[digitalradio] Re: JNOS can now interface with MultiPSK ...
Hi Andy, > Very interesting. Full JNOS applications , nodes, BBS ?? Yes. The new 'psk' port is just another AX25 interface as far as JNOS is concerned. From a user point of view, the port looks no different than a kiss attached TNC (attach asy) or an AXUDP/AXIP interface. Maiko
[digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: Again, this would substantiate Dave AA6YQ's statement a year or so ago, that almost all digital mode users on HF are PSK and RTTY active, and that other digital are so under utilized that their presence illustrates a insignificant sub-group of hams (my words not Dave's). >>>If I recall correctly, the context for that still-true assertion was a >>>discussion of what it would take to create new digital modes as effective as >>>PSK31 with panoramic reception in gaining traction with the amateur >>>community. Clearly lots of experimentation is required; PSK31 didn't spring >>>up out of nowhere. While many modes being developed will clearly never gain >>>broad adoption, the effort may still be worthwhile for the experience, or to >>>satisfy a niche requirement. >>>Awhile back, the ARRL announced an effort led by then CTO Paul W4RI to >>>develope a "new protocol". W4RI has subsequently retired. Does anyone know >>>whether this "new protocol" effort remains alive, and if so what progress it >>>is making? 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: JNOS can now interface with MultiPSK ...
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "maiko4" wrote: > > Greetings, > > JNOS 2.0 is now able to use MultiPSK (by F6CTE) as a digital modem. > > * It does this by connecting to it over tcp/ip. > > For complete details and instructions, visit the link below : > >http://www.langelaar.net/projects/jnos2/multipsk > Very interesting. Full JNOS applications , nodes, BBS ?? Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] ALE digital activity
The link at http://hflink.net/ can give you an idea. It is fair to say that activity has improved a lot , mostly due to hard work by Bonnie who has made the documentation for getting ALE active MUCH better, and some seriously good innovations including Winlink connections and SMS message capability. I made a bold , unsubstantiated , claim a year or so that expressed an opinion that there was probably NOT more than 25 regularly active ALE ham stations. My same wild guess ,based on monitoring and occasional use of ALE myself, is that there are now probably 100 regularly active ALE hams , world wide. A even further wild guess is that 100 is more than regularly active Hell users, DominoEx users, Olivia users, and possibly even HF NBEMS users. Again, this would substantiate Dave AA6YQ's statement a year or so ago, that almost all digital mode users on HF are PSK and RTTY active, and that other digital are so under utilized that their presence illustrates a insignificant sub-group of hams (my words not Dave's). Of course, ALE users would then point out to me that ALE is NOT a mode, it is a system that uses some digital modes. Andy K3UK > I wonder what fraction of amateur radio QSOs are initiated and sustained > with ALE. Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each > month? Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typicaly initiated with ALE > each month? > > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: ALE musings
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" wrote: > > > Perhaps the best answer to your question may > > be in the form of questions for you: > > Why is "CQ Contest" needed? > > Why is "You are 5-9" needed? > > Why is a repeater needed? > > Why is a weekly net needed? > > > > The purpose is similar. > > > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > A good reply Bonnie, fair comment. Perhaps I should have questioned the role in Emcomms for hams, but it certainly has as much right to exists and has as much a valid "need" as the items you list. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] JNOS can now interface with MultiPSK ...
