Re: [digitalradio] Re: WA6RZW Mailbox - friendly invitation [1 Attachment]
Andy Tony, what is the center frequency in Multipsk for packet? If you're VFO is parked on 14105.5 LSB then center the Multipsk cursor on 2200Hz. You might have to tweak it a bit, but that's the general location of where the packet signals are. Also remember to click (PACEKT + APRS) mode and then FSK / UNPROTO / 300bd (see attached screenshot). Enter the packet stations BBS call sign with SSID (usually -1 for mailbox) in the DESTINATION BOX and K3UK in the SENDER box. Click connect. You can also use Winpack on VHF/ UHF with the built-in TNC on you Kenwood TS2000. It will run 1200 and 9600 baud. If you want to run Winpack on HF you'll need to couple it to the SV2AWG Packet Engine configured for 300 baud: simple to do. Winpack 6.8 http://www.gb7fcr.plus.com/ Packet Engine : http://www.sv2agw.com/downloads/default.htm Scroll down to the AGW Paket Engine box and download AGWPE.ZIP (the free one) Let me know if you have any difficulty setting them up. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: [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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: WA6RZW Mailbox - friendly invitation
Thanks Tony, I am using Multipsk which works well for 300 baud packet. I'll skip Winpack this time, I used to use it many years ago. Andy K3UK On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Tony d...@optonline.net wrote: [Attachment(s) #1249a2edf42c3387_TopText from Tony included below] Andy Tony, what is the center frequency in Multipsk for packet? If you're VFO is parked on 14105.5 LSB then center the Multipsk cursor on 2200Hz. You might have to tweak it a bit, but that's the general location of where the packet signals are. Also remember t
[digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
I'm glad there isn't any finite bandwidth limit for HF digital data communications in USA's FCC rules. (Other than the whole subband) This leaves open the potential for some wonderful new and different data modes to be developed in the near future. Modes that have the potential to send a page of text in a matter of seconds... or to have nearly realtime text chat among a large group of operators. We are fortunate to live in the Golden Age of Ham Radio Digital Communications. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone-because we just do, and so can you
Well said, well done, and well thought out - Thank You! Ham's have been running ALE for a long time (at least a decade for me, boy does time fly!), and I am not aware of anyone running ALE who has ever received a Notice from the FCC. Our early evaluation work with ALE started out with a special letter to the FCC that included all the callsigns that were going to be running ALE. We received no restrictions about it then, and none since even after numerous communications about ALE to and from the FCC about ALE operation and its unattended nature that is inherent into its original design and intent. Appreciate this great forum, and thanks to those here that I have seen their callsigns on the ALE HFN system from time to time. We can use the participation, and encourage many more to come on board. Regards, and 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/ - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham n5...@uspacket.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 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: snip snip 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
That is exactly the question. The next person may say that 9.6 is too slow for him. We refer back to the speed limit on road, and knowing human nature. 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: obrienaj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:01 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. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
RE: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Want and should must yield to shall and will; the Rules tell us how fast we may go in different parts of our authorized spectrum. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 10/27/2009 10:02:08 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.
