Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Charles Brabham]

John:

Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? 

The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are not 
intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. 

For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for thousands 
opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated stations 
running absolutely no busy detection at all. How long do you think the FCC will 
allow this to continue before they clarify the PART97 regulations in this area?

The FCC gives us a good deal of freedom to experiment. Once the experiment is 
over though and you begin to use a new system on a regular basis, they have a 
lot less sense of humor about the rules being bent or broken.

It is unfortunate but true that every day that kind of operation continues 
brings us closer to a response from the FCC that we may not like at all. The 
FCC gives us a good deal of freedom to experiment, and in return we are 
expected to act responsibly. Willful interference is not a responsible act.

What we should be doing is self-policing this problem. Instead it is 
encouraged, not discouraged as it should be by the ARRL.


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: John B. Stephensen 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:10 PM
  Subject: 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 

Re: MODERATOR: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow

[Ian Wade G3NRW]

From: John Bradley 
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009   Time: 16:30:53

>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?
>

Hello Moderator,

There may be only a couple of people conducting this thread at the 
moment, but it's interesting stuff that is *directly relevant* to the 
digitalradio group.

Please let it continue unhindered!

Thank you.

-- 
73
Ian, G3NRW

[digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

[obrienaj]

We have had  few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID.  
Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31...  I 
thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31 or 
RTTY to try a task this weekend.   Three QSOs in three different modes.  To 
keep is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes

Olivia 
Feld Hell
Domninoex
MFSK16
MT63

If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get you 
started.  Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can help 
set up.

Re: MODERATOR: [digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow

[Andy obrien]

So noted.


Andy K3UK


Hello Moderator,

There may be only a couple of people conducting this thread at the
moment, but it's interesting stuff that is *directly relevant* to the
digitalradio group.

Please let it continue unhindered!

Thank you.

-- 
73
Ian, G3NRW

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Ian Wade G3NRW  wrote:

>
>
> From: John Bradley >
> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 Time: 16:30:53
>
>
> >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?
> >
>

RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Rud Merriam]

Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the
regulations about how much the symbol can change.
 
Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and
RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. 
 
 - 73 - 
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ 

-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone




John:
 
Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? 
 
The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are
not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. 
 
 

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Jeff Moore]

Charles,

I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]

I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never 
heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with.  
Contrary to what your statement implies.  The automated pactor stations don't 
initiate qso's, they respond to qso's initiated by live operators.  It falls on 
THOSE operators to insure that they are not interfering with other qso's in 
progress, not the automated response stations.  Unless I'm missing something 
here, none of the Winlink 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they 
only respond to requests.

Jeff Moore  KE7ACY
DCARES - Deschutes County ARES
Bend, Oregon

- Original Message - 
From: Charles Brabham 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone


  
John:
[snip]
For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for thousands 
opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated stations 
running absolutely no busy detection at all. How long do you think the FCC will 
allow this to continue before they clarify the PART97 regulations in this area?

73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
. 

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[DANNY DOUGLAS]

A simple understanding of props:   Station A listens, and hearing nothing on 
the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can 
go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever.  Station B hears that, and 
responds to station A.  Now with both stations manned, they both have a chance 
to listen and suddenly, someone (station C) comes up and tells station B that 
the frequency is already in use.  Station C has not been hearing station A and 
probably still doesn't hear him, but now station B is interfering with an 
ongoing QSO between stations C and D  (he didn't hear D before he transmitted, 
but that station was already there transmitting to station D) Then  station B 
would ask station A to QSY for their QSO on a different freq.  That happens all 
the time, and is the way it should be.

Now lets take your automatic station:  E comes up on the freq, and transmits, 
without listening to anything first.   The ops at F hears E and even though he 
is sitting on the freq, he hasn't heard anything else and he then transmit to 
F.  Suddenly stations F, H, I, etc etc who are working SSB on and very close to 
the station now have some kind of maddening raspy interference on top of them . 
 Who is that?  Why, its probably station E, or maybe F if he just didn't hear 
those stations operating when he first responded to E (maybe they were silent 
and listening to someone else there, that F didn't hear).  

So how can the operator at station F be responsible for the QRM being caused by 
E, if he doesn't know it is QRMING anyone else?  He cant, and wont.  Both E and 
F are responsible for their own signals, and for interference caused by their 
station and no one can really disagree with that!  

That is exactly why the majority of hams are saying that automatic operation on 
the HF bands needs to just go away.  When an operator is sitting a position, he 
can indeed listen, transmit,and then respond to people with whom he is 
interfering.  Without that important person, the automatic station will not do 
so.  It just happily tools along, continuining its interference to others who 
were already using the freq.  
Many have already asked that this operation stop, until such stations can be 
programmed to listen for frequency use, before its initial transmit on the 
freq.  With that facility built in, most all the complaints would simply go 
away. You would then have your capability to run auto stations, within the 
present bandwidth parameters, and would have a legal transmission on the air.  
Meanwhile, without that ability, you do not.  

Many of us see the usefulness of such an operation and encourage it 
development, but only with the auto stations software being able to determine 
frequency use before its initial transmission , and then being able to respond 
positively, if someone comes up immediately on the same freq with a signal of a 
different mode.Once the two digital stations have initiated a QSO, they 
would not have to stop and QSY or worry about other signals coming in somewhat 
latter, and this would stop others from intentionally interfering with the 
digital QSOs, just to make trouble for them. 
I understand the capability is already developed - it just needs to be accepted 
and used by ALL automatic stations.




