Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

[Andy obrien]

Very impressive Jose, again...congratulations.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:25 AM, jose alberto nieto ros <
nietoro...@yahoo.es> wrote:

>
>
> I made the experiment over AWGN and ROS is 2 dBs better than OLIVIA
> 32/1000.
>
> But we are comparing two modes at differents character rate. As you know
> ROS is two times faster than OLIVIA 32/1000.
>
> You should compare ROS 16 with OLIVIA 8/1000.  Then the different is about
> 5-6 dBs for the same character rate.
>
>  --
> *De:* Andy obrien 
> *Para:* digitalradio 
> *Enviado:* sáb,20 febrero, 2010 00:28
> *Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS experiments
>
>
>
> My "experiments" (many receptions and 2 transmissions) today with
> ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode.
> Congratulations Jose. Of particular interest to me were the several
> occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the
> waterfall or audible to my ears. It will interesting to see if Tony
> K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare
> it to Olivia. My "guess" is that it will be close to that of Olivia
> 1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB.
>
> I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and
> layed out. Over the years we have had many modes come and go. I
> suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used.
>
> Andy K3UK
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

[jose alberto nieto ros]

I made the experiment over AWGN and ROS is 2 dBs better than OLIVIA 32/1000.

But we are comparing two modes at differents character rate. As you know ROS is 
two times faster than OLIVIA 32/1000.

You should compare ROS 16 with OLIVIA 8/1000.  Then the different is about 5-6 
dBs for the same character rate.





De: Andy obrien 
Para: digitalradio 
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 00:28
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

  
My "experiments" (many receptions and 2 transmissions) today with
ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode.
Congratulations Jose. Of particular interest to me were the several
occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the
waterfall or audible to my ears. It will interesting to see if Tony
K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare
it to Olivia. My "guess" is that it will be close to that of Olivia
1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB.

I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and
layed out. Over the years we have had many modes come and go. I
suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used.

Andy K3UK




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Yo only have to download the sound archive: "The Man Of the Vara at 1 bauds 
(-35 dBs)" and tester.

The results speak for themselves




De: n9dsj 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53
Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP?

I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so 
guessing.

I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwis e 
for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY





  

Re: [digitalradio] Vista Run-time error and ROS

[Bob/Chris]

No, I get a run time error 50003.

Bob C  WU9Q
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tony 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:50 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Vista Run-time error and ROS





  Has anyone had any luck running ROS with Vista? 

  Tony -K2MO




  

[digitalradio] ROS now compatible with Vista

[Tony]

All, 

The latest version of ROS seems to work fine with Vista. 

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

Thanks Jose... 

Tony -K2MO 

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[n9dsj]

Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP?

I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so 
guessing.
 
I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwise 
for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY

RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC is not our friend ROS, legal in USA?

[phil williams]

ROS is illegal.  

For everyone.

Along with thinking outside of the box.

Please place yourselves under house arrest.

You are hereby FINED.

Mail your checks to KA1GMN.


philw

> 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: FCC is not our friend ROS, legal in USA?

[kq6i]

The FCC is not our friend, unless you are a well-to-do multimillion-dollar 
corporate conglomerate. [ROS, legal in USA] I
remember as a young tyke, frequently praying for a new bycycle. Eventually 
realizing this was not to be, I stole a bike,
continued praying, only now asking for forgiveness. [Will people fooling around 
with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably
not.] wagering slim es none.

rgrds
Craig
kq6i
Peace, long-life, es gud DX!


-Original Message-
From: vinceinwaukesha [mailto:vi...@mulhollon.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 3:52 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to 
> think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I 
> have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is 
> something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 
> 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of 
> the song...
> 
> Dave (G0DJA)
>

Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know.  The K's N's W's 
and A's have no such excuse.

Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is.

The first letter is modulation.  Clearly its F Frequency modulated.  I read the 
ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that
has its carrier frequency modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern.

The number is "nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier".  Clearly its 
2, "A single channel containing quantized
or digital information with the use of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding 
time-division multiplex".  That sub-carrier
is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data.

The second letter is "type of information to be transmitted".  Well, obviously 
that is D for data.  We're not sending
"E" voice or "A" telegraph or whatever here.

So, the overall "FCC Emission designator" would pretty obviously be "F2D".

Where can we run F2D?  First, hit FCC 97.305(c) "authorized emission types" 
table.  The FCC says SS only on 222 and up.
I have no idea what inspires people to publically claim you can only run SS on 
432 and up, as 97.305(c) explicitly
permits it on 222 and up.  For another example, on 30M we can do RTTY or DATA.  

