Re: [digitalradio] 13 pin DIN plug switch box?
Serial port switch link: http://sewelldirect.com/serial-db9-manual-switch-4.asp 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org
Re: [digitalradio] 13 pin DIN plug switch box?
You can still get serial port switches that work well for this, they have a rotary switch inside, giving you plenty of options. Here's a place that advertises them, at swap-fests you can get them for next to nothing. Use RS-232 plugs to hook everything up, I use one for a digital-or-microphone switch. Works great. 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: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] 13 pin DIN plug switch box? All, Does anyone know where I can find a 13 pin DIN plug switch box? I use the ACC2 socket on my Kenwood TS2000 to run sound card modes and connect my Kam Plus TNC. A switch would come in handy. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] 13 pin DIN plug switch box?
All, Does anyone know where I can find a 13 pin DIN plug switch box? I use the ACC2 socket on my Kenwood TS2000 to run sound card modes and connect my Kam Plus TNC. A switch would come in handy. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: QRV ALE special group
I have now added 3584 and 3596 US6 to my scan for the evening. Andy K3UK On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > I have modified my ALE station and during daylight hours I will be > scanning the following channels while in the shack most of the day > (I'll add 80M later tonight) > > 7074 USB > *7102 USB > *10145.5 USB > 14074 USB > *14109 USB > > * denotes standard ALE data channels commonly used by ALE stations > > The 14074 and 7074 frequencies are not typically monitored by ALE > stations but are often used by digital mode enthusiasts for modes > other than PSK31 or RTTY. I am prosing that members of this group > use 7074 and 14074 using standard ALE and make occasion calls on these > frequencies in attended mode . > > So far thjis morning I have seen > > > [16:44:12][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][WB6MZS > ][AL0] BER 17 SN 03 (note a decode with weak signals) > [16:12:01][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][KM4BA > ][AL0] BER 30 SN 06 > [16:11:02][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][WD8ARZ > ][AL0] BER 26 SN 08 > > and surprise visitor to my station > > [16:44:48][FRQ 14109000][LINKED ][KA1GMN ] > [16:50:28][FRQ 14109000][TO ][K3UK ][TIS][KA1GMN > ][AL0] BER 28 SN 06 > > Who found me while I was scanning at one channel every two seconds, > well done Phil. You disappeared though. > > > > > I will monitor all of the listed frequencies and welcome calls. Will > switch to other modes as needed after the initial link. > > Andy K3UK > Fredonia, NY. >
Re: [digitalradio] ALE: The great KA1GMN experiment
It would have been a great experiment if I had known what I was doing. In typical philw fashion, I jumped head first and thrashed around, randomly spinning knobs, flipping switches, tapping on meters, toggling the mains, and throwing levers in a completely random fashion. Eventually, I managed to produce some desireable results by sending something readable to Andy. Manualsbah philw de ka1gmn On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > Well, it was not really a GREAT experiment in the grand scheme of > things... but it worked . Phil KA1GMN proved my earlier point about > ALE.. despite a lack of overall "robustness" comapred to other digital > modes... it IS USEFUL for finding people. Today I was scanning > multiple frequencies and bands ...every 2 seconds, and my station > heard a call for me from KA1GMN... The software cause my rig to stopp > scanning, our stations LINKED , we used the AMD mode in ALE for brief > keyboard chat, determined that we could have an easier time with > another mode, chose ALE400 and had a nice long QSO with great copy. > > So, ALE does provide a useful way to contact friends and an > alternative to traditional CQ methods. > > Andy K3UK > >
[digitalradio] ALE: The great KA1GMN experiment
Well, it was not really a GREAT experiment in the grand scheme of things... but it worked . Phil KA1GMN proved my earlier point about ALE.. despite a lack of overall "robustness" comapred to other digital modes... it IS USEFUL for finding people. Today I was scanning multiple frequencies and bands ...every 2 seconds, and my station heard a call for me from KA1GMN... The software cause my rig to stopp scanning, our stations LINKED , we used the AMD mode in ALE for brief keyboard chat, determined that we could have an easier time with another mode, chose ALE400 and had a nice long QSO with great copy. So, ALE does provide a useful way to contact friends and an alternative to traditional CQ methods. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