 
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: Jeff Moore 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone



  Charles,

  I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]

  I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never 
heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with.  
Contrary to what your statement implies.  The automated pactor stations don't 
initiate qso's, they respond to qso's initiated by live operators.  It falls on 
THOSE operators to insure that they are not interfering with other qso's in 
progress, not the automated response stations.  Unless I'm missing something 
here, none of the Winlink 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they 
only respond to requests.

  Jeff Moore  KE7ACY
  DCARES - Deschutes County ARES
  Bend, Oregon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Charles Brabham 
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone




  John:
  [snip]
  For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for 
thousands opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated 
stations running absolutely no busy detectio

[digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi all

Anyone qrv on 20m ?

I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.

Hope to see you in the waterfall .

73 de LA5VNA Steinar

[digitalradio] PSK500 mode

[Russell Blair]

Andy, Im running fldigi 3.13AU but I cant find PSK500 on the list where can I 
find it, for PSKmail... On my puppy mail server is working, I just completed 
testing makeing sure it can pass emails.. Now on to PSK500 mode ?

Russell
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


" IN GOD WE TRUST " 


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

[Charles Brabham]

That sounds like fun!  I've tried Feld Hell, MFSK16 and MT63, but not the other 
two. - I'll make it a point to try them out this weekend.


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: obrienaj 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:31 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge


We have had few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID. 
Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31... I 
thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31 or 
RTTY to try a task this weekend. Three QSOs in three different modes. To keep 
is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes

  Olivia 
  Feld Hell
  Domninoex
  MFSK16
  MT63

  If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get you 
started. Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can help set 
up.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Charles Brabham]

Rud:

Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question.

By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to operate at 600 baud - but guess 
what?


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: Rud Merriam 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone



  Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the 
regulations about how much the symbol can change.

  Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and 
RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. 

   - 73 - 
  Rud Merriam K5RUD
  ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
  http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ 
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone


John:

Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? 

The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are 
not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. 



  

RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Rud Merriam]

No, Packet can't operate at more than 300 baud. Nothing on HF can exceed 300
baud. I didn't argue this implicitly or explicitly. 
 
You made the argument implicitly.
 
 - 73 - 
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ 

-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:51 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone




Rud:
 
Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question.
 
By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to operate at 600 baud - but
guess what?
 


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: Rud Merriam   
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

  



Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the
regulations about how much the symbol can change.
 
Packet and RTTY uses two tones. PKS31 uses one. By your argument Packet and
RTTY should be banned because their symbol change is larger than PSK31s. 

 - 73 - 
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX 
http://mysticlakeso  ftware.com/ 

-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone


John:
 
Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes? 
 
The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are
not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction. 
 
 

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Charles Brabham]

Jeff:

I watched a WinLink station knock four stations off of the air yesterday. I 
have dozens of screen-captures of waterfall displays, showing WinLink stations 
crashing up to five QSOs at once. It happens every day, and is easy to document.

You looked once, and didn't see anything.

You can take it for granted that I know exactly what I am talking about and 
have no need to exaggerate. As a thought experiment, try going on QRZ.COM in 
the "Talk and Opinions" board and stating that you do not believe that 
WinLinkers ever crash other people's QSO's.

Common sense should tell you that anybody transmitting ultra-wide digital hash 
on HF without listening first will of course end up causing interference, 
willful interference in WinLink's case since they refuse to run any 
busy-detection but if that doesn't convince you, go ahead and see what kind of 
reaction you get to your theory on QRZed.


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: Jeff Moore 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone



  Charles,

  I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]

  I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never 
heard any other qso's during that operational period get interfered with.  
Contrary to what your statement implies.  The automated pactor stations don't 
initiate qso's, they respond to qso's initiated by live operators.  It falls on 
THOSE operators to insure that they are not interfering with other qso's in 
progress, not the automated response stations.  Unless I'm missing something 
here, none of the Winlink 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they 
only respond to requests.

  Jeff Moore  KE7ACY
  DCARES - Deschutes County ARES
  Bend, Oregon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Charles Brabham 
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone




  John:
  [snip]
  For several years now, PACTOR III emissions have been responsible for 
thousands opf QSO's being willfully interfered with by amateurs with automated 
stations running absolutely no busy detection at all. How long do you think the 
FCC will allow this to continue before they clarify the PART97 regulations in 
this area?

  73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

  .
   


  

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Charles Brabham]

Danny:

I think you forgot about the automated sub-bands. They've been there for close 
to thirty years, now.

If station A operates in the regular frequencies and avoids the rather narrow 
slivers of automated sub-bands outlined in PART97, then the chances of station 
A being interfered with by a ( legally operating ) automated station are 
nonexistent.

As you have pointed out, inteference is an issue that we all have to work to 
avoid. For digital stations that are automated, using busy detection is the 
only responsible and rational way to operate, even if it is not required as 
part of the protocol, as is the case with AX25. I thought you did a good job of 
pointing out some of the basic difficulties we face in this area.

My favorite busy detection system is a pair of Mark1 eyeballs, watching a 
waterfall display ( I do not hear well ) or simply by listening before 
transmitting. This is why I have a dedicated waterfall display for the 
frequency that my automated station operates on, and keep an eye on it 
throughout most of the day. Packet's carrier detect does a pretty good job at 
mitigating interference so I don't see much interference from that type of 
signal. I do however see WinLink stations do a lot of damage from time to time, 
as they do not listen before transmitting at all.

Since day one, hams have been outraged when somebody comes on frequency without 
listening to 'tune up' with a carrier that is really pretty narrow... The 
PACTOR III signal is 2.4-2.5 kHz wide.


