Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Simon (HB9DRV)]

As has been mentioned before, the best way to get the various flavours of 
ALE400 added to the various digital programs we use is to make source code 
available, failing that a good spec.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Andy obrien" 


I'll agree with John,  while many here will find ALE400 easy to
tackle, many "average" hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar
process.





Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



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/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Andy obrien]

I find Multipsk easy to use , although ALE400 is more complicated than
other modes in Multipsk. However, many hams that I introduce to
digital modes , via demos,  are taken aback by Multipsk, they find it
too intimidating.  FL-digi seems to be gaining ground because it is
perceived as easier to operate with .

Andy K3UK

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:52 PM, John Bradley  wrote:
>
>
> I live at a higher latitude than many folks in the US and find that PSK is
> susceptible to aurora flutter/multipath more often than most modes.
>
>
>
> There are time up here that nothing will decode PSK despite the fact the
> band is open and active. I’m not technically competent enough to say
>
> why, but the fact of the matter is PSK at times will not work, when MFSK and
> ALE400 will. Go figure.
>
>
>
> BTW I’m at almost 51N latitude
>
>
>
> John
>
> VE5MU
>
>
>
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:40 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>>
>> I'll agree with John, while many here will find ALE400 easy to
>> tackle, many "average" hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar
>> process. That is why Skip Teller's concepts behind NBEMS are good,
>> using mode that many hams use everyday.
>>
>> Andy K3UK
>
> I think Skip's ideas are very good and sound.
> Multipsk is not that hard to use though...might be an initial fear factor
> involved.
> I know Joe, W6CQZ is trying to make JT65x modes more easy (with alot of
> work).
>
> Perhaps a stand alone and truncated ARQ FAE ALE400 application would
> showcase its usefulness?
>
> 73,
>
> Bill N9DSJ
>
> 




Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



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/

RE: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[John Bradley]

I live at a higher latitude than many folks in the US and find that PSK is
susceptible to aurora flutter/multipath more often than most modes.

 

There are time up here that nothing will decode PSK despite the fact the
band is open and active. I'm not technically competent enough to say

why, but the fact of the matter is PSK at times will not work, when MFSK and
ALE400 will. Go figure.

 

BTW I'm at almost 51N latitude

 

John

VE5MU

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

 






--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> I'll agree with John, while many here will find ALE400 easy to
> tackle, many "average" hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar
> process. That is why Skip Teller's concepts behind NBEMS are good,
> using mode that many hams use everyday.
> 
> Andy K3UK

I think Skip's ideas are very good and sound.
Multipsk is not that hard to use though...might be an initial fear factor
involved.
I know Joe, W6CQZ is trying to make JT65x modes more easy (with alot of
work).

Perhaps a stand alone and truncated ARQ FAE ALE400 application would
showcase its usefulness?

73,

Bill N9DSJ

[digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Bill McLaughlin]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> I'll agree with John,  while many here will find ALE400 easy to
> tackle, many "average" hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar
> process.  That is why Skip Teller's concepts behind NBEMS are good,
> using mode that many hams use everyday.
> 
> Andy K3UK


I think Skip's ideas are very good and sound.
Multipsk is not that hard to use though...might be an initial fear factor 
involved.
I know Joe, W6CQZ is trying to make JT65x modes more easy (with alot of work).

Perhaps a stand alone and truncated ARQ FAE ALE400 application would showcase 
its usefulness?

73,

Bill N9DSJ

Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Andy obrien]

I'll agree with John,  while many here will find ALE400 easy to
tackle, many "average" hams will be intimidated by an unfamiliar
process.  That is why Skip Teller's concepts behind NBEMS are good,
using mode that many hams use everyday.

Andy K3UK

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM, John Bradley  wrote:
>
>
> you are right I do like multipsk and particularly ALE400. Works well in to
> the noise .
>
>
>
> I don’t find it hard to use, but I have spent some time using the software
> and am not intimidated by the user interface. When I try to encourage others
>
> to try it out , their first reaction is that the software is too complex….
> and they are thrown off by the interface.
>




Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



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/

RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[John Bradley]

you are right I do like multipsk and particularly ALE400. Works well in to
the noise .

 

I don't find it hard to use, but I have spent some time using the software
and am not intimidated by the user interface. When I try to encourage others

to try it out , their first reaction is that the software is too complex..
and they are thrown off by the interface. 

 

I would be reluctant to suggest this mode for emcomm use since the same
operators would also be overcome by the interface, with the added stressors
of whatever the incident is. Probably be OK for the first couple of
operating  periods but beyond that less experienced operators would be
thrown into the mix.