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful interference and of course the 300 baud limit. The wider HF digital modes 'get around' the 300 baud limit by transmitting multiple streams, each at less than 300 baud inividually but adding up to something significantly higher. Q15x25 for example transmits fifteen PSK streams for an effective 2.5 kb data rate. The transmitted signal is about the same width as PACTOR III, around 2.5 kHz. The legality of 'getting around' the 300 baud limit with multiple streams has not been established. So far, the FCC has not put its foot down on the matter but that is no guarantee that they will not decide to do so at some point in the future, perhaps when and if they feel that the practice has gotten out of hand. The prohibition against deliberate harmful interference is the real limiting factor. We must remember that saying I didn't listen before transmitting, so I didn't know I would interfere. is no defense whatsoever against a complaint of deliberate interference. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you transmit an ultra-wide signal on busy, crowded amateur radio spectrum without taking pains to find a clear spot of the required size, that you will most certainly end up crashing other hams QSOs. In light of this, and the fact that our spectrum is shared spectrum where nobody owns a frequency, you may wonder why we do not have a bandwidth limit on HF. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that we are expected to experiment with radio technology, to push the envelope in various ways that may require more bandwidth than usual. This is something to consider if you are wondering why the FCC has not put their foot down so far on the 300 baud rule. They are giving us leeway. Playing with ultra-wide signals on an occasional, experimental basis is not so difficult. As we all know, sometimes the HF bands are packed from one end to the other, and at other times there are great, wide stretches of unused spectrum out there. I'll mention here that the more useful and popular bits of spectrum ( 20m for example ) are going to be unoccupied a lot less often than 17 or 15m for example. So, for a careful and thoughtful experimenter, finding a stretch of open spectrum to play with a wide signal is not such a difficult thing to do. Not to mention VHF and UHF of course, the best and most reasonable place to experiment by far. Where we run into difficulties on HF is when we stop experimenting with wide modes and start attempting to use them on a regular basis. This is because we simply cannot realistically expect to find that much open HF spectrum on a useful frequency, in the same spot, on a regular basis. The problem is compounded when you attempt to utilize wide signals this way with an unattended, automated server. With no human there to look for times when the required amount of spectrum is open, we must depend upon 'signal detection' software and there are limitations to signal detection that make it progressively slower and uncertain as you sample a wider area for signals. I think we can all take it for granted that WinLink's to hell with our fellow hams approach of running wide signals with no signal detection whatsoever is not acceptible, and may well bring on the crackdown upon signals above 300 baud that I mentioned the possibility of, earlier. Thumbing their noses at the amateur radio community and the PART97 regulations that way cannot be realistically expected to return a good long-term outcome. They endanger us all as they test the FCC's patience this way. I have more to say about the inherent limits to signal detection but this post is getting too long already. So, we do not have a codified limit to bandwidth, but we do have a number of practical ones that should be easy to stay out of trouble with, as long as we play well with others and follow the rules. ( PART97 and The Amateurs Code ) Otherwise - we are asking for trouble and will not like the result that follows. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:17 PM Subject: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Interesting analogy. I guess we'd never have invented jet airplanes, then, if no one needs to travel faster than XX MPH. If getting data disseminated in an emergency has lower priority than an RTTY contest, then so be it. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow That is exactly the question. The next person may say that 9.6 is too slow for him. We refer back to the speed limit on road, and knowing human nature. Danny Douglas
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed off-road, and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?) If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed , I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new modes and methodology is great, and should be encouraged, but should be targeted to use the bandwidth which is already legal, and not push to suddenly widen, therefore take over that which is presently being enjoyed by operators who use them as a hobby, and personal enjoyment. I salute those with the technical knowledge, ability, and drive to develop these new modes, but ask them to direct their long term targeting to share, not take over amateur radio, for purposes other than what the large majority are using it. The government welcomes enhancements for emergency servies, so let the government assign spectrum for its development and use. This stuff of pushing the legal limits by using several channels (each within the bandwidth limit) but needing those several to get a message across,: thus using up the space of several users, on the amateur bands, is just plain wrong. Having said all that: know that I served as a telecommunications officer in several different federal positions for some 29 years, and would have readily accepted and used some of the recent developments in that job. But I remind you - it was a JOB. We had our own spectrum, and one of the most aggrivating things I saw, and stopped, was our operators sliding into the ham bands when they thought those small pieces of spectrum were the best place to go. I did not and will not condone other users interfering with this hobby. 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: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Interesting analogy. I guess we'd never have invented jet airplanes, then, if no one needs to travel faster than XX MPH. If getting data disseminated in an emergency has lower priority than an RTTY contest, then so be it. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow That is exactly the question. The next person may say that 9.6 is too slow for him. We refer back to the speed limit on road, and knowing human nature. Danny Douglas