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: DANNY DOUGLAS 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone



  A simple understanding of props:   Station A listens, and hearing nothing on 
the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can 
go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever.  Station B hears that, and 
responds to station A.  Now with both stations manned, they both have a chance 
to listen and suddenly, someone (station C) comes up and tells station B that 
the frequency is already in use.  Station C has not been hearing station A and 
probably still doesn't hear him, but now station B is interfering with an 
ongoing QSO between stations C and D  (he didn't hear D before he transmitted, 
but that station was already there transmitting to station D) Then  station B 
would ask station A to QSY for their QSO on a different freq.  That happens all 
the time, and is the way it should be.

  Now lets take your automatic station:  E comes up on the freq, and transmits, 
without listening to anything first.   The ops at F hears E and even though he 
is sitting on the freq, he hasn't heard anything else and he then transmit to 
F.  Suddenly stations F, H, I, etc etc who are working SSB on and very close to 
the station now have some kind of maddening raspy interference on top of them . 
 Who is that?  Why, its probably station E, or maybe F if he just didn't hear 
those stations operating when he first responded to E (maybe they were silent 
and listening to someone else there, that F didn't hear).  

  So how can the operator at station F be responsible for the QRM being caused 
by E, if he doesn't know it is QRMING anyone else?  He cant, and wont.  Both E 
and F are responsible for their own signals, and for interference caused by 
their station and no one can really disagree with that!  

  That is exactly why the majority of hams are saying that automatic operation 
on the HF bands needs to just go away.  When an operator is sitting a position, 
he can indeed listen, transmit,and then respond to people with whom he is 
interfering.  Without that important person, the automatic station will not do 
so.  It just happily tools along, continuining its interference to others who 
were already using the freq.  
  Many have already asked that this operation stop, until such stations can be 
programmed to listen for frequency use, before its initial transmit on the 
freq.  With that facility built in, most all the complaints would simply go 
away. You would then have your capability to run auto stations, within the 
present bandwidth parameters, and would have a legal transmission on the air.  
Meanwhile, without that ability, you do not.  

  Many of us see the usefulness of such an operation and encourage it 
development, but only with the auto stations software being able to determine 
frequency use before its initial transmission , and then being able to respond 
positively, if someone comes up immediately on the same freq with a signal of a 
different mode.Once the two digital stations have initiated a QSO, they 
would not have to stop and QSY or worry about other signals coming in somewhat 
latter, and this would stop others from intentionally interfering with

Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 mode

[Per]

Hi Russel,

Its not on 3.13AU, there is a patched version with PSK500 but it wasnt there on 
AU from the start.
I guess AZ is the latest now and its on there (its what I run here).

73 de Per, sm0rwo







From: Russell Blair 
To: Digital Radio 
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 5:22:22 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] PSK500 mode

  
Andy, Im running fldigi 3.13AU but I cant find PSK500 on the list where can I 
find it, for PSKmail... On my puppy mail server is working, I just completed 
testing makeing sure it can pass emails.. Now on to PSK500 mode ?

Russell
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 

" IN GOD WE TRUST " 

Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell. Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 

 _ _ _ _ __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail. yahoo.com 

   


  

Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 mode

[Russell Blair]

Tnx Per well 3.13AU is whats in my puppy mail CD. Ok thanks for the info.

Russell
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


" IN GOD WE TRUST " 


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 





From: Per 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 12:38:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 mode

  
Hi Russel,

Its not on 3.13AU, there is a patched version with PSK500 but it wasnt there on 
AU from the start.
I guess AZ is the latest now and its on there (its what I run here).

73 de Per, sm0rwo







From: Russell Blair 
To: Digital Radio 
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 5:22:22 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] PSK500 mode

  
Andy, Im running fldigi 3.13AU but I cant find PSK500 on the list where can I 
find it, for PSKmail... On my puppy mail server is working, I just completed 
testing makeing sure it can pass emails.. Now on to PSK500 mode ?

Russell
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 

" IN GOD WE TRUST " 

Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell. Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 

 _ _ _ _ __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail. yahoo.com 





  

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[DANNY DOUGLAS]

I think one of the prtoblems is that those narrow subbands where auto stations 
are allowed, do not mean that other stations are NOT allowed.  I know that I 
personnaly do not remember exactly wehre those are, since I dont work the mode. 
 I look at the chart here and see that I am allowed sideband from 14.150 up to 
14.350 and simply insure I stay within those parameters.  I listen to a freq, 
find nothing there, ask "anyone on freq", and getting no response, go ahead and 
transmit.  I may or may not get an answer or a QSO.  If I do, and am talking to 
someone and something wide and noise crops up, I consider it HIS fault. Not 
mine.Frankly, its one of the reasons I got my extra way back in the 60s.  I 
didnt wont to have to worry about all those stupid sub bands and whether I was 
allowed in a particular part of the band or not.  As a novice, I had to 
remember them.  HI.  So "regular feqs" mean not much to those who arent in the 
mood  for a change of mode.


But I believe that is much to be blamed for all the "QRM" .  Guys hear a  clear 
freq they are allowed to use, start working, and have an auto station fall on 
top of them.  I was out of the country 30 years ago, and frankly do not 
remember a thing about those starting up, until I got back here and suddenly 
started hearing them.  I will be the first to admit, I have not either 
transmitted on, or received those modes, as am simply not interest at this 
time.  