Patrick, Thank you. philw de ka1gmn On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Patrick Lindecker wrote: > > > Hello Andy, > > In the auxiliary functions window, you can choose to send an AMD or a DTM > or DBM message: > * AMD is the standard one, > * but DBM is the best way (the most reliable). > > 73 > Patrick > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Andy obrien > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group > > AMD is usually the one most use for a quick chat after a link is > established. Since I do not use Multipsk for ALE 141 I am not really sure > how AMD versus DTM or DBM is set up. ALE 400 is better for regular rag > chews. > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Phil Williams wrote: > >> >> >> Ok thanks. For simple QSOs, what mode within standard ALE do you >> recommend? >> >> philw de ka1gmn >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Andy obrien wrote: >> > > >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
Hello Andy, In the auxiliary functions window, you can choose to send an AMD or a DTM or DBM message: * AMD is the standard one, * but DBM is the best way (the most reliable). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group AMD is usually the one most use for a quick chat after a link is established. Since I do not use Multipsk for ALE 141 I am not really sure how AMD versus DTM or DBM is set up. ALE 400 is better for regular rag chews. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Phil Williams wrote: Ok thanks. For simple QSOs, what mode within standard ALE do you recommend? philw de ka1gmn On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
Hello, > Once an effective, simple and robust SELCAL standard is developed (again > IMHO it should be a logical extension of the >existing RSID and Call ID > standards) it could eventually be parlayed into a more modern and > effective variant of ALE. By using RR for the nice SELCAL idea. I'm not sure it would be very easy if you need a symetrical acknowledgment. If it is only a one way transmission without any double acknowledgment it is much more easy. RS ID and CALL ID are public sources. So... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: "aa777888athotmaildotcom" To: Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:18 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming > I've gave PCALE a very good try. As implemented it suffers from several > problems: > > 1. It is equipment specific and intensive. You either need an SGC tuner > set up for bypass-on-receive (the only brand I am aware of that has this > capability) or a special antenna that is resonant and efficient on each > band you plan to scan. You can also set up RF switching to bypass the > tuner on receive but that becomes even more complex. There was a computer > controlled tuner on the market that could be controlled by MARS-ALE but > MARS-ALE is not available to mere mortals and the tuner itself was buggy > and is now out of production. > > 2. The link margins necessary for the calling waveform are pretty > substantial. Those used to the relatively robust nature of RSID or any of > the other common digital modes will be sorely disappointed. Even Winmor, > while better than ALE, requires substantially better conditions for > success. > > 3. The software itself is relatively complex to setup and operate. I'm > sure Andy will argue to the contrary :-) However IMHO it's significantly > more involved than just firing up Fldigi and banging away at some Olivia > or PSK. > > 4. The widely shared nature of the ham bands makes collisions inevitable > given the automation inherent in ALE (automation that is the whole point, > in fact) and the limitations of even the best busy channel detection > algorithm. This issue tends to generate a lot of hate and discontent. > However this ought to be the least worrisome issue. With an appropriate > band plan (which already exists for PCALE) the carnage can be limited to > just the ALE calling channels and anyone who wants to use ALE should be > expected to sign up for a certain amount of interference and not be > whining about it as long as it stays on the calling freq's. > > In lieu of full-blown ALE consider the following idea: > > I'm no software engineer and beggars can't be choosers, so forgive me for > making the following related suggestion (Patrick already laid into me on > this once!) Consider that RSID is great for identifying the mode and that > Call ID is great for identifying who is calling. Both use signaling > standards and waveforms that are very simple and robust. But what is > missing is an equivalent SELCAL (selective calling) signaling standard > using waveforms and formats similar to RSID and Call ID. Imagine you > wanted to find somebody monitoring the 3KHz of USB spectrum at 14070KHz > dial freq. You could find a clear spot in the waterfall and transmit the > SELCAL which contains the call sign of the station you wish to reach. At > the receiving station the SELCAL enabled software would function in the > same manner as that currently done for RSID, i.e. detect the