Re: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
Rick I'm a bit confused over your long post. But I can say that he has said that it's not a replacement for P2 or P3 or ever will be. John
Re: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
The beta and software being developed in the foreseeable future will be focused on Winlink 2000. It won't have a peer to peer function, unless it is temporarily put there as we had with the SCAMP protocol some years ago. Even then, they planned to remove PtoP once the software was made available for general use. Eventually the protocol will be tested and deployed and as Rick has pointed out: "Remember that WINMOR was not designed to be just another sound card mode like PSK31 or Domino. It is designed for binary message forwarding and is part of an entire email system (WL2K) and for it to work and be properly evaluated all the parts that integrate the new mode must also be built and tested." Also, he says he will "probably make a DLL of WINMOR available for others to use." Of course all software developed by the Winlink team has been Windows centric and will continue to be. There has been work done by a Linux developer who has been able to provide Telpac and now RMSpacket clients for Winlink 2000 and perhaps he will be able to make an open source Linux version of WINMOR. The final design won't be ready until real world beta testing is done. The thing that struck me the most is that he sees Pactor becoming obsolete since it is not that good of a mode compared with WINMOR. Of course Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 are much more competitive with any sound card mode for the forseeable future. So the beta testing will be operating the Winlink 2000 system as you normally would, but using a sound card mode in place of P2 or P3. Ideally, everything else will be about the same. It should be similar to how SCAMP was beta tested, except when conditions go near to zero dB and maybe even a bit below zero dB SNR, the mode will continue working. SCAMP failed much below +8 or +10 dB SNR. The 4 FSK mode intrigues me the most as having a robust mode that can handle at least moderate ISI and Doppler along with the 15 or so dB capabilities for weaker signals. As a comparison, the RFSM sound card modems, although they are based on MIL-STD-188-110A, did not implement the more robust modes, particularly the 75 bps mode designed for the worst conditions. It would have been fascinating to see how well (or not) that mode works. A friend of mine who uses this stuff regularly for military applications says that these "ALE" type systems are not that great. But he also does not have any experience with ham HF modes. If anyone else does have the experience with both it would be appreciated if they would share what they have found, especially in terms of robustness and throughput. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the > author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used > thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of > years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will > be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the > current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are > expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 02/24/09 > 06:43:00 > >
RE: [digitalradio] Using CTSS on a digipeater?
I'm with Vince on a number of points. If there's really a serious emergency, that will benefit from packet radio, chances are that the hobbiest hams are not going to be on the air, unless it's in support of your goals. I think it's far better to have the local community exercising your digipeater for you, so you know if it fails. If you're truly insistent on having the ability to lock out stations, it'd be better to do a couple of things to achieve that: 1) Use a TNC that allows performing over-the-air settings modifications 2) When an event happens, and you determine that the level of emcomm traffic vs. regular user traffic requires it, set up a beacon that frequently (every minute or two) informs all users that the digipeater has been configured for emcomm operations, and create a buddy list of stations that are allowed to connect and digipeat via the digipeater, and implement it. Another alternative that can be done remotely is to change the "MYDIGI" setting to respond to something else, but that's only a short-term fix, since anyone that's monitoring can see the digipeater callsign. Perhaps the most important thing, is if the operation is of a limited period, remember to set operations back to normal operations before shutting operations down, or when the emcomm traffic volume is reduced enough to support normal operations. >From a technical perspective, using CTCSS as an operational modifier is a poor solution, for the reason Vince mentioned, and additionally, depending on the TNC and radio combination, having the the CTCSS tone present at the input to the TNC may cause it to make more reception errors than if it's not present. Also, anything that delays the digipeater (especially) from being able to tell that the channel is busy, and that to wait for the channel to clear before transmitting, is going to kill performance and require many more retries than leaving the digipeater open. Hope that helps! 73, Bob, KD7NM -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Breitenfeldt Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:37 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Using CTSS on a digipeater? If I wanted to setup a "closed" Digipreater on 145.09 Mhz on a high mountain peak, so that I could limit activity to only ECOM traffic, would the use of a CTSS tone decode be a viable option? Would a CTSS tone interfere with Packet operations? Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Newbie looking for a bbs packet radio
Hugo, Your English is good! Did you try PSKMAIL? That may help, or perhaps Multipsk's packet functions. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Correa Sena wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I´d like some help in a simple (not to me, HI) project. I´d like to try of > putting in the air a station BBS packet radio (I think that´s the name) just > to send/recieve personal messenger, little files and general messenger (like > QTC). Later I´ll connect in others net > > The big objective of this project is start interesting in Amateur radio of > digital modes in VHF. As not activitie, I´d like to start with programs to > emulate tnc and baycom modems (like as mixW does, I supose). > > Supose again that this project is divided in two poles: server and user. > > So my ask for you is some programs (I´ll appreciate graphics programs) to > use on this task. > > Thanks for help and sorry for bad english > > -- > Hugo Sena > > PP8HS > PX8C1546 > http://pp8hs.110mb.com >
[digitalradio] Newbie looking for a bbs packet radio
Dear friends, I´d like some help in a simple (not to me, HI) project. I´d like to try of putting in the air a station BBS packet radio (I think that´s the name) just to send/recieve personal messenger, little files and general messenger (like QTC). Later I´ll connect in others net The big objective of this project is start interesting in Amateur radio of digital modes in VHF. As not activitie, I´d like to start with programs to emulate tnc and baycom modems (like as mixW does, I supose). Supose again that this project is divided in two poles: server and user. So my ask for you is some programs (I´ll appreciate graphics programs) to use on this task. Thanks for help and sorry for bad english -- Hugo Sena PP8HS PX8C1546 http://pp8hs.110mb.com
Re: [digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ?