Yes- I too make it a habit of watching the waterfall here (using WinWarbler for 
rtty/ssb/cw operations), and wish more people would do that.  Even when they do 
not intend to use software for the QSO, it gives a much clearer indication of 
what is happening on the bands, and certainly is useful when looking at ones on 
receive filter capability.  Using it to watch what happens when using the DSP 
slop, of the TS570s, is a great indication of how to make your own settings - 
how the different ones affect the target signal, as well as nearby QRM of 
different types.  It simply is a great tool for ham operators, and wish I had 
such a tool back when I was working as a professional communicator.  Believe it 
- we hams are in much better shape for that type of thing, than the 
professionals of just a few years ago.Even our propagation software today 
would run rings around the sounders, etc. we had to use back then.  
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: Charles Brabham 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone



  Danny:

  I think you forgot about the automated sub-bands. They've been there for 
close to thirty years, now.

  If station A operates in the regular frequencies and avoids the rather narrow 
slivers of automated sub-bands outlined in PART97, then the chances of station 
A being interfered with by a ( legally operating ) automated station are 
nonexistent.

  As you have pointed out, inteference is an issue that we all have to work to 
avoid. For digital stations that are automated, using busy detection is the 
only responsible and rational way to operate, even if it is not required as 
part of the protocol, as is the case with AX25. I thought you did a good job of 
pointing out some of the basic difficulties we face in this area.

  My favorite busy detection system is a pair of Mark1 eyeballs, watching a 
waterfall display ( I do not hear well ) or simply by listening before 
transmitting. This is why I have a dedicated waterfall display for the 
frequency that my automated station operates on, and keep an eye on it 
throughout most of the day. Packet's carrier detect does a pretty good job at 
mitigating interference so I don't see much interference from that type of 
signal. I do however see WinLink stations do a lot of damage from time to time, 
as they do not listen before transmitting at all.

  Since day one, hams have been outraged when somebody comes on frequency 
without listening to 'tune up' with a carrier that is really pretty narrow... 
The PACTOR III signal is 2.4-2.5 kHz wide.


  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: DANNY DOUGLAS 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone


  

A simple understanding of props:   Station A listens, and hearing nothing 
o

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Tony]

Steinar, 

> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.

I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did test 
the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 

I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and robust 
as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 

Tony -K2MO

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

Tony

The file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
over to you. I think I will abort..

la5vna Steinar



Tony wrote:
> Steinar, 
>
>   
>> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
>> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>> 
>
> I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
> test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 
>
> I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
> robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 
>
> Tony -K2MO
>
>   

AW: [digitalradio] lpt to com port assignment?

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Use a serial port . not lpt . and surely not the 15pole connection . this is
for your monitor

You find the serial port at the backside and it is 9 pole in two rows . one
with 4 and one with 5

If you have no serial port (only usb) there are several usb-serial
transformers available for a few bucks

If you have now a serial port you should use an optocoupler for triggering
ptt on your trx .

Just google psk31 modem or something and you will find lots of circuits

Hope I could help

Dg9bfc

Sigi

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von kg4kri
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 02:36
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [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 --... ...--

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello to all,

For information about the subject ("Message ID"), here is a mail transmitted 
to the Multipsk Yahoo group.

73
Patrick
***
Hello to all testers,

There was a bug on the last test version, so I re-send the mail.


Some modifications have been made to the last test version:
RS ID, Call ID (Message ID)
RS ID
Due to the extension of the RS ID use, it is proposed a function which 
allows to select a group of modes for which the user wants a RS ID detection 
(function available by clicking on " ID ").
Message ID
Creation of a Message ID which permits to send small messages of 9 
characters maximum which will appear in the waterfall of the other Hams. As 
it works in background and as it is not related to any specific digital 
mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of difficulty of doing a QSO. 
Message IDs are not considered as true Call IDs and are not stored (they are 
only displayed).

In Call ID, it has also been added the possibility to use space in free call 
signs.

The last Multipsk test version is:
http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_27_10_2009.ZIP

Paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or equivalent. Download the 
file.
Create a tempory folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the file in it and 
start C:\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created 
automatically).

Thanks for report.

73
Patrick

Note about the initial Message ID in the ID window
Initial Message ID (9 char. max): it is possible to send a message of 9 
characters maximum (with the following set of characters (56) A..Z 0..9 
space . ? = / + ! - , ; : % < > $ " ( ) * ), in background. As it is not 
related to any specific mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of 
difficulty of doing a QSO (thanks to the editor over the "Call ID" button on 
the RX/TX screen). Message ID are not considered as true Call ID and are not 
stored.

The main use is simply to send a short message in case in difficulty during 
a QSO ("PSE PSK10", for example, to ask "To switch to PSK10" or "QRM +1K" 
for "There is QRM, I increase the dial frequency by 1 KHz" or "STIL HERE" to 
say that "I'm still here, even if communication seems impossible".


It could be also possible to exchange information between Hams doing other 
QSO, or between a Ham not in QSO and Hams in QSO, for two reasons:
- the Call ID is received and transmitted in background so it can be used at 
any time and in any mode,
- the Call ID appears to everybody in the bandwidth.
For example "Hi mode?" to say "Hello, what is the mode that you use" and it 
can be answered "OL 32 1K" for "Olivia 32 carriers 1000 Hz".