Greetings, JNOS 2.0 is now able to use MultiPSK (by F6CTE) as a digital modem. * It does this by connecting to it over tcp/ip. For complete details and instructions, visit the link below : http://www.langelaar.net/projects/jnos2/multipsk This is a prototype - expect bugs. Feedback is more than welcome. Looking for people to test it. Please let me know how it goes. Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM * http://www.langelaar.net
[digitalradio] Re: ALE musings
Rats! I just hit the wrong key and sent an unintended message. Wish I could delete it. And before that I had written a lengthy comment which Yahoo seems to have lost. So I'll try again. Seems like there are several aspects to ALE One is the notion of going through a list of frequencies in hopes of finding one that works for the station(s) you are trying to contact. Another is the set of MIL STD modems, codecs, and protocols that implement the system as we know it. Now the frequency jumping part is something we could call "HF Radio for Dummies" and I don't mean Dummies as a pejorative but rather in the sense that has sold all those yellow books. It means you can get right to the point of communicating without first having to learn a lot of arcane stuff about propagation modes and times and seasons. And even the experts are sometimes fooled by propagation, so ALE may succeed at times when the experts tell you it could not. As for the MIL STD part, it's good that these things are being standardized, and we know the military spares no expense in search of the best communication technology. Still, I wonder if these modems and codecs and protocols are necessarily the best for the amateur service, considering the legal restrictions we operate under, the kinds of equipment we have to use, and the operating conditions we encounter. (Rhetorical question: Separate the frequency scanning from the modem/codec. What if we had a system that could scan through a list of frequencies but used PSK instead of the MIL STD modem/codec?) Another aspect is the use of ALE as a communication medium in its own right versus the use of ALE to find a usable channel for further communication in some other mode. Speaking only for myself, I'm a keyboard mode operator so I don't get excited about using ALE to initiate a contact that will be continued in SSB voice. And I can't see myself using ALE to establish a contact and then saying, "let's QSY to such-and-such a frequency and continue in PSK63." Finally, it seems ALE is best suited to establishing communication with a particular station, or with a group of stations having a common interest. This probably affects the number of hams who are interested in trying it. I used to keep a weekly sked with a friend; ALE might have been helpful to us in finding the best frequency to use on any given evening. Back in the late 1950s I was in a RTTY roundtable of friends practically every night. ALE would probably not have been helpful then. Some hams chase DX, some contest, some are interested in emergency services, some do it all. ALE serves some of these operating styles and not others.
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor scanning ?
Posted on the pactor_packet list as well as direct to you. John
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor scanning ?
Hey, John... I think it was you that sent me a list of frequencies. I lost them. I've been working to make Windows Live Mail dedicated for Winlink/PacklinkW and had a little operator error in keeping it off the internet. So, it picked up your messages and when I removed the account for incom...@verizon.net, I killed a string of messages in the IN BOX. Yours was one of them I believe. Howard W6IDS
[digitalradio] Re: ALE musings
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" wrote: > > > Andy K3UK wrote: > > Bonnie, I have no doubts about automatic > > link establishment. It seems like a most > > logical method of establishing communications. > > I added the rather provocative end to my > > earlier post because I am not sure WHY ALE, > > in its present amateur radio configuration, > > is needed . > > Perhaps the best answer to your question may > be in the form of questions for you: > Why is "CQ Contest" needed? > Why is "You are 5-9" needed? > Why is a repeater needed? > Why is a weekly net needed? > > The purpose is similar. > > Bonnie KQ6XA >
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
None of those 1500 QSOs were made with ALE, Skip. Most of them were made within a 2-week interval. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > > I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > > "expeditionradio" wrote: > > 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? > > Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about? > > Wow! That is just unbelievable! > > At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous > operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in > a week, or WAS in just a couple of days. > > How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at... > > 73, Skip KH6TY >
[digitalradio] Re: ALE musings
> Andy K3UK wrote: > Bonnie, I have no doubts about automatic > link establishment. It seems like a most > logical method of establishing communications. > I added the rather provocative end to my > earlier post because I am not sure WHY ALE, > in its present amateur radio configuration, > is needed . Perhaps the best answer to your question may be in the form of questions for you: Why is "CQ Contest" needed? Why is "You are 5-9" needed? Why is a repeater needed? Why is a weekly net needed? The purpose is similar. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