To quote from a response given by Rick Muething on a different group: "WINMOR sound card mode. Probably shareware model. Will require a decent sound card and isolated sound card interface ... WINMOR should give better performance than P1 but probably not as good as P2/P3. This is very complex software so I would not bet on it being stable for at least 6 months." Not sure how much to read into use of term 'shareware' versus freeware or open source. Also, considering developers are major forces in Winlink, I would not be surprised if WINMOR is rolled out initially as a Winlink HF comms package developed using Windows Net software. Ted WA7ZZB - Original Message - From: "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ? >>> Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb >> modem with >>> a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what >> this thing >>> can do. >> >> Thanks for sharing this John. Since I have only a passing interest in >> emcomms, how is a SCS PTC2 with P3 for just basic ham communications? > > > It'll be interesting to see what external hooks, if any, will be > present with Winmor. With the SCS TNC's we can do UUCP (basic Linux) > or even TCP communications on HF. > > I'm doing a bit of dreaming about the next significant radio toy. SCS > TNC or ID1?I think there's far more ham opportunities with a P3 > TNC -- specially now that JNOS supports the hardware. > > 73 > Bill - WA7NWP > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
RE: [digitalradio] on another note
"I don't think it would be technically very difficult to do something equivalent to P3 with sound cards. I think that it would even possible to do much better with, for example, multi-users protocol." RFSM8000 has come as close as anything so far, but it's weakness was operating well under poor conditions (read normally poor these days) "The problem is the time necessary to do this. An amateur can work (with pleasure and passion of course), let's say a day per week, when a company can make work a small team 5 days a week. Now an amateur project must be short in time (several months at a maximum) as it is done for fun. Working on the same project during years seems very difficult (and surely boring) for amateurs." No kidding.. it is amazing and very appreciated with what you and other software authors have done, and is especially important when it is done as a hobby. "Another point is that the number of Hams really interested in ARQ modes is very weak..." I can't answer that , outside of the fact there are a pile of winlink users. Think you might underestimate the number of folks interested in ARQ soundcard modes, and maybe this is an opportunity for Andy to do a survey on his website? "Note: have tests on the minimum S/N versus the data rate done, for pactot P2 and P3? (as it is difficult to trust commercial data) " don't know, but think so . but my ear tells me it works better than OLIVIA, which is about the top of the heap right now. I cannot hear the other station and yet the connect runs at fast speed. John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Where are we with Digital Voice ?
Me. Software free. I'm a hardware type guy. At 03:54 PM 2/24/2009, you wrote: >Since the Melp codec issues reared their ugly head, what is happening >with digital voice these days? Other than the weekend North American >20M net, who else is using it ? What is the latest software of choice ? > >Andy K3UK > > > > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > >Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
RE: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
Andy, It is a soundcard ARQ mode. It will allow a more economical way to access the Winlink 2000 system, and give a higher through-put than Pactor 1 There will probably be other uses, but I believe that to be the prime reason for it's development. I don't know the nuts and bolts of it, but it has a lot to do with taming the timing cycles needed for a soundcard to negotiate a ARQ connection and handle binary (compressed) data. In the past, there was too much overhead for this to be done with a sound card on a Windows machine; other than for SMS Text-Based messaging. The above is probably a poor explanation of what it is and what it does, but I think it captures the intent. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] on another note
Hello John, I don't think it would be technically very difficult to do something equivalent to P3 with sound cards. I think that it would even possible to do much better with, for example, multi-users protocol. The problem is the time necessary to do this. An amateur can work (with pleasure and passion of course), let's say a day per week, when a company can make work a small team 5 days a week. Now an amateur project must be short in time (several months at a maximum) as it is done for fun. Working on the same project during years seems very difficult (and surely boring) for amateurs. Another point is that the number of Hams really interested in ARQ modes is very weak... 73 Patrick Note: have tests on the minimum S/N versus the data rate done, for pactot P2 and P3? (as it is difficult to trust commercial data) - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ; hfl...@yahoogroups.com Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 9:47 PM Subject: [digitalradio] on another note As many of you know, I have been very active with digital communications over the past number of years, eagerly testing the latest and greatest, and was honored when Andy gave me recognition last year in with his digital awards. I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of digital communications within the emergency services field, have worked in emergency services as a planner, communicator, trainer and consultant. This, as well as a passion for Search and Rescue is a summary of most of my ham radio activities over the past 20 years. I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have locked horns with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post political commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time, been called anti American, anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and anti auntie, even. I have gleefully participated in some of the lively debates on these posts and have come awfully close to being punted by moderator Andy. So you are asking yourself by now, where is this crazy Cannuck going with all this?? Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light ( actually a whole mess of little ones but who is counting) Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried, including RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else I have tried. I have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000 miles away on what I would call a "dead" band. I have connected to RMS stations at least 500 miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and resumed these connections by about 3PM , still when nothing else could be heard on the band. I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would work 10db into the noise. At the time my reactions was "yah,right!!!" but it really does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes with internet access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the last mile or so.. and would like to hear other opinions. we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive, the operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc. but how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard software? John VE5MU
[digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Where are we with Digital Voice ?