It will be efficient to use Q code and Ham abbreviations and to use 
punctuations to limit the number of characters:
- "?" question (a confirmation is required),
- "!" a strong demand is done by the Ham with who you are in QSO (an action 
is required),
- ">" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
- "<" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
- "=" at the beginning without following space for "PSE " or "Please "
- "+" at the end for "I wait for an answer"
and why not net general smileys as ":-)" for "Smile"


73
Patrick



- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
To: ; "* Digitalradio" 

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:11 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk


>
> Hi all
>
> Anyone qrv on 20m ?
>
> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>
> Hope to see you in the waterfall .
>
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> 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] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

I think I lost you Tony :(  .  No signal at all here.


la5vna Steinar

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

It is really nice to see how well multipsk works under weak conditions

la5vna Steinar



Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> Tony
>
> The file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
> over to you. I think I will abort..
>
> la5vna Steinar
>
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>   
>> Steinar, 
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
>>> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>>> 
>>>   
>> I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
>> test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 
>>
>> I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
>> robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 
>>
>> Tony -K2MO
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Patrick

I tested "Message ID" with Tony -K2MO now . It works great!

la5vna Steinar





Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> For information about the subject ("Message ID"), here is a mail transmitted 
> to the Multipsk Yahoo group.
>
> 73
> Patrick
> ***
> Hello to all testers,
>
> There was a bug on the last test version, so I re-send the mail.
>
>
> Some modifications have been made to the last test version:
> RS ID, Call ID (Message ID)
> RS ID
> Due to the extension of the RS ID use, it is proposed a function which 
> allows to select a group of modes for which the user wants a RS ID detection 
> (function available by clicking on " ID ").
> Message ID
> Creation of a Message ID which permits to send small messages of 9 
> characters maximum which will appear in the waterfall of the other Hams. As 
> it works in background and as it is not related to any specific digital 
> mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of difficulty of doing a QSO. 
> Message IDs are not considered as true Call IDs and are not stored (they are 
> only displayed).
>
> In Call ID, it has also been added the possibility to use space in free call 
> signs.
>
> The last Multipsk test version is:
> http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_27_10_2009.ZIP
>
> Paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or equivalent. Download the 
> file.
> Create a tempory folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the file in it and 
> start C:\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created 
> automatically).
>
> Thanks for report.
>
> 73
> Patrick
>
> Note about the initial Message ID in the ID window
> Initial Message ID (9 char. max): it is possible to send a message of 9 
> characters maximum (with the following set of characters (56) A..Z 0..9 
> space . ? = / + ! - , ; : % < > $ " ( ) * ), in background. As it is not 
> related to any specific mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of 
> difficulty of doing a QSO (thanks to the editor over the "Call ID" button on 
> the RX/TX screen). Message ID are not considered as true Call ID and are not 
> stored.
>
> The main use is simply to send a short message in case in difficulty during 
> a QSO ("PSE PSK10", for example, to ask "To switch to PSK10" or "QRM +1K" 
> for "There is QRM, I increase the dial frequency by 1 KHz" or "STIL HERE" to 
> say that "I'm still here, even if communication seems impossible".
>
>
> It could be also possible to exchange information between Hams doing other 
> QSO, or between a Ham not in QSO and Hams in QSO, for two reasons:
> - the Call ID is received and transmitted in background so it can be used at 
> any time and in any mode,
> - the Call ID appears to everybody in the bandwidth.
> For example "Hi mode?" to say "Hello, what is the mode that you use" and it 
> can be answered "OL 32 1K" for "Olivia 32 carriers 1000 Hz".
>
>
> It will be efficient to use Q code and Ham abbreviations and to use 
> punctuations to limit the number of characters:
> - "?" question (a confirmation is required),
> - "!" a strong demand is done by the Ham with who you are in QSO (an action 
> is required),
> - ">" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
> - "<" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
> - "=" at the beginning without following space for "PSE " or "Please "
> - "+" at the end for "I wait for an answer"
> and why not net general smileys as ":-)" for "Smile"
>
>
> 73
> Patrick
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
> To: ; "* Digitalradio" 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:11 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
>
>
>   
>> Hi all
>>
>> Anyone qrv on 20m ?
>>
>> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
>> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>>
>> Hope to see you in the waterfall .
>>
>> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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] Message ID in multipsk [2 Attachments]

[Tony]

> TonyThe file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
> over to you. I think I will abort..

Understand Steinar - lost you in the noise. Managed to received 23% of the 
file. The RS messaging came through fine. See attached. 

First ALE-400 QSO with the U.S.? 

Tony -K2MO

 

- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk


> 
> Tony
> 
> The file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
> over to you. I think I will abort..
> 
> la5vna Steinar
> 
> 
> 
> Tony wrote:
>> Steinar, 
>>
>>   
>>> I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
>>> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>>> 
>>
>> I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
>> test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 
>>
>> I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
>> robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 
>>
>> Tony -K2MO
>>
>>   
> 
> 
>

AW: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Siegfried Jackstien]

What qrg?

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Steinar Aanesland
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 20:37
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

 

  


Hi Patrick

I tested "Message ID" with Tony -K2MO now . It works great!

la5vna Steinar

Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> For information about the subject ("Message ID"), here is a mail
transmitted 
> to the Multipsk Yahoo group.
>
> 73
> Patrick
> ***
> Hello to all testers,
>
> There was a bug on the last test version, so I re-send the mail.
>
>
> Some modifications have been made to the last test version:
> RS ID, Call ID (Message ID)
> RS ID
> Due to the extension of the RS ID use, it is proposed a function which 
> allows to select a group of modes for which the user wants a RS ID
detection 
> (function available by clicking on " ID ").
> Message ID
> Creation of a Message ID which permits to send small messages of 9 
> characters maximum which will appear in the waterfall of the other Hams.
As 
> it works in background and as it is not related to any specific digital 
> mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of difficulty of doing a QSO.