How does "DATA" or "RTTY" or "SS" or "PULSE" relate to emissions designators?  
The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c)

To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is "Spread-spectrum emissions 
using bandwidth-expansion modulation
emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 
X as the second symbol; X as the third
symbol."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "SS".

To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is "Telemetry, telecommand and 
computer communications emissions having
(i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the 
second symbol, and D as the third symbol;
(ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an 
occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when
transmitted on an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code 
of a type specifically authorized in this
part may be transmitted."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "DATA".

Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band.  Ooops.

Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably not.  See 
97.305(b) "A station may transmit a test
emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods 
for experimental purposes, except that
... (essentially no SS or pulse where not otherwise permitted)".  So, fooling 
around for testing and experimentation of
a new mode is well within the law by this exception.  Running a contest, a 
regular schedule, a formal net, DXing, QSL
card collecting, county hunting, or extensive ragchewing would be strictly 
verboten under 97.305(b).  The key is doing
it in a documented manner as an experiment, like as a research experiment or an 
article for QEX.  Realize that big
brother can deprive you of your life and liberty at any time for any reason, 
its not as if a rule prevents that, it just
claims Big Bro won't do it, and politicians never lie...

In summary, the problem seems to be FM modulating the carrier of the 16FSK.

73 de Vince N9NFB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Alan Barrow]

Dave Ackrill wrote:
> but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European 
> stations, as well as the US ones, 


So the plan would be to get rid of the loud European & US stations, and
just leave the ( presumably not-loud?) UK ones on the air? :-)

Sounds workable to me, we could all dig out our Lucas wireless sets and
be not-loud together!

Sorry, just playing to our respective stereotypes, could not resist.

And for the record, I've been told more than once I do not qualify for
the "loud signal" club, downright wimpy in fact!

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

[Tony]

> It will interesting to see if Tony K2MO gets a chance to put this through the 
> Pathsim tests and compare it to Olivia. My "guess" is 
> that it will be close to that of Olivia. Andy K3UK

Andy,

I'd be more than happy to run ROS through the path simulator if I could get the 
program running with Vista :  ) Can't get past the run-time error.  

Tony -K2MO

[digitalradio] Vista Run-time error and ROS

[Tony]

Has anyone had any luck running ROS with Vista? 

Tony -K2MO

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.

73 - Skip KH6TY




Marco IK1ODO wrote:
 



>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>>Â
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to
be "spread spectrum", ROS does so :-) - but it's
exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
So, what is the exact "spread spectrum"
definition given by FCC? There should be one, somewhere.

73 - Marco IK1ODO

Re: [digitalradio] ros

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:58 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:
> even some of the AFSK/RTTY people use USB.

I have seen this too and at times wonder why.
I think maybe because the other modes are USB.

I got into RTTY in 1976. Still use a machine for RTTY. 

[digitalradio] ros

[wd4kpd]

the program author mentioned that when he tested on 40m, that he used LSB.

this is not really a problem, but i think the digital community has pretty much 
setteled on USB for all sound card digital modes. even some of the AFSK/RTTY 
people use USB.

before too long, got to get it setteled in.

david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[DANNY DOUGLAS]

LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION  as they used to say.

There in Europe, you have dozens of "local" governments to satisify, in the way 
of modes and power, bands, etc.  Im always supprised to find two governments 
over there, who agree with anything another two may want to do on the bands.  
Over the years, that has somewhat worked its way out of the tangle.  Then, 
while we here have sub-bands, you usually do not, and that causes problems 
here, with modes being broadcast on top of other incompatable operation:, where 
we are limited to specific band-widths etc.  Even here, we have Canada, and the 
South Americans that we find working band/modes that we cannot reach, but 
little vice versa.  Our Canadian friends usually try to stay out of our cw 
bands, with their SSB signals,  but not all of them. Hopefully, we still 
are the land of the free - after all, we elect the leadership that puts the FCC 
commissioners in the job.  NO - that doesnt always work out too well either!

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
Digital_modes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159

  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave Ackrill 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Dave wrote:
  > Jose (and all),
  > 
  > My two-cents worth: 
  > 
  > Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
is not. 
  > 
  > It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 

  So, American Radio Amateurs are, now, more restricted than other Radio 
  Amateurs in the world?

  Forgive me. Ever since I was a CBer the USA seemed to have less 
  restrictive laws compared to here in the UK and now we've had more 
  allocated bands than in the US and less restrictive modes than in the US.

  The land of the free? LOL

  Sorry, I couldn't resist this after all the years of being told that I 
  was living under an oppressive government.

  Dave (G0DJA)


  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

Dave wrote:
> Jose (and all),
> 
> My two-cents worth:  
> 
> Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
> is not.  
> 
> It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
> Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
> current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 

So, American Radio Amateurs are, now, more restricted than other Radio 
Amateurs in the world?