 

I have suggested to Patrick in the past that he does an emcomm version of
multipsk.. PSK,MFSK, ALE 400 and 141, and maybe Olivia. Not to remove these
from the software but just take all the other options off the user
interface.. hide the buttons of you wish.  At the time, he was not
interested. 

 

John

VE5MU

 

Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Rick W]

With any new mode or system, I tend to factor it with a view toward 
public service. But that does not mean it should not be used for what 
the majority of hams use day to day. Anything you are familiar with and 
use regularly will have much more value than something that is only used 
infrequently.

Over the years, we went from mostly individual mode programs to 
multi-imode programs which kept adding new technology. At one time there 
was primarily one freeware program that did this the best and of course 
that was Multipsk. That is because Patrick developed a number of the 
modes himself and incorporated many modes under one "roof." But they are 
only available on his program. If you want rudimentary rig control 
beyond PTT, (frequency, mode) you must run a program such as DXLab 
Commander. If you want a high end logging program you may want to run 
DXLab DXKeeper. I admit that it makes Multipsk fairly complicated to set 
up for many users. And most hams consider the interface to be very 
overwhelming and look toward alternatives.

Currently, the most popular integrated multipurpose program is Ham Radio 
Deluxe/Digital Master 780. It is an incredibly sophisticated and has 
powerful integration with an imminently to be released improved logging 
system in addition to satellites and total rig control that no other 
freeware program can even slightly match. Needless to say, if a 
particular mode is not available in HRD/DM780, it will be difficult to 
compete with modes specific to one software. New modes have to have some 
exceptionally compelling new value or they may not succeed.

Fldigi is an alternative program that is very clean, organized, and I 
actually prefer the most in terms of the user interface. It has its own 
rig control, but nothing like HRD. It has the advantage that it is being 
used as a central program to support NBEMS with the flarq program, and 
also PSKmail with its program. At the same time, this also makes it more 
complicated too, but more flexible. Similar to Multipsk, there are 
bridge programs that allow you to use high end logging programs such as 
DXLab DXKeeper as your central database. This is mandatory if you wish 
to log non digital contacts (SSB). Otherwise, fldigi's built-in log 
would probably be good enough for many of us.

For general contacts you really want to choose one digital program if at 
all possible since switching between programs can be very difficult and 
inefficient due to various commands, icons, etc. being totally different 
in appearance and location. None are necessarily better than another, 
but you do need to get used to them. After a lot of comparisons, 
especially on faster machines (which you need particularly for 
HRD/DM780), I don't find much decoding difference as I once thought I 
did on a lesser computer.

Winlink 2000, even with a sound card design, only handles e-mail at this 
point. That is something that might be useful for public service, but on 
a very small scale compared to point to point communications that is 
typically used to route local and regional traffic.

73,

Rick, KV9U
Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup

Note: this group was formed to take discussion of public service off of 
the digitalradio group due to complaints of too much discussion of 
public service issues on digitalradio, HI.



John Bradley wrote:
>
> Andy wrote:
>
> “. I still think that a better option would
> > be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
> > implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
> > it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
> > about NBEMS.”
>
> I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm 
> traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by 
> inexperienced hams who
>
> might be on the second shift… operators only. The software has to be 
> “bomb proof” and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it.
>
> ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, 
> but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned 
> off many potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user 
> interface the way it is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result 
> , ALE400 and the other modes on multipsk will never be used by the 
> mainstream ham community and cannot in good conscience be recommended 
> for emcomm. Those modes are great too use if one has the patience to 
> overcome in user interface.
>
> MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm 
> will remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now
>
> John
>
> VE5MU
>
>
>
>
>
>





Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the w

[digitalradio] Re: ALE-400

[Bill McLaughlin]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley  wrote:
>
> Hey man you are preaching to the choir!!! ALE400 is a great mode, >even at 
> higher latitudes such as I am.
>  
> 
> Now if we can only convince people to give it a try. 
>  
> 
> John
> 
> VE5MU

Echo, preaching to the choir!

I find it a great mode, relatively narrow but robust...now to get more to 
use/try it.