> Message IDs are not considered as true Call IDs and are not stored (they
are 
> only displayed).
>
> In Call ID, it has also been added the possibility to use space in free
call 
> signs.
>
> The last Multipsk test version is:
> http://f6cte. 
free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_27_10_2009.ZIP
>
> Paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or equivalent. Download the 
> file.
> Create a tempory folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the file in it and 
> start C:\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created 
> automatically).
>
> Thanks for report.
>
> 73
> Patrick
>
> Note about the initial Message ID in the ID window
> Initial Message ID (9 char. max): it is possible to send a message of 9 
> characters maximum (with the following set of characters (56) A..Z 0..9 
> space . ? = / + ! - , ; : % < > $ " ( ) * ), in background. As it is not 
> related to any specific mode, it can be useful, for example, in case of 
> difficulty of doing a QSO (thanks to the editor over the "Call ID" button
on 
> the RX/TX screen). Message ID are not considered as true Call ID and are
not 
> stored.
>
> The main use is simply to send a short message in case in difficulty
during 
> a QSO ("PSE PSK10", for example, to ask "To switch to PSK10" or "QRM +1K" 
> for "There is QRM, I increase the dial frequency by 1 KHz" or "STIL HERE"
to 
> say that "I'm still here, even if communication seems impossible".
>
>
> It could be also possible to exchange information between Hams doing other

> QSO, or between a Ham not in QSO and Hams in QSO, for two reasons:
> - the Call ID is received and transmitted in background so it can be used
at 
> any time and in any mode,
> - the Call ID appears to everybody in the bandwidth.
> For example "Hi mode?" to say "Hello, what is the mode that you use" and
it 
> can be answered "OL 32 1K" for "Olivia 32 carriers 1000 Hz".
>
>
> It will be efficient to use Q code and Ham abbreviations and to use 
> punctuations to limit the number of characters:
> - "?" question (a confirmation is required),
> - "!" a strong demand is done by the Ham with who you are in QSO (an
action 
> is required),
> - ">" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
> - "<" or "-" for "to increase the frequency",
> - "=" at the beginning without following space for "PSE " or "Please "
> - "+" at the end for "I wait for an answer"
> and why not net general smileys as ":-)" for "Smile"
>
>
> 73
> Patrick
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Steinar Aanesland" mailto:saanes%40broadpark.no> no>
> To: mailto:multipsk%40yahoogroups.com> s.com>; "*
Digitalradio" 
> mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:11 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
>
>
> 
>> Hi all
>>
>> Anyone qrv on 20m ?
>>
>> I am testing the " Message ID" in Patrick's latest beta of the
>> MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
>>
>> Hope to see you in the waterfall .
>>
>> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
>> http://www.obriensw  eb.com/sked
>>
>> Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
>> Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

Yes, it is my first ALE-400 QSO with the U.S , and I hope it is not the last 
one. This is a great mode;) 

la5vna Steinar
  




Tony wrote:
>> TonyThe file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
>> over to you. I think I will abort..
>> 
>
> Understand Steinar - lost you in the noise. Managed to received 23% of the 
> file. The RS messaging came through fine. See attached. 
>
> First ALE-400 QSO with the U.S.? 
>
> Tony -K2MO
>
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
>
>
>   
>> Tony
>>
>> The file is very small (12kb) but it will take abut 60min to send it
>> over to you. I think I will abort..
>>
>> la5vna Steinar
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony wrote:
>> 
>>> Steinar, 
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
 I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
 MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
 
 
>>> I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
>>> test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 
>>>
>>> I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
>>> robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 
>>>
>>> Tony -K2MO
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>>
>> 
>
>   

Re: AW: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Siegfried

14.074 but 20m seems to be dead now here up in the north :(

la5vna Steinar




Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
> What qrg?
>
>  
>   

AW: AW: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Yep … it´s dark outside … so highbands are closed …

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von Steinar Aanesland
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 20:51
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

 

  

Hi Siegfried

14.074 but 20m seems to be dead now here up in the north :(

la5vna Steinar

Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
> What qrg?
>
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

[pd4u_dares]

Or you can try SSTV on 20m : 14.230 MHz USB
My SSTV cam is stand by 24/7: http://www.pd4u.nl/sstv.php

Marc, PD4U

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Tony,

The Call ID that I just have slightly modified is based on a specific RS ID 
code (it was the most simple, but it is not a mode ID, just a borrowing) on 
which is implemented a more conventional frame (56 bits + CRC). The  RS ID is 
detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still better 
than PSK31).

73
Patrick

  - Original Message - 
  From: Tony 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk





  Steinar, 

  > I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
  > MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.

  I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 

  I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 

  Tony -K2MO




  

Re: [digitalradio] lpt to com port assignment?

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Daniel,

In the Multipsk package (http://f6cte.free.fr), you have a file which name is 
RS232_EN.doc. It shows how to connect a RS232 9 pins port. It will give you 
idea. LPT port is not very used because it's not very easy to control from 
Windows (from DOS it was easy, by addressing directly the electronic ports).
However on the Net, you have many other diagrams.

73
Patrick
  - Original Message - 
  From: Siegfried Jackstien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:30 PM
  Subject: AW: [digitalradio] lpt to com port assignment?