call, > display/sound a notification and provide automation for tuning and > answering under operator control. > > Once an effective, simple and robust SELCAL standard is developed (again > IMHO it should be a logical extension of the existing RSID and Call ID > standards) it could eventually be parlayed into a more modern and > effective variant of ALE. By using time synchronized band scanning and > transmission (similar to WSPR et al) probability of intercept can be > substantially improved. Neither the SELCAL or time synchronization > represent new technology and both derive from proven, similar > implementations. So if one were to make a SELCAL on 80M, for example, once > the spot on the waterfall was chosen by the operator (because we can't > rely on unreliable busy-channel detection technology) the SELCAL > transmission would occur at say for instance 10 seconds past the minute. > Synchronized scanning would put all stations on 80M at 10-15 seconds past > the minute, 40M at 15-20 seconds, and so on. > > The last piece would be to perfect busy channel detection and automate the > selection of empty places on the waterfall, but this part of the puzzle is > useless with SELCAL (very useful by itself) and synchronized > scanning/transmission. And once this last part was perfected we are back > to requiring special tuner/antenna solutions. > > > > > > > > Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experim
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
I think what is far more likely is that PC-ALE users simply won't care, and that as use of PC-ALE increases, so will the harmful inteference events associated with it. The system was not designed for use on amateur radio's shared spectrum, and that is why it's use is not appropriate there. The best bet is to either move on and forget PC-ALE entirely, or to find a programmer who will remove the auto-lid feature. If removing he auto-lid feature is too crippling to PC-ALE, then that should serve as a good clue to all that PC-ALE is not appropriate for amateur radio use. I'm not saying that PC-ALE should not be used, just that it needs to be impossible to set it up in auto-lid mode and walk away from the transmitter with it operating that way for any appreciable amount of time. 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: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor I should point out that the ALE software (both PC-ALE and Multipsk) have anti-lid features in that you can easily set-up the software NOT to transmit but continue to scan when you are out of the shack. You have to tell it each time, the sofware does not know if you are in the shack or not... perhaps future versions will have heat detecting features and will sense when you are live in the radio room! Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
AMD is usually the one most use for a quick chat after a link is established. Since I do not use Multipsk for ALE 141 I am not really sure how AMD versus DTM or DBM is set up. ALE 400 is better for regular rag chews. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Phil Williams wrote: > > > Ok thanks. For simple QSOs, what mode within standard ALE do you recommend? > > philw de ka1gmn > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Andy obrien wrote: >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
Ok thanks. For simple QSOs, what mode within standard ALE do you recommend? philw de ka1gmn On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > I am scanning in standard ALE. I would love the ability to "dual" scan > (both regular and ALE400) but software does not permit this. > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Phil Williams wrote: > >> >> >> 14074 - 141a or ALE400? >> >> >> >> > > >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
actually, I am now doing both...in a crude way. PC-ALE is controlling my rig and scanning standard ALE . I also have Multipsk running, not scanning, but it will sound an alert if a ALE400 signal is detected. PC-ALE will not pause however, since it does not know anything about ALE400, so I am not sure if this method will do anything or not. I'll test and see, The main reason I have Multipsk up is that I can easily switch to a different digital mode of I receive a connect/link from an ALE station. Andy K3UK On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Andy obrien wrote: > I am scanning in standard ALE. I would love the ability to "dual" scan > (both regular and ALE400) but software does not permit this. > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Phil Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> 14074 - 141a or ALE400? >> >> >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
I am scanning in standard ALE. I would love the ability to "dual" scan (both regular and ALE400) but software does not permit this. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Phil Williams wrote: > > > 14074 - 141a or ALE400? > > > >