73,

Bill N9DSJ

Re: [digitalradio] HF RTTY help

[Ralph Mowery]

--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Christopher K. Greenhalgh  wrote:

> From: Christopher K. Greenhalgh 
> Subject: [digitalradio] HF RTTY help
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 5:29 PM
> Hello all!
> 
> Newbie to the group, and to HF RTTY as well, and have a
> question...
> 
> My equipment is an Icom 746 Pro interfaced with a
> Kantronics KAM+. The
> terminal software is XPWare.
> 
> I'm an old school packeteer, so I know I have every thing
> installed
> correctly (it works fine on the VHF side) and I have all
> the correct
> parameters (45 baud, shift/mark/space tone freqs, ect)in
> place when I go
> over to do RTTY.
> 
> Okay, so I start tuning around 14.080 USB, and can clearly
> hear RTTY tones.
> I use the KAMs meter to home in on the signal, but when I
> get there, I just
> get gibberish to the screen. I know its trying to decode
> it, as the
> gibberish will go away if I tune off just a little bit.
> 
> I've been messing with this for a week...any ideas?
> 
> Thanks much!
> 
> 73.
> 
> -Chris
> 
>
First thing switch over to lsb or use the reverse switch (probably softwear 
function).  Normal ham rtty is transmitted (when using the audio tones) by 
sending in lsb and you should receive there also.  

I won't get into it here,but ham rtty is usually sent with the 'space' lower in 
frequency than the 'mark' frequency.  It was started before ssb transmitters 
were common.  In order to reverse the audio comming out of the receiver you 
must transmitt and receive in lsb if using the normal audio tones of 2125 and 
2295.
If you are using FM on vhf then you will normally set the audio tones so mark 
is 2125 and space is 2295.  


  

RE: [digitalradio] HF RTTY help

[W5XR]

Try reversing the polarity, or switch to LSB.

 

Bob, W5XR

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Christopher K. Greenhalgh
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] HF RTTY help

 






Hello all!

Newbie to the group, and to HF RTTY as well, and have a question...

My equipment is an Icom 746 Pro interfaced with a Kantronics KAM+. The
terminal software is XPWare.

I'm an old school packeteer, so I know I have every thing installed
correctly (it works fine on the VHF side) and I have all the correct
parameters (45 baud, shift/mark/space tone freqs, ect)in place when I go
over to do RTTY.

Okay, so I start tuning around 14.080 USB, and can clearly hear RTTY tones.
I use the KAMs meter to home in on the signal, but when I get there, I just
get gibberish to the screen. I know its trying to decode it, as the
gibberish will go away if I tune off just a little bit.

I've been messing with this for a week...any ideas?

Thanks much!

73.

-Chris

_
Chris Greenhalgh, N8WCT

www.n8wct.com

[digitalradio] Re: HF RTTY help

[Andrew O'Brien]

Almost certainly you are in the wrong setting and thus not decoding.  If your 
rig is in USB, try changing it to LSB.  Alternatively, if you software has a 
"normal" and "reverse" setting (or "inverse") toggle those settings and you 
should be all set

Andy K3UK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher K. Greenhalgh"  
wrote:
>
> Hello all!
> 
> Newbie to the group, and to HF RTTY as well, and have a question...
> 
> My equipment is an Icom 746 Pro interfaced with a Kantronics KAM+. The
> terminal software is XPWare.
> 
> I'm an old school packeteer, so I know I have every thing installed
> correctly (it works fine on the VHF side) and I have all the correct
> parameters (45 baud, shift/mark/space tone freqs, ect)in place when I go
> over to do RTTY.
> 
> Okay, so I start tuning around 14.080 USB, and can clearly hear RTTY tones.
> I use the KAMs meter to home in on the signal, but when I get there, I just
> get gibberish to the screen. I know its trying to decode it, as the
> gibberish will go away if I tune off just a little bit.
> 
> I've been messing with this for a week...any ideas?
> 
> Thanks much!
> 
> 73.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> _
> Chris Greenhalgh, N8WCT
>  
> www.n8wct.com
>

[digitalradio] HF RTTY help

[Christopher K. Greenhalgh]

Hello all!

Newbie to the group, and to HF RTTY as well, and have a question...

My equipment is an Icom 746 Pro interfaced with a Kantronics KAM+. The
terminal software is XPWare.

I'm an old school packeteer, so I know I have every thing installed
correctly (it works fine on the VHF side) and I have all the correct
parameters (45 baud, shift/mark/space tone freqs, ect)in place when I go
over to do RTTY.

Okay, so I start tuning around 14.080 USB, and can clearly hear RTTY tones.
I use the KAMs meter to home in on the signal, but when I get there, I just
get gibberish to the screen. I know its trying to decode it, as the
gibberish will go away if I tune off just a little bit.

I've been messing with this for a week...any ideas?

Thanks much!

73.

-Chris

_
Chris Greenhalgh, N8WCT
 
www.n8wct.com

[digitalradio] Re: One way propogation?

[Thomas F. Giella NZ4O]

The RF transmitted signal changes polarization repeatedly as it is refracted 
between the ionosphere and ground/ocean surface. A horizontally polarized 
signal radiated from a dipole can arrive at the receiver end with a 
polarization that is horizontal, vertical and even elliptical.

Therefore antenna polarization reciprocity is not necessary on MF and HF 
frequencies to make contacts.

73 & GUD DX,
Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Lakeland, FL, USA
n...@arrl.net

LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF Frequency Radiowave Propagation Email Reflector: 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/spaceweather
NZ4O Daily Solar Space Weather & Geomagnetic Data Archive: 
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm
NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast & Archive: 
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm
NZ4O 160 Meter Radio Propagation Theory Notes: 
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
NZ4O Solar Cycle 24 Forecast Discussion & Archive: 
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf72.htm








No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.39/2134 - Release Date: 05/25/09 
18:14:00

[digitalradio] ALE-400 / minimum S/N

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello to all,

About S/N here are my measures:

Lowest S/N (125 bauds ARQ FAE in ALE): - 6.5 dB(- 8.5 dB with many 
repetitions)
Lowest S/N (50 bauds  ARQ FAE in ALE400): - 11.5 dB(- 13.5 dB with many 
repetitions)

The tests have been done with 30 characters message. The Tony's tests, as 
far as I remember, were done with 63 characters message (which is more 
conservative, but the value must be about 3 dB pessimistic compared to 30 
characters message).

Here are two quick demonstration files, for the ones interested in this mode 
(with a previous RS ID it is easier to detect):

a.. "ALE and ALE400 easy with Multipsk"(MS Word Doc, 1.1 MB)
a.. "The ARQ FAE beacon easy with Multipsk" (MS Word Doc, 282 kB)
73

Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: "Jose A. Amador" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400


>I wonder what kind of "investment" is required.
>
> It has as many points as possible in common with sound card modes and
> only requires MultiPSK as terminal program.
>
> If I am not asking for a comparison between apples and oranges (I am not
> entirely convinced right now... 8-) ), maybe Tony could devise some
> measurements to compare them.
>
> 73,
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
> ---
>
> Andy obrien wrote:
>
>> While I have seen how well ALE 400 works, I am not convinced that it
>> is worth the effort to invest in activity due to the lack of other
>> hams using the mode.  While ALE400 make sense to me, I can't see hams,
>> en masse , switching to it.  I still think that a better option would
>> be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
>> implemented in FLDIGI.  While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
>> it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
>> about NBEMS.
>>
>> Andy K3UK
>
> VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y 
> Educación Energética
> 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones
> ...Por una cultura energética sustentable
> www.ciercuba.com
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
> Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Sholto Fisher]

John,

 > ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but
 > because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned 
off many
 > potential operators.

Is it difficult to use? I have honestly not found this to be true. I 
agree it is very different than what someone who is used to classical 
Windows apps might expect but it is not difficult.

In many ways it is easier and faster to switch modes & options than 
DM780. And performance wise there is little that can hold a candle to it.

I am sure the real reason people don't learn this fine program is that 
many of us these days have a "market-driven" preconception regarding 
aesthetics and anything not fitting in with that viewpoint is passed 
over quickly, especially if actual use of one's brain is required too.

The same applies to the homebrew vs. appliance debate.

I know you use MultiPSK John so the comments above are not directed at 
you (or anyone personally) but are just a general observation.


 > I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm 
traffic,
 > and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who
 >
 > might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be 
"bomb
 > proof" and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it.


Isn't the real problem here the "inexperienced hams"?

I understand that this is probably the reality you have to deal with 
these days but couldn't a greater focus on efficient digimode training 
in emcomm groups mitigate this problem?

Sholto
K7TMG



John Bradley wrote:
>  
> 
> Andy wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> ". I still think that a better option would
>> be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
>> implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
>> it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
>> about NBEMS."
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic,
> and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who
> 
> might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be "bomb
> proof" and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it.
> 
>  
> 
> ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but
> because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many
> potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user interface the way it
> is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result , ALE400 and the other
> modes on multipsk will never be used by the mainstream ham community and
> cannot in good conscience be recommended for emcomm. Those modes are great
> too use if one has the patience to overcome in user interface.
> 
>  
> 
> MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm will
> remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now
> 
>  
> 
> John
> 
> VE5MU
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[John Bradley]

 

Andy wrote:

 

". I still think that a better option would
> be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
> implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
> it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
> about NBEMS."