I concur with Graham on this. As a long time digital operator since I got back into ham radio in 1980 (first licensed in 1963), I quickly gravitated to HF and VHF RTTY (before VHF packet). I was one of the earliest adopters of Amtor and later Clover II for a short time. Because of my disastrous experience with the inferior HAL P-38 not possible to use in a practical manner with their P-mode (what they preferred to call Pactor), I was forced to abandon HF digital for a number of years until sound card modes ... changed everything. But I do miss the connected modes. Even though Amtor was pretty good, it was not very fast for messaging, and if the mode got close to failure due to low SNR, it would begin to pass false characters. Pactor and Clover II did not do this. Piccolo and other similar systems used by government/commercial users is effectively what we now have with some of our current IFK sound card modes and they greatly outperform Amtor and probably Pactor in terms of weak signal capabilities. This may be especially true with higher levels of ISI and Doppler that may make Pactor inoperative, maybe even true for Pactor 2 and Pactor 3, but I have not seen any data on that. As I have said elsewhere, no current sound card connected mode can perform at the level of FAE400 from what I have found. Both messaging and keyboarding is all ARQ. It also includes memory ARQ which can get some frames through like is done in Pactor modes. But there just does not seem to be much interest in having this capability. The WINMOR protocol has the potential for messaging, keyboarding, and e-mail ... and has significant adaptive ability for varying conditions. No one has indicated that they would be willing to do this yet, but I am hopeful that there will be at least one ham who has the interest and ability to carry this out. In the meantime, I am hopeful that it will work quite well for the e-mail part. 73, Rick, KV9U Graham wrote: > ... the pk232 with amtor and pactor came as breath of fresh air, and hf > packet in the middle of the sun spots on 10 mtrs was something else , but > `we' seem to be loosing foreword momentum as that's was in the mid 1980's > ! > > Yes data rates have slowed , yes data is lost due to noise and qsb and yes > you can make a guess at the `missing bits ` but somehow it was nice to > know that spelling mistakes you made where reproduced at the other end and > the odd place names actually where printing correctly. But looking at the > advances in data processing and digital audio processing, it tantalising to > think that you could achieve error free live communications at or below the > noise level. It was established well back, that the picalo multi tone > diplomatic links out performed the sitor 2 tone arq system, but the arq > function was retained and resulted in longer traffic `windows' , The winmor > system looks like `missing link' multi tone and arq …. A quantum leap .. ? > > 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In > digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > wrote: I forgot to mention that once when I was young and single, I was a victim of an alien abduction... Fortunately, it was a female alien! That is something one never forgets! ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
In the grand scheme of things, the old MIL-STD-188-141A form that we can legally use is very rare other than one group that sends out HF beacons. I had hoped at one time that we could use this for public service/emergency use but being one of the very few hams worldwide who actually tried to use the system, was actually attacked because I had a lot of difficulty trying to get it to work. I was actually criticized for being stupid, not really wanting it to work, etc. I was appalled at this behavior as many others were and it has insured even less interest by many of us. One individual claimed huge numbers of hams using the system but it proved to be completely false. I pointed out that I monitored their web site that displays world wide connections and found that over several days, other than the beacon stations, I was actually one of the most active, if not the only other station using it for messaging! Their solution was to completely block me from even accessing the web site so that those of us who can answer your question, are kept from doing so. Needless to say, when you do this to your friends, you don't need enemies. The truth is that the older ALE technology from the 1970's is not going to be used by hams. I have since asked many hams about this and the response was extremely negative and parallels some of my experiences. Having said that, the more modern "ALE" modes, such as MIL-STD-188-110A are not legal for U.S. hams on HF so they are going nowheres. Even if they were legal, testing by hams in other countries indicate that signals have to be very good for this to work, especially with sound card techniques which currently do not have the robust signal capability at the slowest 75 bps speed. As you point out, if there really was an significant use, it would be very apparent to those of us who monitor the HF bands everyday. What is clear, is that most hams don't do digital, but for the few that do, it is mostly PSK31 and RTTY, with an occasional Olivia, MFSK16, or other mode that they might be testing. When a new mode is developed, there may be a flurry of activity for a few days or weeks, but unless it is superior to what we already have, and few have been, then you may not hear much about the mode after that. Right now the best chat and messaging mode that I have used is FAE400 which is a narrower and slower version of MIL-STD-188-141A. This is the only currently available sound card mode that works fairly well into the noise, can provide both chat and messaging ARQ error free connections. But there are few who use it. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > > I wonder what fraction of amateur radio QSOs are initiated and sustained with ALE. Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each month? Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typicaly initiated with ALE each month? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > "expeditionradio" wrote: 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about? Wow! That is just unbelievable! At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in a week, or WAS in just a couple of days. How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at... 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Please explain how "trying it" would reveal how many amateur QSOs are typically made each month. 73, Dave, AA6YQ I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" wrote: > > > Dave, AA6YQ wrote: > > Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically > > initiated each month? > > Why not try it and see? > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA >
