using a horizontally polarized quad provides a lower takeoff angle close to ground that a yagi, and you can see why there are many reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization. Finally, in a serious emcomm situation, NBEMS only needs to reach connectivity with the Internet for email delivery or POTS for phone delivery, so any available forwarding station will suit the purpose, whether a part of an organized emcomm effort or not. The need is only to get the message to the EOC or other recipient, and all existing weak signal 2m stations are using horizontal polarization. Our main interest is emcom messaging, and even a single dB of advantage may mean getting the traffic through or not, so we have use the best methods at our disposal, and the preponderance of evidence says that horizontal polarization has an advantage over vertical polarization. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Hi Rick, Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise seem pretty good for weak signal. Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the direct signal, it cancels out the direct signal for a while and there is no mode that is going to print under that condition. The wider, multitone modes have less problem because the data is redundant and spread over the width of the signal, but even they are no completely immune. However, on our twice-weekly net, since we switched to DominoEx, the number of multipath problems is considerably down, even on SSB. Initial tests suggest
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
50eroids should read 50 periods, and on periods should read non periods, fldigit should read fldigi. Sorry - must be the wine - just got back from a family dinner! Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: kh6ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating between the stations? To date, we have been able to use a cell phone. How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? We send 50eroids.(..). Anything that is not a period is easily recognized as an error. Three on-perionds equates to a 6% error rate. If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? The test was a vertically polarized quad to a 5/8 wavelength whip, and a horizontally polarized quad to a horizontally polarized quad. The quad had 7.5 dBi of gain versus perhaps 5 dBi of gain for the vertical whip. That makes up about 2.5 dBi of the 6 dBi, and the rest is an approximation of the S/N as measured by flidit in both cases. As you can imagine, it is extremely difficult to make exact quantitative measurements under such conditions, but even modeling shows the 6 dB that Cebik references. Our experience is that the 6 dB is about correct. Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a difference? Based on two different modeling programs, and our own simple tests, I think so. The most significant finding is that we lose communicaton over about 30 miles using vertical-to-vertical, but easily over 70 miles using horizontal-to-horizontal, even though the horizontal antenna on the mobile end is 5 feet higher than the whip is. In the end, anectodal evidence from others also suggests a 15 to 20 mile range with vertical whips, and we already know we can exceed 70 miles in flat country using a low, horizontally-polarized quad instead of a vertical, and that is all that is important to our purpose. It would be nice to have more and better controlled tests, but you can just imagine the difficulty in arranging for such tests without doing it on an antenna range. You have to switch polarization on both ends, and one existing antenna may be on a tower, 50 feet in the air. Of course, any such tests are possible, but the difficulty of finding people to participate is difficult, at best. As far as we are concerned, together with the common knowledge that all weak signal communications on 2m use horizontal polarization, TV stations use horizontal polarization because long ago it was found to be better for propagation, and the confirming results from modeling, are sufficient enough reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization for distances longer than a repeater can provide. Add to that the probability that many existing vertical beams are not mounted on rotators, and the change to horizontal polarization appears to be well worth the effort, based on available information. You can also include the possibility that using a horizontally polarized quad provides a lower takeoff angle close to ground that a yagi, and you can see why there are many reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization. Finally, in a serious emcomm situation, NBEMS only needs to reach connectivity with the Internet for email delivery or POTS for phone delivery, so any available forwarding station will suit the purpose, whether a part of an organized emcomm effort or not. The need is only to get the message to the EOC or other recipient, and all existing weak signal 2m stations are using horizontal polarization. Our main interest is emcom messaging, and even a single dB of advantage may mean getting the traffic through or not, so we have use the best methods at our disposal, and the preponderance of evidence says that horizontal polarization has an advantage over vertical polarization. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Hi Rick, Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise seem pretty good for weak signal. Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
Just to be sure...you are aware that there are different mode settings for MT 63, and that not all MT 63s are alike? 73 Mark KQ0I --- Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
Hi Raymond, You may know this but you did not mention it: For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all programs must have these settings somewhere. BTW, the best MT63 program I have found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS ... 73, Howard K5HB From: Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] net wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
Running in digital,seems to recieve with no problems.Only with transmit.USB On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Raymond, You may know this but you did not mention it: For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all programs must have these settings somewhere. BTW, the best MT63 program I have found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS ... 73, Howard K5HB From: Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] net wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
The core question still remains: How can we initiate (push) a message to the mobile or portable operator in the field, when the field operator has no expectation that a message will be sent? Or, even more simply, how can we timely notify the field operator You Have Mail via HF? During the Katrina disaster the traditional HF voice nets failed to adequately provide this type of notification service. It's been 3 years since Katrina. What has we done to improve our ability to notify field ops via HF? How can we work together to forge unified or standard methods to make this happen... in a way that will function across the various ham Emcomm platforms and nets? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
Yes,we have been running MT-63 on Navy Mars for 3 or 4 years now very successfully. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Running in digital,seems to recieve with no problems.Only with transmit.USB On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Raymond, You may know this but you did not mention it: For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all programs must have these settings somewhere. BTW, the best MT63 program I have found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS ... 73, Howard K5HB From: Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] net wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] signalink
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Running in digital,seems to recieve with no problems.Only with transmit.USB On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Raymond, You may know this but you did not mention it: For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all programs must have these settings somewhere. BTW, the best MT63 program I have found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS ... 73, Howard K5HB From: Raymond Lunsford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63. The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non- legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc. Running about 100 watts. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL [EMAIL PROTECTED] net wrote: I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all. Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc Fred VE3FAL -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [digitalradio] signalink Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to transmit clear legible information? - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links - - -- Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