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
The problem with worrying about people interfering with this hobby, you have to narrowly define this hobby. OK, staying with your analogy, we'd have to set surface street speed limits in concrete based on how fast a Ford Model T could have been safely driven, leading to a national maximum speed limit of what? 40 MPH? Lanes probably should be subsequently narrowed, too. Restricting research and innovation to VHF/UHF bands is not the answer. It's a little hard to test the NVIS or ionospheric characteristics of a new mode on 6 meteres and up. I've yet to hear a rational reason why a DSB AM transmission should be allowed to utilize 6 Khz of bandwidth, but not a digital one. Please note that I am not suggesting that hams should use 6 Khz. wide modes on a daily basis for ragchewing. From a practical standpoint, 3 Khz. is probably a PRACTICAL limit, for the time being, if we are discussing sound card modes modulating SSB signals. But I'd also like to see spread spectrum experimentation on HF, too. Maybe some fruitful experimentation would wind up earning us MORE HF spectrum, if we could show it could be put to good use. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed off-road, and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?) If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed , I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new modes and methodology is great, and should be encouraged, but should be targeted to use the bandwidth which is already legal, and not push to suddenly widen, therefore take over that which is presently being enjoyed by operators who use them as a hobby, and personal enjoyment. I salute those with the technical knowledge, ability, and drive to develop these new modes, but ask them to direct their long term targeting to share, not take over amateur radio, for purposes other than what the large majority are using it. The government welcomes enhancements for emergency servies, so let the government assign spectrum for its development and use. This stuff of pushing the legal limits by using several channels (each within the bandwidth limit) but needing those several to get a message across,: thus using up the space of several users, on the amateur bands, is just plain wrong. Having said all that: know that I served as a telecommunications officer in several different federal positions for some 29 years, and would have readily accepted and used some of the recent developments in that job. But I remind you - it was a JOB. We had our own spectrum, and one of the most aggrivating things I saw, and stopped, was our operators sliding into the ham bands when they thought those small pieces of spectrum were the best place to go. I did not and will not condone other users interfering with this hobby.
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Dave: The hobby is defined in the first section of PART97. No mystery there. It is quite plain, so there is very little wriggle room there for interpretation. Double sideband is allowed to use 6 kHz of spectrum - and so are digital modes. But if the operator of either one interferes with an ongoing QSO because they can't find a clear bit of spectrum that wide, then they are in violation of PART97. You can go as wide as you want - as long as you do not interfere with anybody else's QSO. The spectrum is there on a first-come, first serve basis, and nobody owns or gets to reserve a frequency slot. The practical limit on bandwidth is how wide a swath of usable spectrum you can find that is not currently in use. - It's that simple. Note that the more useful frequencies will always tend to be more congested. The FCC has rejected several petitions regarding spread-spectrum on HF because it raises the noise floor for all, across a very wide area. Not being able to play well with others, it is not allowed on HF where weak signal work is common. This is a good thing. Forget spread-spectrum on the ham part of HF. - Ain't gonna happen. All of our amateur radio HF spectrum is shared spectrum, so it's not OK to screw up wide areas of it for other uses. - Not even just a little bit. They are not going to allow it for just two people, and as the number of spread-spectrum users goes up - so does the noise floor for everybody else on that band. - Think it through, and I'm sure you'll understand why spread-spectrum on HF is a non-starter. We may or may not get additional spectrum someday, but the chances of that occurring because some ham or another thinks that we are putting it all to 'better use' is vanishingly small. To see about the FCC's criteria for the use of our spectrum, see the first section of PART97, where the hobby is defined. You're probably right about 3kHz being an upper limit for practical use on HF... But I've seen times when the practical limit ( see definition above ) was either smaller or larger than that. - It varies with the current amount of utilization around a given frequency, at a given time on a given day. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow The problem with worrying about people interfering with this hobby, you have to narrowly define this hobby. OK, staying with your analogy, we'd have to set surface street speed limits in concrete based on how fast a Ford Model T could have been safely driven, leading to a national maximum speed limit of what? 40 MPH? Lanes probably should be subsequently narrowed, too. Restricting research and innovation to VHF/UHF bands is not the answer. It's a little hard to test the NVIS or ionospheric characteristics of a new mode on 6 meteres and up. I've yet to hear a rational reason why a DSB AM transmission should be allowed to utilize 6 Khz of bandwidth, but not a digital one. Please note that I am not suggesting that hams should use 6 Khz. wide modes on a daily basis for ragchewing. From a practical standpoint, 3 Khz. is probably a PRACTICAL limit, for the time being, if we are discussing sound card modes modulating SSB signals. But I'd also like to see spread spectrum experimentation on HF, too. Maybe some fruitful experimentation would wind up earning us MORE HF spectrum, if we could show it could be put to good use. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed off-road, and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?) If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