[digitalradio] for what it's worth
No date or time stamp but I had part of a VK3 call on the screen from overnight. John, W0JAB in the center of fly over country
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
14074 - 141a or ALE400? On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > I have modified my ALE station and during daylight hours I will be > scanning the following channels while in the shack most of the day > (I'll add 80M later tonight) > > 7074 USB > *7102 USB > *10145.5 USB > 14074 USB > *14109 USB > > * denotes standard ALE data channels commonly used by ALE stations > > The 14074 and 7074 frequencies are not typically monitored by ALE > stations but are often used by digital mode enthusiasts for modes > other than PSK31 or RTTY. I am prosing that members of this group > use 7074 and 14074 using standard ALE and make occasion calls on these > frequencies in attended mode . > > So far thjis morning I have seen > > [16:44:12][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][WB6MZS > ][AL0] BER 17 SN 03 (note a decode with weak signals) > [16:12:01][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][KM4BA > ][AL0] BER 30 SN 06 > [16:11:02][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][WD8ARZ > ][AL0] BER 26 SN 08 > > and surprise visitor to my station > > [16:44:48][FRQ 14109000][LINKED ][KA1GMN ] > [16:50:28][FRQ 14109000][TO ][K3UK ][TIS][KA1GMN > ][AL0] BER 28 SN 06 > > Who found me while I was scanning at one channel every two seconds, > well done Phil. You disappeared though. > > I will monitor all of the listed frequencies and welcome calls. Will > switch to other modes as needed after the initial link. > > Andy K3UK > Fredonia, NY. > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
I should point out that the ALE software (both PC-ALE and Multipsk) have anti-lid features in that you can easily set-up the software NOT to transmit but continue to scan when you are out of the shack. You have to tell it each time, the sofware does not know if you are in the shack or not... perhaps future versions will have heat detecting features and will sense when you are live in the radio room! Andy K3UK On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Phil Williams wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation of scanning. I don't think the scanning part of > this will be in the cards for me right now, but I am still interesting in > participating. > > "I agree with Charles, ALE does have a "lid" factor in that you can > transmit automatically and on top of another QSO. I am advocating that we > do this will in the shack and listening first." > > I could not agree with Charles and you more on this point. If the busy > channel feature is lacking then, being in the shack when operating this mode > is the only right thing to do. > > Personally, automatic operation doesn't do it for me. Each to his/her > own. I just find it more entertaining when there is a live human on the > end. > > philw de ka1gmn >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE and rigs
> > > Andy--are you saying that the TS2000 and 746 will tune BEFORE transmit > (assuming valid tune data for that freq is there)? If so that's really great, > but it still speaks to my issue on requiring particular and more elaborate > equipment to operate "real" ALE, i.e. scanning ALE (which is the whole point, > of course!) Yes, my rig easily does this, I also set up and tested a friends 746 Pro and all was OK too. Essentially, you just do a manual "tune" of each ALE data channel and the rig's tuner memorizes the setting henceforth Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] QRV ALE special group
I have modified my ALE station and during daylight hours I will be scanning the following channels while in the shack most of the day (I'll add 80M later tonight) 7074 USB *7102 USB *10145.5 USB 14074 USB *14109USB * denotes standard ALE data channels commonly used by ALE stations The 14074 and 7074 frequencies are not typically monitored by ALE stations but are often used by digital mode enthusiasts for modes other than PSK31 or RTTY. I am prosing that members of this group use 7074 and 14074 using standard ALE and make occasion calls on these frequencies in attended mode . So far thjis morning I have seen [16:44:12][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][WB6MZS ][AL0] BER 17 SN 03 (note a decode with weak signals) [16:12:01][FRQ 10145500][SND][ ][TWS][KM4BA ][AL0] BER 30 SN 06 [16:11:02][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][WD8ARZ ][AL0] BER 26 SN 08 and surprise visitor to my station [16:44:48][FRQ 14109000][LINKED ][KA1GMN ] [16:50:28][FRQ 14109000][TO ][K3UK ][TIS][KA1GMN ][AL0] BER 28 SN 06 Who found me while I was scanning at one channel every two seconds, well done Phil. You disappeared though. I will monitor all of the listed frequencies and welcome calls. Will switch to other modes as needed after the initial link. Andy K3UK Fredonia, NY.
[digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM, aa777888athotmaildotcom > wrote: > > > > > > > > I've gave PCALE a very good try. As implemented it suffers from several > > problems: > > > > 1. It is equipment specific and intensive. You either need an SGC tuner set > > up for bypass-on-receive (the only brand I am aware of that has this > > capability) or a special antenna that is resonant and >efficient on each > > band you plan to scan. You can also set up RF switching to bypass the tuner > > on receive but that becomes even more complex. There was a computer > > controlled tuner on the market >that could be controlled by MARS-ALE but > > MARS-ALE is not available to mere mortals and the tuner itself was buggy > > and is now out of production. > > > This is not really correct with PC-ALE and a modern receiver that has > a internal antenna tuner. I have used PC-ALE with a TS2000 and an > Icom 746 Pro and the tuner in both rigs memorizes settings for each > frequency fast enough so that a match is achieved before an ALE > transmission. So, with my basic home brewed antennas (a 60M loop and > a 20M ground plan vertical) I can macth 80-10M and use PC-ALE (or > Multipsk) fully. Andy--are you saying that the TS2000 and 746 will tune BEFORE transmit (assuming valid tune data for that freq is there)? If so that's really great, but it still speaks to my issue on requiring particular and more elaborate equipment to operate "real" ALE, i.e. scanning ALE (which is the whole point, of course!) If they don't tune before transmit then you could be receiving into an unmatched antenna and thereby potentially causing significant reception problems. My smart external tuner, an MFJ-993B, is almost fast enough (I have to add more "tune bits", which is just ONE thing that speaks to my "ALE is NOT so easy to set up argument" ;-) as it also tunes from memory, but it still doesn't help me on receive. :-(
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE /Scan rates
Thanks for the explanation of scanning. I don't think the scanning part of this will be in the cards for me right now, but I am still interesting in participating. "I agree with Charles, ALE does have a "lid" factor in that you can transmit automatically and on top of another QSO. I am advocating that we do this will in the shack and listening first." I could not agree with Charles and you more on this point. If the busy channel feature is lacking then, being in the shack when operating this mode is the only right thing to do. Personally, automatic operation doesn't do it for me. Each to his/her own. I just find it more entertaining when there is a live human on the end. philw de ka1gmn On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > In Multipsk and PC-ALE there are settings that enable the user to select > the scanning rate . The scan rate needs to match the typical length of a > "sounding" or a individual call. . By that I mean, if a station sounds for > 15 seconds but you change frequency every 30 seconds, you are going to miss > a call and defeat one of the main features of ALE. Typically, a 2 seconds > per channel scan rate is quite sufficient and all rigs that I know of can do > this. Sometimes I slow it down and choose a 5 second per channel option, > this works well too. I am puzzled by the fact tha ALE default digital mode > is accepted as not be very robust but I have seen it detect basic callsigns > from a very weak signal while scanning quite fast. > > If your rig is scanning the 80.40,30,20,15,17,12,10 ALE data channels that > is 8 channels covered in 16 seconds. The next issue , if doing multiband > scanning with a non-resonant antenna, is can your antenna tuner detect you > have changed frequency and match the new frequency quickly enough (before > transmit begins). My TS2000 can, my TS440 cannot . The TS440 antenna tuner > does not memorize settings and thus has to take time to match each time, > that is too long for ALE. > > Please note that I agree with Charles, ALE does have a "lid" factor in that > you can transmit automatically and on top of another QSO. I am advocating > that we do this will in the shack and listening first. > > Andy K3UK > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Phil Williams wrote: > >> >> >> "This is not really correct with PC-ALE and a modern receiver that has >> a internal antenna tuner. I have used PC-ALE with a TS2000 and an >> Icom 746 Pro and the tuner in both rigs memorizes settings for each >> transmission" >> >> How fast does the rig need to scan? >> >> philw de ka1gmn >> > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM, WD8ARZ wrote: > > > > Good to see this post Andy. and good to see your ALE station this morning, loud and clear even though the BER was only a moderate 26. [16:11:02][FRQ 07102000][SND][ ][TWS][WD8ARZ ][AL0] BER 26 SN 08 Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE /Scan rates
In Multipsk and PC-ALE there are settings that enable the user to select the scanning rate . The scan rate needs to match the typical length of a "sounding" or a individual call. . By that I mean, if a station sounds for 15 seconds but you change frequency every 30 seconds, you are going to miss a call and defeat one of the main features of ALE. Typically, a 2 seconds per channel scan rate is quite sufficient and all rigs that I know of can do this. Sometimes I slow it down and choose a 5 second per channel option, this works well too. I am puzzled by the fact tha ALE default digital mode is accepted as not be very robust but I have seen it detect basic callsigns from a very weak signal while scanning quite fast. If your rig is scanning the 80.40,30,20,15,17,12,10 ALE data channels that is 8 channels covered in 16 seconds. The next issue , if doing multiband scanning with a non-resonant antenna, is can your antenna tuner detect you have changed frequency and match the new frequency quickly enough (before transmit begins). My TS2000 can, my TS440 cannot . The TS440 antenna tuner does not memorize settings and thus has to take time to match each time, that is too long for ALE. Please note that I agree with Charles, ALE does have a "lid" factor in that you can transmit automatically and on top of another QSO. I am advocating that we do this will in the shack and listening first. Andy K3UK On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Phil Williams wrote: > > > "This is not really correct with PC-ALE and a modern receiver that has > a internal antenna tuner. I have used PC-ALE with a TS2000 and an > Icom 746 Pro and the tuner in both rigs memorizes settings for each > transmission" > > How fast does the rig need to scan? > > philw de ka1gmn > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
"This is not really correct with PC-ALE and a modern receiver that has a internal antenna tuner. I have used PC-ALE with a TS2000 and an Icom 746 Pro and the tuner in both rigs memorizes settings for each transmission" How fast does the rig need to scan? philw de ka1gmn
Re: [digitalradio] Which radio ?