  Use a serial port . not lpt . and surely not the 15pole connection . this is 
for your monitor

  You find the serial port at the backside and it is 9 pole in two rows . one 
with 4 and one with 5

  If you have no serial port (only usb) there are several usb-serial 
transformers available for a few bucks

  If you have now a serial port you should use an optocoupler for triggering 
ptt on your trx .

  Just google psk31 modem or something and you will find lots of circuits

  Hope I could help

  Dg9bfc

  Sigi

   


--

  Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im 
Auftrag von kg4kri
  Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 02:36
  An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Betreff: [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 --... ...--




  

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[John B. Stephensen]

The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second on 
each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per 
subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was a 
better method than the current regulation by content rules but was opposed 
by too many people.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: Charles Brabham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone


  John:

Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes?

The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are 
not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.

[digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

[John]

Maybe I am growing a little bit confused here .

As I follow this thread, am I hearing that there is a flat limit of 300 baud in 
all aspects of amateur radio? 

First, can't we use 1200 baud in certain cases, such as above 2 meters? 

Second, how do we correlate the 300 baud limit when we use such tools as EZPal 
and other file transfer programs/protocols?

Am I to understand that these are working at a maximum symbol change rate of 
300 baud?

guess I better do a whole lot more reading because this is getting quite 
complex now 
 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen"  wrote:
>
> The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second on 
> each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per 
> subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was a 
> better method than the current regulation by content rules but was opposed 
> by too many people.
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: Charles Brabham
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
> 
> 
>   John:
> 
> Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes?
> 
> The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are 
> not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

[John B. Stephensen]

According to the terms of our licenses, each of us is supposed to have read and 
understood part 97 of the FCC rules and regulations. Here's a summary of the 
upper limits for RTTY/data emissions in 97.305 and 97.307 as I read it:

1.8-24.99 MHz: 300 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum 
bandwidth
28-29.7 MHz: 1200 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum 
bandwidth
50-144 MHz: 19,200 baud, 20 kHz bandwidth
219-220 MHz: 100 kHz bandwidth
222-450 MHz: 56,000 baud, 100 kHz bandwidth
1240+ MHz: no limits

The facsimile in HF rtty/data segments exception was put in recently to allow 
the use of Hellschreiber. There are no data rate (bits per second) limitations 
on any frequency and no bandwidth limitations on HF except for fax.

For phone/image emssions the rules are different. For 1.8-148 and 222-225 MHz 
non-phone emissions are limited to the bandwidth of communications-quality 
phone emissions of same modulation type. Given the maximum bandwdths used for 
each mode in the past, this presumably means less than 3.4 kHz for SSB, 10 kHz 
for AM/ISB and 30 kHz for FM. Note that image includes B7W, B8W and B9W (ISB) 
emissions that can contain any combination of rtty, data, phone and image. 
There are no baud rate limits. There are no limits at all for 420 MHz and 
above, except that emissions must stay within the band.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: John 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 21:50 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone


Maybe I am growing a little bit confused here .

  As I follow this thread, am I hearing that there is a flat limit of 300 baud 
in all aspects of amateur radio? 

  First, can't we use 1200 baud in certain cases, such as above 2 meters? 

  Second, how do we correlate the 300 baud limit when we use such tools as 
EZPal and other file transfer programs/protocols?

  Am I to understand that these are working at a maximum symbol change rate of 
300 baud?

  guess I better do a whole lot more reading because this is getting quite 
complex now 


  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen"  wrote:
  >
  > The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second on 
  > each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per 
  > subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was a 
  > better method than the current regulation by content rules but was opposed 
  > by too many people.
  > 
  > 73,
  > 
  > John
  > KD6OZH
  > 
  > - Original Message - 
  > From: Charles Brabham
  > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
  > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
  > 
  > 
  > John:
  > 
  > Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes?
  > 
  > The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are 
  > not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
  >



  

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

[Phil Williams]

What?  No THOR?! ;-)

philw de ka1gmn

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, obrienaj  wrote:

>
>
> We have had few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID.
> Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31... I
> thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31
> or RTTY to try a task this weekend. Three QSOs in three different modes. To
> keep is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes
>
> Olivia
> Feld Hell
> Domninoex
> MFSK16
> MT63
>
> If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get
> you started. Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can
> help set up.
>
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

[Kurt Tuttle]

I would recommend FeldHell also.
 
KT
K8YZK

--- On Thu, 10/29/09, Phil Williams  wrote:


From: Phil Williams 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 7:13 PM


  




What?  No THOR?! ;-)
 
philw de ka1gmn


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, obrienaj  wrote:


  



We have had few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID. 
Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31... I 
thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31 or 
RTTY to try a task this weekend. Three QSOs in three different modes. To keep 
is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes

Olivia 
Feld Hell
Domninoex
MFSK16
MT63

If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get you 
started. Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can help set 
up.



















  

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

[Tony]

Patrick,

Thanks for adding the messaging feature. Andy, K3UK, and I were able to copy 
Sholto's, RS messages some 3700km away on 20 meters. Sholto, K7TMG, was running 
5 watts and a vertical antenna. We found the high sensitivity of the message 
mode useful as signals fell below the decode threshold of the chat modes we 
were using at the time.  

> The  RS ID is detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB 
> (however still better
> than PSK31).

Very sensitive, more than most sound card chat-modes. I'm not sure why Patrick, 
but my SNR tests indicate that the RSID used for mode detection has a 6db 
advantage over the CALL ID. I ran both modes through the path simulator 10 
times each and established a minimum SNR when they decoded 10 out-of 10 times 
or 100%. 