The model T had limits of around 15-25 mph, for a couple of reasons. It would shake you, and it, to death if you got it too fast on the roads built for wagons. They hardened the road surface, and made them wider, thus allowing future autos to go faster, and safer. Just like in Germany, and even out in the NW USA, the speeds have been dropped. It became much like the law of diminishing returns. People finally came to their senses and realized that just didnt work, to continually increase speeds, given the inability to increase their surface capacity (bandwidth?). 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 If one can convince the ITU/FCC to widen spectrum assignments, go ahead and use those new ones. I would agree, that DSB has met its usefullness lifetime, but of course, this being a hobby, some people still have equipment from way back then, and enjoy using it. I hear little of that. In fact do not think I have tuned into, nor been QRMd by an AM signal in years. They havent taken the model T off the road either. We just had several dozen of them go by here a week or so back, on the way to a big national meeting. They did stay on smaller highways, and off the interstate, for the safety of both themselves, and those using the larger/faster roads. 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: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow The problem with worrying about people interfering with this hobby, you have to narrowly define this hobby. OK, staying with your analogy, we'd have to set surface street speed limits in concrete based on how fast a Ford Model T could have been safely driven, leading to a national maximum speed limit of what? 40 MPH? Lanes probably should be subsequently narrowed, too. Restricting research and innovation to VHF/UHF bands is not the answer. It's a little hard to test the NVIS or ionospheric characteristics of a new mode on 6 meteres and up. I've yet to hear a rational reason why a DSB AM transmission should be allowed to utilize 6 Khz of bandwidth, but not a digital one. Please note that I am not suggesting that hams should use 6 Khz. wide modes on a daily basis for ragchewing. From a practical standpoint, 3 Khz. is probably a PRACTICAL limit, for the time being, if we are discussing sound card modes modulating SSB signals. But I'd also like to see spread spectrum experimentation on HF, too. Maybe some fruitful experimentation would wind up earning us MORE HF spectrum, if we could show it could be put to good use. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed off-road, and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?) If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed , I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new modes and
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
There is no bandwidth limit in the RTTY/data segments but there is a limit of no wider than a communications-quality DSB phone signal using the same modulation type in the phone/image segments from 160 to 1.25 meters. This is interpreted as anything between 6 and 10 kHz by U.S. AM users but the European governments have decided that 8 kHz is the upper limit on HF. The rules specificly reference emission designators that authorize multiple subcarriers so FDM modes are unlikely to beome illegal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Charles Brabham To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful interference and of course the 300 baud limit. The wider HF digital modes 'get around' the 300 baud limit by transmitting multiple streams, each at less than 300 baud inividually but adding up to something significantly higher. Q15x25 for example transmits fifteen PSK streams for an effective 2.5 kb data rate. The transmitted signal is about the same width as PACTOR III, around 2.5 kHz. The legality of 'getting around' the 300 baud limit with multiple streams has not been established. So far, the FCC has not put its foot down on the matter but that is no guarantee that they will not decide to do so at some point in the future, perhaps when and if they feel that the practice has gotten out of hand. The prohibition against deliberate harmful interference is the real limiting factor. We must remember that saying I didn't listen before transmitting, so I didn't know I would interfere. is no defense whatsoever against a complaint of deliberate interference. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you transmit an ultra-wide signal on busy, crowded amateur radio spectrum without taking pains to find a clear spot of the required size, that you will most certainly end up crashing other hams QSOs. In light of this, and the fact that our spectrum is shared spectrum where nobody owns a frequency, you may wonder why we do not have a bandwidth limit on HF. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that we are expected to experiment with radio technology, to push the envelope in various ways that may require more bandwidth than usual. This is something to consider if you are wondering why the FCC has not put their foot down so far on the 300 baud rule. They are giving us leeway. Playing with ultra-wide signals on an occasional, experimental basis is not so difficult. As we all know, sometimes the HF bands are packed from one end to the other, and at other times there are great, wide stretches of unused spectrum out there. I'll mention here that the more useful and popular bits of spectrum ( 20m for example ) are going to be unoccupied a lot less often than 17 or 15m for example. So, for a careful and thoughtful experimenter, finding a stretch of open spectrum to play with a wide signal is not such a difficult thing to do. Not to mention VHF and UHF of course, the best and most reasonable place to experiment by far. Where we run into difficulties on HF is when we stop experimenting with wide modes and start attempting to use them on a regular basis. This is because we simply cannot realistically expect to find that much open HF spectrum on a useful frequency, in the same spot, on a regular basis. The problem is compounded when you attempt to utilize wide signals this way with an unattended, automated server. With no human there to look for times when the required amount of spectrum is open, we must depend upon 'signal detection' software and there are limitations to signal detection that make it progressively slower and uncertain as you sample a wider area for signals. I think we can all take it for granted that WinLink's to hell with our fellow hams approach of running wide signals with no signal detection whatsoever is not acceptible, and may well bring on the crackdown upon signals above 300 baud that I mentioned the possibility of, earlier. Thumbing their noses at the amateur radio community and the PART97 regulations that way cannot be realistically expected to return a good long-term outcome. They endanger us all as they test the FCC's patience this way. I have more to say about the inherent limits to signal detection but this post is getting too long already. So, we do not have a codified limit to bandwidth, but we do have a number of practical ones that should be easy to stay out of trouble with, as long as we play well with others and follow the rules. ( PART97 and The Amateurs Code ) Otherwise - we are asking for trouble and will not like the result that follows. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio
MODERATOR: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Moderator since there are only a couple of members carrying on this lengthy dialogue, could I respectfully suggest they take thisprivate, so as to not QRM everyone's mailbox? Thanks John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:46 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Since RTTY is defined as direct printing telegraphy texting can go on in the RTTY/data segment. However, sending a whole page of text can also be called facsimile and done in the phone/image segments, whether it is encoded as ASCII, PDF or JPEG. B7W (ISB) emissions are also allowed and that is any combination of telegraphy, facsimle, data, telemetry, telecommand, telephony and television. FDMDV is ISB as it has a central pilot carrier and it carries voice and text. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio mailto:expeditionra...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 06:18 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow I'm glad there isn't any finite bandwidth limit for HF digital data communications in USA's FCC rules. (Other than the whole subband) This leaves open the potential for some wonderful new and different data modes to be developed in the near future. Modes that have the potential to send a page of text in a matter of seconds... or to have nearly realtime text chat among a large group of operators. We are fortunate to live in the Golden Age of Ham Radio Digital Communications. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: 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
MODERATOR: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
MODERATOR: Although I have not contributed to this thread, I have indeed been following it with some interest. I thought that was the whole reason for this forum If I am in error to only sit back and learn without posting, please let me know . along with numerous others Thanks 73 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley jbrad...@... wrote: Moderator since there are only a couple of members carrying on this lengthy dialogue, could I respectfully suggest they take thisprivate, so as to not QRM everyone's mailbox? Thanks John VE5MU From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:46 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Since RTTY is defined as direct printing telegraphy texting can go on in the RTTY/data segment. However, sending a whole page of text can also be called facsimile and done in the phone/image segments, whether it is encoded as ASCII, PDF or JPEG. B7W (ISB) emissions are also allowed and that is any combination of telegraphy, facsimle, data, telemetry, telecommand, telephony and television. FDMDV is ISB as it has a central pilot carrier and it carries voice and text. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: expeditionradio mailto:expeditionra...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 06:18 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow I'm glad there isn't any finite bandwidth limit for HF digital data communications in USA's FCC rules. (Other than the whole subband) This leaves open the potential for some wonderful new and different data modes to be developed in the near future. Modes that have the potential to send a page of text in a matter of seconds... or to have nearly realtime text chat among a large group of operators. We are fortunate to live in the Golden Age of Ham Radio Digital Communications. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: 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
[digitalradio] lpt to com port assignment?
Hello all, I am trying to set up my computer to key my radio rather than the el cheapo way of using vox. I have built a circuit to use the 25 pin lpt jack, but I do not know how to assign this jack as a com port. Most of the digital programs I use only specify com ports, not lpt. I do have a 15 pin connection, but I am not sure what the proper connection would be. I am obviously not very knowledgeable about computers, so any help is appreciated. Thanks, Daniel KG4KRI --... ...--