Many rigs can be brought into play for a variety of services and be a joy to own. This thread focus's on digital modes, so . I love my TS-480HX, and it is used on the base for 24/7 digital ALE operations. Its better performance due to NOT having two meters and four forty bands improves the HF side. It is my main mobile rig. The extra power of the HX allows running at lower power, such as 100 watts, at near full duty cycle that a normal 100 watt rig would not do well at. Same for operating in hot mobile situations running digital in a hot mobile can be handled by this rig. The HX version has two cooling fans along with the normal 480 heavy case fin cooling design. The IC-7000 runs hot just for the voice duty cycle . Down load the TS-480HX/SAT In Depth Manual at the link below, and read it right from Kenwood experts. Then you will understand why no two meters and four forty is desirable in the design of an HF receiver. An exception is the TS-2000 with separate modules for the other bands, but it is known to have a different HF design that doesnt have as good a performance on HF bands as the 480 design. http://www.kenwood.com/i/products/info/amateur/software_download.html I miss the DSP auto notch of the MP when using the 480. That is the one feature that amazes me as to why it wasnt included. Yes, I plan on keeping the 480 for a long time, and maybe getting another but I would not part with my Ft-1000MP with the dual I.F. cascaded physical filter design though... hi Hi HI Another ALE operator has a radio of interest for digital, the Icom IC-718. She points out that a few minor mod's are useful and should be incorporated. Please check out Bonnie's email on the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hflink/ reflector for the details. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:18 PM, aa777888athotmaildotcom wrote: > > > > I've gave PCALE a very good try. As implemented it suffers from several > problems: > > 1. It is equipment specific and intensive. You either need an SGC tuner set > up for bypass-on-receive (the only brand I am aware of that has this > capability) or a special antenna that is resonant and >efficient on each band > you plan to scan. You can also set up RF switching to bypass the tuner on > receive but that becomes even more complex. There was a computer controlled > tuner on the market >that could be controlled by MARS-ALE but MARS-ALE is not > available to mere mortals and the tuner itself was buggy and is now out of > production. This is not really correct with PC-ALE and a modern receiver that has a internal antenna tuner. I have used PC-ALE with a TS2000 and an Icom 746 Pro and the tuner in both rigs memorizes settings for each frequency fast enough so that a match is achieved before an ALE transmission. So, with my basic home brewed antennas (a 60M loop and a 20M ground plan vertical) I can macth 80-10M and use PC-ALE (or Multipsk) fully. > > 2. The link margins necessary for the calling waveform are pretty > substantial. Those used to the relatively robust nature of RSID or any of the > other common digital modes will be sorely disappointed. >Even Winmor, while > better than ALE, requires substantially better conditions for success. > > 3. The software itself is relatively complex to setup and operate. I'm sure > Andy will argue to the contrary :-) However IMHO it's significantly more > involved than just firing up Fldigi and banging away at >some Olivia or PSK. You are correct, I'll argue to the contrary. It is easier that FLdigi to set up EXCEPT the terminology used in the program is not familiar to many of us and contributes to confusion. The quick guide to setting it up that is on the hflink web site can help an ham be up and running in 2 minutes. > > 4. The widely shared nature of the ham bands makes collisions inevitable > given the automation inherent in ALE (automation that is the whole point, in > fact) and the limitations of even the best busy >channel detection algorithm. > This issue tends to generate a lot of hate and discontent. However this ought > to be the least worrisome issue. With an appropriate band plan (which already > exists for >PCALE) the carnage can be limited to just the ALE calling > channels and anyone who wants to use ALE should be expected to sign up for a > certain amount of interference and not be whining about it >as long as it > stays on the calling freq's. > I agree. > In lieu of full-blown ALE consider the following idea: > > I'm no software engineer and beggars can't be choosers, so forgive me for > making the following related suggestion (Patrick already laid into me on this > once!) Consider that RSID is great for identifying the mode and that Call ID > is great for identifying who is calling. Both use signaling standards and > waveforms that are very simple and robust. But what is missing is an > equivalent SELCAL (selective calling) signaling standard using waveforms and > formats similar to RSID and Call ID. Imagine you wanted to find somebody > monitoring the 3KHz of USB spectrum at 14070KHz dial freq. You could find a > clear spot in the waterfall and transmit the SELCAL which contains the call > sign of the station you wish to reach. At the receiving station the SELCAL > enabled software would function in the same manner as that currently done for > RSID, i.e. detect the call, display/sound a notification and provide > automation for tuning and answering under operator control. > > Once an effective, simple and robust SELCAL standard is developed (again IMHO > it should be a logical extension of the existing RSID and Call ID standards) > it could eventually be parlayed into a more modern and effective variant of > ALE. By using time synchronized band scanning and transmission (similar to > WSPR et al) probability of intercept can be substantially improved. Neither > the SELCAL or time synchronization represent new technology and both derive > from proven, similar implementations. So if one were to make a SELCAL on 80M, > for example, once the spot on the waterfall was chosen by the operator > (because we can't rely on unreliable busy-channel detection technology) the > SELCAL transmission would occur at say for instance 10 seconds past the > minute. Synchronized scanning would put all stations on 80M at 10-15 seconds > past the minute, 40M at 15-20 seconds, and so on. > > The last piece would be to perfect busy channel detection and automate the > selection of empty places on the waterfall, but this part of the puzzle is > useless with SELCAL (very useful by itself) and synchronized > scanning/transmission. And once this last part was perfected we are back to > requiring special tuner/antenna solutions. > Sound lik
Re: [digitalradio] Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming
Good to see this post Andy. For those concerned about having a full blown ALE station that scan, though it is preferred, it is not fully required. You can go to an established ALE channel and stay fixed. Make a long ALE call, and the scanning station(s) that can hear you will respond to you on their scan on the frequency you are fixed on (depending on the kind of ALE call you make, you could get multiple connections). In other words, the will find you if propagation / signal quality permit. This way you dont have to have an antenna for all bands, and a fast tuner for scanning on those bands. When you dont get an answer by the specific station or group call you made, change to another established ALE frequency and try again etc etc until you get the connection. Then communicate your schedule or other needs, and use other modes for a more dynamic exchange of information. Keep in mind that another key feature in addition to those pointed out by Andy, is that the scanning ALE stations also collect information about what stations are heard on what frequencies, when and what signal quality. That information can be used to establish communications quicker, or to determine a schedule that would be best based on on those history of the stations info collected. There are also ALE / Voice channels that are established where short ALE calls are made to determine if a station is on frequency, and to then quickly switch to a voice mode to communicate on that same frequency these are stations that are manned for those activities. Using HFN Stations, short text messages can be sent to email address and cell phones to arrange for communications schedules, or provide information, such as telling your wife that you are ok and will be in touch soon etc etc You can email to non hams, they just cant communicate back along the same path you did, so provide the info they need to reach you by some other means. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/ - Original Message - From: "Andy obrien" To: "digitalradio" Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:04 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Getting serious about ALE for non-encomm digital hamming > As I read and view all kinds of web sites (including my own) that > assist digital mode enthusiasts in "spotting" other stations that my > be active on a particular band and looking for a QSO, I can't help but > return to the subject of ALE, Automatic Link Establishment. snip snip > Andy K3UK