Since the Melp codec issues reared their ugly head, what is happening with digital voice these days? Other than the weekend North American 20M net, who else is using it ? What is the latest software of choice ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue.
maybe a switched power device ... can be your powertransformer of your mobile phone or of your router your printer etc can also be the tv set of your neighbor hard to find dg9bfc - Original Message - From: Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ; kenwoodts-...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:38 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue. HI All, I am hoping someone has come across this problem I am having with my TS-480S/AT. It appears to be mainly on 20mtrs and has a frequency step of 61Khz. It appears on 14.094, 14.155, 14.216, 14.277, etc. I have checked it right up and down, and it does get quieter as it moves out of the 20mtr band or the antenna tune. It is around a signal strength of S7, so unless there is a strong station on these freqs I stay clear of them. I don't remember this issue when I had the radio in the car and operated mobile. It seems to disappear when I remove the antenna, so I am making the assumption that it is coming in thorugh the antenna. Things I have tried include putting the radio onto a 12 battery supply and switching off all power into the house. This inlcuded turning off the mains. The interference was still there. I am in the country, so there is not too much housing around, but I do have a neigbour about 25mtrs away. There will be no point going next door and seeing if this is where it's coming from (read into that as you can). I do have another noise which moves between 14.065 and 14.091, (on both radios) which I did find out ot be my computer in the radio room. Even with the computer off it appears the switch-mode is still alive because when I turned the power off at the wall, after about 10secs the noise is gone and the freq is now usable, it does not remove the problem I have above. As I mentioned I turned everything off at the mains, still there. I will post this on these two groups as it deals with both the radio and when using digital modes. Is there some way to quieten the power supply so I can use the computer when operating my radio/s? I have a TS-830 on the desk but I must confess I have not tried to see if it is on it (just thought about it). Might give that a go on my next rest days, actually I just went and checked it now (while I was thinking about it) and the 61Khz step noise is on the TS-830 too, so it is not the radio. So it is coming from some man-made device. If anyone ahs any ideas I'd be grateful, trying to get back onto the bands after about 3 years of inactivity. Must of lost my nerve to call CQ and reply to stations, soes not seem as easy now-adays, maybe getting a bit old in the tooth, Hi. Regards and Thanks Kevin, ZL1KFM. Get Skype and call me for free. sparc_nz Description: Binary data
RE: [digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ?
I have to agree with John. During the flooding along the Mississippi river last spring 2M was just about useless. Since I had a HF set up in my pickup with a VX1700 mounted all I had to do was set up the laptop and SCS modem. Most traffic was passed to either a VE3 station on 40M or 30M or to a station in Florida. Passing traffic to a cell device was very easy. Win2K to the rescue. As far as using P2 and P3 for QSO's. Do it a lot. Most of my QSO's are RTTY or Pactor. Find it very easy to snag a connect. If anyone is interested the best spotting site I have found for Pactor and Amtor had been - http://hamspots.net/spotit.php?g=p John At 09:58 AM 2/24/2009, you wrote: >I think that a 5000km pactor contact under poor band conditions would be >relatively easy to do. I have worked an east coast (VE1) RMS station on 20M >with me running about 25 watts. That station would be close to being 5000km or >3000 miles away from my QTH > >Do to this , a DX station would have to sit on an agreed frequency, since >pactor is barely audible , or not at all under poor band conditions and would >be tough to tune . Pactor really does work well into the noise but the secret >also is that the mailbox (RMS) stations are monitoring a known set of >frequencies, thus easy to find. > >Im always up for trying anything at least once, so that if there are others >out there that want to try a long keyboard to keyboard contact, let me know > >John > >VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ?
>> Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb > modem with >> a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what > this thing >> can do. > > Thanks for sharing this John. Since I have only a passing interest in > emcomms, how is a SCS PTC2 with P3 for just basic ham communications? It'll be interesting to see what external hooks, if any, will be present with Winmor. With the SCS TNC's we can do UUCP (basic Linux) or even TCP communications on HF. I'm doing a bit of dreaming about the next significant radio toy. SCS TNC or ID1?I think there's far more ham opportunities with a P3 TNC -- specially now that JNOS supports the hardware. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
[digitalradio] Re: Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue.
It can be awfully helpful at times to have a portable battery powered shortwave receiver so you can listen to the interference while you are walking around, and with all your AC power shut off.
RE: [digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ?
Andy wrote; ", how is a SCS PTC2 with P3 for just basic ham communications? Could it be used for weak signal DXing ? I realize that DXpeditions are never going to use it, but how about us average hams who might like to work keyboard QSOs at 5000+ KM on 20 metres with poor band conditions ?" I think that a 5000km pactor contact under poor band conditions would be relatively easy to do. I have worked an east coast (VE1) RMS station on 20M with me running about 25 watts. That station would be close to being 5000km or 3000 miles away from my QTH Do to this , a DX station would have to sit on an agreed frequency, since pactor is barely audible , or not at all under poor band conditions and would be tough to tune . Pactor really does work well into the noise but the secret also is that the mailbox (RMS) stations are monitoring a known set of frequencies, thus easy to find. I'm always up for trying anything at least once, so that if there are others out there that want to try a long keyboard to keyboard contact, let me know John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue.
Hi Ian, Not that I am aware of. It does not sound like the HV spark that I have heard from a electric fence unit. Regards Kevin Get Skype and call me for free. - Original Message - From: Ian Wade To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue. From: "Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 Time: 21:38:26 >HI All, > >I am hoping someone has come across this problem I am having with my >TS-480S/AT. [Snip] Does your neighbour have an electric fence? -- 73 Ian, G3NRW sparc_nz Description: Binary data
[digitalradio] SCS PTC with P3 Uses ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley wrote: > Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem with > a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what this thing > can do. Thanks for sharing this John. Since I have only a passing interest in emcomms, how is a SCS PTC2 with P3 for just basic ham communications? Could it be used for weak signal DXing ? I realize that DXpeditions are never going to use it, but how about us average hams who might like to work keyboard QSOs at 5000+ KM on 20 metres with poor band conditions ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue.
From: "Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 Time: 21:38:26 >HI All, > >I am hoping someone has come across this problem I am having with my >TS-480S/AT. [Snip] Does your neighbour have an electric fence? -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
[digitalradio] Harmonic of some Sort on 20mtrs, includes a Computer Power Supply Interference Issue.
HI All, I am hoping someone has come across this problem I am having with my TS-480S/AT. It appears to be mainly on 20mtrs and has a frequency step of 61Khz. It appears on 14.094, 14.155, 14.216, 14.277, etc. I have checked it right up and down, and it does get quieter as it moves out of the 20mtr band or the antenna tune. It is around a signal strength of S7, so unless there is a strong station on these freqs I stay clear of them. I don't remember this issue when I had the radio in the car and operated mobile. It seems to disappear when I remove the antenna, so I am making the assumption that it is coming in thorugh the antenna. Things I have tried include putting the radio onto a 12 battery supply and switching off all power into the house. This inlcuded turning off the mains. The interference was still there. I am in the country, so there is not too much housing around, but I do have a neigbour about 25mtrs away. There will be no point going next door and seeing if this is where it's coming from (read into that as you can). I do have another noise which moves between 14.065 and 14.091, (on both radios) which I did find out ot be my computer in the radio room. Even with the computer off it appears the switch-mode is still alive because when I turned the power off at the wall, after about 10secs the noise is gone and the freq is now usable, it does not remove the problem I have above. As I mentioned I turned everything off at the mains, still there. I will post this on these two groups as it deals with both the radio and when using digital modes. Is there some way to quieten the power supply so I can use the computer when operating my radio/s? I have a TS-830 on the desk but I must confess I have not tried to see if it is on it (just thought about it). Might give that a go on my next rest days, actually I just went and checked it now (while I was thinking about it) and the 61Khz step noise is on the TS-830 too, so it is not the radio. So it is coming from some man-made device. If anyone ahs any ideas I'd be grateful, trying to get back onto the bands after about 3 years of inactivity. Must of lost my nerve to call CQ and reply to stations, soes not seem as easy now-adays, maybe getting a bit old in the tooth, Hi. Regards and Thanks Kevin, ZL1KFM. Get Skype and call me for free. sparc_nz Description: Binary data