 

I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm traffic,
and in doing so they have to be able to be used by inexperienced hams who

might be on the second shift. operators only. The software has to be "bomb
proof" and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it.

 

ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, but
because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned off many
potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user interface the way it
is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result , ALE400 and the other
modes on multipsk will never be used by the mainstream ham community and
cannot in good conscience be recommended for emcomm. Those modes are great
too use if one has the patience to overcome in user interface.

 

MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm will
remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now

 

John

VE5MU

 

Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Jose A. Amador]

I wonder what kind of "investment" is required.

It has as many points as possible in common with sound card modes and 
only requires MultiPSK as terminal program.

If I am not asking for a comparison between apples and oranges (I am not 
entirely convinced right now... 8-) ), maybe Tony could devise some 
measurements to compare them.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Andy obrien wrote:

> While I have seen how well ALE 400 works, I am not convinced that it
> is worth the effort to invest in activity due to the lack of other
> hams using the mode.  While ALE400 make sense to me, I can't see hams,
> en masse , switching to it.  I still think that a better option would
> be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
> implemented in FLDIGI.  While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
> it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
> about NBEMS.
> 
> Andy K3UK

VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y 
Educación Energética
9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones
...Por una cultura energética sustentable
www.ciercuba.com 

[digitalradio] DX presence on sked page increasing

[Andy obrien]

Users on now:
DK1BX - K0ABC - K3UK - KB3CS - N7RP - SM3CCM - UA0BA - UA4HBW - W0FVR
- W2FCP - W4DKS - W9FF - YB4IR

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400

[Andy obrien]

While I have seen how well ALE 400 works, I am not convinced that it
is worth the effort to invest in activity due to the lack of other
hams using the mode.  While ALE400 make sense to me, I can't see hams,
en masse , switching to it.  I still think that a better option would
be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as
implemented in FLDIGI.  While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE ,
it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity
about NBEMS.

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] ALE-400

[Rick W]

Hi Tony and group members,

Based on the use (or non use) of ARQ modes for general ham use, suggests 
to me that they are going to be primarily used for messaging. This is 
something that we must have for public service/emergency communications, 
but there are relatively few who are oriented toward digital modes 
(speaking from considerable experience). This is likely due in part to 
the use of VHF as the main part of the spectrum used for such 
activities. It is actually a very new concept in terms of these newer 
technologies (developed in past year or so) that work with weak signals 
rather than the older packet systems that required fairly good signals 
to work over modest distances. Even so, it is very difficult to get 
operators to even try the new technologies because the great majority 
are satisfied with only using VHF/UHF phone. Even the zero interface 
approach is a hard sell.

Some of us on this group have used FAE400 on HF with success but three 
or four users is not enough, HI. Also, in order for new modes to become 
practical to use, they must be available on the programs that are being 
used. Based on comments from developers, it appears that FAE400 will 
only be available on Multipsk and this is more of an experimenters 
program rather than one used by public service or the average digital user.

It may not be practical to build a team of operators, whether local or 
regional, etc., to use multiple programs where they use one program for 
e-mail, another one for packet, another for messaging, another for chat, 
etc. That is why I believe that we need one program that has this 
capability, and it would need to be simple to use, very basic layout 
that is understandable to the average ham. I believe that we are coming 
closer and some groups have standardized on certain programs. Even after 
we have the "perfect" program (until the next "perfect" one comes 
along), it will take an enormous amount of promotion to effect major 
changes, HI.

One question for Tony: when you tested the "ALE" mode, was this actually 
the FAE mode? As I understand it, the FAE modes (wide 2000 Hz and narrow 
400 Hz modes) are considerably faster than the older ALE modes due to 
improved compression, even though they use the same 8FSK modulation. And 
they are more sensitive, plus the memory ARQ feature of FAE adds 
additional weak signal capability.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup


Tony wrote:
>
>
> John,
>  
> > Hey man you are preaching to the choir!!!
>  
> It seems that way om -- first QSO was yesterday so it's all new to me.
>  
> > ALE400 is a great mode, even at higher latitudes such as I am.
>  
> Simulator seems to indicate that John. Not as robust as other mfsk 
> modes, but beats the pants off of 300 baud HF Packet!!!
>  
> Are you available for a contact? I'm on 14073.0 USB + 1000Hz. ALE-400
>