Re: [digitalradio] Re: HRD with Microham
Andy and the group, what do you use for call sign lookup? I am a paid subscriber to Buckmaster HamCall, it works well with the mixW, but looks like this doesnt work well with HRD.. Several posts on this, and some in a To-Do list on the HRD site. I printed the manuals (where i work-many pages) and have been reading and getting ready for the changeover (if i do it) thanks Pat, K3PB --- On Thu, 10/22/09, obrienaj aobri...@stny.rr.com wrote: From: obrienaj aobri...@stny.rr.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: HRD with Microham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 12:39 PM Pat, I use a Microham device with a TS2000 and run HRD, FLdigi, Multipsk or MixW without any issues. You can essentially leave your Microham device router as selecting the same ports for PTT and control and all should be OK. HRD with DM780 can be a little overwhelming these days because it has so much, and so many visual options. However, all you need to do is configure HRD for your rig and rig's baud rate , plus the comm port you use for rig control. Then in DM780 configure how you want to set-up PTT. I always find this confusing in many different applications but in HRD there are only 3 options (I think) , so it does not take long to try all three if needed. HRD and DM780 also have an effective method for linking the two, but you have to set this up. It is all explained in the help files but I always find it confusing. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Pat Turner k3pb_...@.. . wrote: i guess i have the same feeling about the updates to mixW, just scared to do something new as the mixW works well for PSK and CW. i am using a microHam USB 2 interface with my Kenwood TS2K. Convince me the changeover to HRD word be easy! well actually convince me it is possible. i know i will have to learn and configure a few things, so i am not looking for a plug-n-play changeover. i know there is a HRD Yahoo users group, so i am going to it now to sign up, thanks for the reply. Pat, K3PB, in Tennessee --- On Thu, 10/22/09, obrienaj aobri...@.. . wrote: From: obrienaj aobri...@.. . Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RS ID use ? To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 2:56 AM That is a difficult choice Pat. I am an old Mixw user too, paid my many to Nick many years ago. My sense, no facts, is that Mixw is a dying product. It is a good product but I just have a hunch that Nick has tired of the project and that it is not likely to get the updates frequently enough to compete with DM780, fldigi, pocketdigi, or Multipsk. You can run MixW with FLdigi (other other apps with RS ID) in the background and use RSID receive just as a way to keep any eye on what is on the band . Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Pat Turner k3pb_ham@ . wrote: Andy, i enjoyed the article, but i am a long term mixW registered user, s, trying to figure out if i want to go to Ham Radio Deluxe. thanks Pat, K3PB�
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: = Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe. To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art. = The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC. The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built upon. That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology ) We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place. By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe. Some of that has gone away in response to widespread internet access, no more ARRL hype, abortive attempts to repeal the laws of physics, and the inclusion of non-ham links which only served to retard the advancement of the art instead of bringing it forward. Still, a large part of what once was is still in operation, though at a reduced level of traffic and coverage. The good news is that we are now approaching a turning of the tide as amateurs once again approach the concept of a global amateur radio digital network with a new understanding of the pitfalls we face, along with the advantages we enjoy over
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Nice post and well worded, Charles! Warren - K5WGM --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org wrote: From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 8:55 AM Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: = Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe. To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art. = The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC. The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built upon. That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology ) We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place. By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe. Some of that has gone away in response to widespread internet access, no more ARRL hype, abortive attempts to repeal the laws of physics, and the inclusion of non-ham links which only served to retard the advancement of the art instead of bringing it forward. Still, a large part of what once
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
GM Charles, I recently noticed your signature line, then tried to look into hamradionet. When I go to the url it redirects me to the forum. When I browse the forum I find some info about what the new network IS NOT but nothing about what it IS. Can you direct me to the description of what the network is? I would like to learn more about it. Howard K5HB From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 8:55:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be able to relieve. Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at HamRadioNet: = Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe. To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement of the radio art. = The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with existing communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by the FCC. The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links ( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built upon. That last factor, the way that the relationship between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that of existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as many amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio networking fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology ) We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected to self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its place. By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts of thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the globe. Some of that has gone away in response to
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: HRD with Hamcall
Pat I used QRZ.COM for all my needs. I have used it with both HRD and DXKeeper and both work well. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Pat Turner k3pb_...@... wrote: Andy and the group, what do you use for call sign lookup?�I am a paid subscriber to�Buckmaster HamCall, it works well with the mixW, but looks like this doesnt work well with HRD.. Several posts on this, and some in a To-Do list on the HRD site. I printed the manuals (where i work-many pages) and have been reading and getting ready for the changeover (if i do it) thanks Pat, K3PB
[digitalradio] WA6RZW Mailbox - friendly invitation
All, Ed, WA6RZW has posted a friendly invitation for his fellow hams to use his HF packet mailbox on 14105.5 LSB. See below. *** CONNECTED With Station WA6RZW-1 [KAM-XL-1.0-HM$] 101920 BYTES AVAILABLE IN 25 BLOCKS THERE ARE 2 MESSAGES NUMBERED 58-59 MAILBOX EMPTY - FILL IT UP! Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
- Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
[digitalradio] Re: WA6RZW Mailbox - friendly invitation
Tony, what is the center frequency in Multipsk for packet? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony d...@... wrote: All, Ed, WA6RZW has posted a friendly invitation for his fellow hams to use his HF packet mailbox on 14105.5 LSB. See below. *** CONNECTED With Station WA6RZW-1 [KAM-XL-1.0-HM$] 101920 BYTES AVAILABLE IN 25 BLOCKS THERE ARE 2 MESSAGES NUMBERED 58-59 MAILBOX EMPTY - FILL IT UP! Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
but Dave, ...how would we define get the job done. I might feel I need to transfer my message at 9600 baud on HF but others might argue I should be patient and accept a 300 baud transfer. Andy What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds o QSOs. There MUST be rules, because there is always going to be someone who will push the envelope with so called advances which ignore the rights and wishes of others. Thats why we have speed limits even the Germans have finally come around to realizing you just cant let every Hans drive his own speed.By the way, 200 mph will get you there (if it doesnt kill you and everyone else on the road), but 60 will get you there too, and a lot safer. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I'm not sure who suggested 50-100 khz. of B/W... But if someone can take up 6 Khz of B/W just to transmit a human voice, why not something similar for digital modes? I'm not saying you SHOULD, or that it would be PRACTICAL, but if we're setting limits ... -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds o QSOs. There MUST be rules, because there is always going to be someone who will push the envelope with so called advances which ignore the rights and wishes of others. Thats why we have speed limits even the Germans have finally come around to realizing you just cant let every Hans drive his own speed.By the way, 200 mph will get you there (if it doesnt kill you and everyone else on the road), but 60 will get you there too, and a lot safer. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
- Original Message - From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow but Dave, ...how would we define get the job done. I might feel I need to transfer my message at 9600 baud on HF but others might argue I should be patient and accept a 300 baud transfer. Andy What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. Or, to take it to its [il]logical extreme, make the maximum bandwidth 31 Hz. and outlaw everything except PSK31. Maybe JT2 would be even better... That rule would need as much interpretation as the one about power. You could communicate worldwide on a couple of watts *IF* you picked the proper mode and were willing to wait a few years for the right number of sunspots. The hardest word to define in law is the word reasonable. BTW, what is the necessary bandwidth for an RTTY Contest? grin, duck -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