I'll check all levels and try again. 

Thanks Patrick. 

Tony -K2MO 

   




- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Lindecker" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk


> Hello Tony,
> 
> The Call ID that I just have slightly modified is based on a specific RS ID 
> code (it was the most simple, but it is not a mode ID, just a borrowing) on 
> which is implemented a more conventional frame (56 bits + CRC). The  RS ID is 
> detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still 
> better than PSK31).
> 
> 73
> Patrick
> 
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: Tony 
>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>  Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:52 PM
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Steinar, 
> 
>  > I am testing the " Message ID"  in Patrick's  latest beta of the
>  > MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074.
> 
>  I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did 
> test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. 
> 
>  I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and 
> robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... 
> 
>  Tony -K2MO
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

[John]

So sorry John . 

of course you are right . 

we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 . 

I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it 
verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit 
it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it  

could you remind me again about where that rule was located?   HiHi 

In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to be 
misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I could have 
missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the maximum baud 
rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out is quite untrue 
.

Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in the 
face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating on 
customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) 

Thanks again

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen"  wrote:
>
> According to the terms of our licenses, each of us is supposed to have read 
> and understood part 97 of the FCC rules and regulations. Here's a summary of 
> the upper limits for RTTY/data emissions in 97.305 and 97.307 as I read it:
> 
> 1.8-24.99 MHz: 300 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum 
> bandwidth
> 28-29.7 MHz: 1200 baud with 1 kHz shift or facsimile with 500 Hz maximum 
> bandwidth
> 50-144 MHz: 19,200 baud, 20 kHz bandwidth
> 219-220 MHz: 100 kHz bandwidth
> 222-450 MHz: 56,000 baud, 100 kHz bandwidth
> 1240+ MHz: no limits
> 
> The facsimile in HF rtty/data segments exception was put in recently to allow 
> the use of Hellschreiber. There are no data rate (bits per second) 
> limitations on any frequency and no bandwidth limitations on HF except for 
> fax.
> 
> For phone/image emssions the rules are different. For 1.8-148 and 222-225 MHz 
> non-phone emissions are limited to the bandwidth of communications-quality 
> phone emissions of same modulation type. Given the maximum bandwdths used for 
> each mode in the past, this presumably means less than 3.4 kHz for SSB, 10 
> kHz for AM/ISB and 30 kHz for FM. Note that image includes B7W, B8W and B9W 
> (ISB) emissions that can contain any combination of rtty, data, phone and 
> image. There are no baud rate limits. There are no limits at all for 420 MHz 
> and above, except that emissions must stay within the band.
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: John 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 21:50 UTC
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
> 
> 
> Maybe I am growing a little bit confused here .
> 
>   As I follow this thread, am I hearing that there is a flat limit of 300 
> baud in all aspects of amateur radio? 
> 
>   First, can't we use 1200 baud in certain cases, such as above 2 meters? 
> 
>   Second, how do we correlate the 300 baud limit when we use such tools as 
> EZPal and other file transfer programs/protocols?
> 
>   Am I to understand that these are working at a maximum symbol change rate 
> of 300 baud?
> 
>   guess I better do a whole lot more reading because this is getting quite 
> complex now 
> 
> 
>   --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen"  wrote:
>   >
>   > The baud rate limit applies but this means 300 symbol changes per second 
> on 
>   > each subcarrier. The number of subcarriers and the number of bits per 
>   > subcarrier is not limited. The ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal was 
> a 
>   > better method than the current regulation by content rules but was 
> opposed 
>   > by too many people.
>   > 
>   > 73,
>   > 
>   > John
>   > KD6OZH
>   > 
>   > - Original Message - 
>   > From: Charles Brabham
>   > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
>   > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
>   > 
>   > 
>   > John:
>   > 
>   > Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes?
>   > 
>   > The fact that they are mentioned does not necessarily imply that they are 
>   > not intended to fall under the 300 baud restriction.
>   >
>

[digitalradio] FLARQ outperforms WINMOR

[Andy obrien]

Well, not an apples to apples test..  but Ron NY3J and I played for
quite a while with FLARQ tonight on 80M and 40.  80M was was in poor
shape with QRN and weak signals but we managed a few slow MFSK16 email
transfers.  We then switched to 40M and I received Ron about S5, he
was 200 miles away.  We really had NO problems transferring email and
text files using PSK250.  I sent one big file that averaged 800 bytes
per minute .  On Winmor I have not had more than 300 bytes  per minute
although some  have reported 1000 bytes per minute.  My sound card was
a $1.50 USB sound adapter.  After an hour or so, we tried PSK500 but
were not able to get a "connect"  perhaps the band was changing.

So, while we are having fun seeing the good progress of WINMOR ...
don't forget FLARQ.  It is simple and it works well.  My next step is
to see if I can run both FLARQ and PSKMAIL at the same time.  While in
the shack until about 0600 UTC, I will have my FLARQ beacon  beaconing
every 15 minutes.  I have RS ID on , so you can switch me over if you
need to change modes. Drop me an email on 7083 (7082 dial, plus 1000
hz on waterfall)   When it is sleep time, I will close since we do not
run this "unattended".



Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

[John B. Stephensen]

The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by 
bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there 
are very few restrictions on image transmission.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: John
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone


  So sorry John .

of course you are right .

we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 .

I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it 
verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit 
it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it 

could you remind me again about where that rule was located?  HiHi

In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to 
be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I 
could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the 
maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out 
is quite untrue .

Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in 
the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating 
on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) 

Thanks again