Forgive me.  Ever since I was a CBer the USA seemed to have less 
restrictive laws compared to here in the UK and now we've had more 
allocated bands than in the US and less restrictive modes than in the US.

The land of the free?  LOL

Sorry, I couldn't resist this after all the years of being told that I 
was living under an oppressive government.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
> but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
> valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.

I hate to say this, as I'm sure I'll be called all sorts of names that I 
don't deserve, but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European 
stations, as well as the US ones, in the first few years of this new 
mode, we might also attract less of the other people who seem to not 
know how to operate the mode, but seem intent on working the "DX" at any 
price...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] ros

[wd4kpd]

interesting problems with new ROS, but is to be expected

since i lost the text displays in the program, i did system restore and got the 
problem solved.  however the personal info is still stored somewhere i dont 
know.  it did not show the station info however this time.

is fun.

david/wd4kpd

ps...qrz on 7063 usb

[digitalradio] ros

[wd4kpd]

still having problems, still no text showing up in rx or tx.

where is the station info stored ?  i deleted all the program, and still when i 
reinstall, the info comes backmaybe i need to delete that whereever it is 
to get the text bug out.

david/wd4kpd

pse email me personal if you got the answers tonight.
wd4...@suddenlink.net

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Sparks]

IMO, ROS is not *true* SS in the legal sense.  Other posts I've read cite an 
FCC reference that SS involves spreading the signal EVENLY over the 
bandwidth.  ROS is using 16 DISCRETE tones to modulate, with a lot more 
empty space than actual signal.  I'm curious how much of spread spectrum's 
jam resistance is created by ROS.

I plan to try ROS as soon as a new version is released which will allow me 
to utilize a non-default sound card.  I've run the currently available 
version, but the sound came out over my PC speakers rather than going into 
my interface, so I never transmitted anything.

FCC rules, IMHO, include several gray areas.  For example, is it permissable 
to send a PGP-signed message over the airwaves?  The message itself is plain 
text, but it includes a cryptographic SIGNATURE for authentication purposes. 
According to the spirit of the law, that should be a Good Thing  since 
it actually discourages the sending of false signals.  Technically, though, 
there are a few bytes of "code and cypher" attached.  We won't even discuss 
steganography, where a secret message is embedded in a harmless-appearing 
file, such as a .JPG file.

Perhaps we need a ROS specific group to discuss this mode?

--
Dave - AF6AS

- Original Message - 
From: "vinceinwaukesha" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to
>> think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I
>> have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is
>> something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of
>> 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of
>> the song...
>>
>> Dave (G0DJA)
>>
>
> Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know.  The K's N's 
> W's and A's have no such excuse.
>
> Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is.
>
> The first letter is modulation.  Clearly its F Frequency modulated.  I 
> read the ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that has its carrier frequency 
> modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern.
>
> The number is "nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier".  Clearly 
> its 2, "A single channel containing quantized or digital information with 
> the use of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding time-division multiplex". 
> That sub-carrier is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data.
>
> The second letter is "type of information to be transmitted".  Well, 
> obviously that is D for data.  We're not sending "E" voice or "A" 
> telegraph or whatever here.
>
> So, the overall "FCC Emission designator" would pretty obviously be "F2D".
>
> Where can we run F2D?  First, hit FCC 97.305(c) "authorized emission 
> types" table.  The FCC says SS only on 222 and up.  I have no idea what 
> inspires people to publically claim you can only run SS on 432 and up, as 
> 97.305(c) explicitly permits it on 222 and up.  For another example, on 
> 30M we can do RTTY or DATA.
>
> How does "DATA" or "RTTY" or "SS" or "PULSE" relate to emissions 
> designators?  The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c)
>
> To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is "Spread-spectrum emissions 
> using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, 
> C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as 
> the third symbol."
>
> F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "SS".
>
> To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is "Telemetry, telecommand 
> and computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, 
> F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the 
> third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, 
> and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on 
> an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type 
> specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted."
>
> F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "DATA".
>
> Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band.  Ooops.
>
> Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably not. 
> See 97.305(b) "A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency 
> authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental 
> purposes, except that ... (essentially no SS or pulse where not otherwise 
> permitted)".  So, fooling around for testing and experimentation of a new 
> mode is well within the law by this exception.  Running a contest, a 
> regular schedule, a formal net, DXing, QSL card collecting, county 
> hunting, or extensive ragchewing would be strictly verboten under 
> 97.305(b).  The key is doing it in a documented manner as an experiment, 
> like as a research experiment or an article for QEX.  Realize that big 
> brother can deprive you of your life and liberty at any time for any

[digitalradio] ROS experiments

[Andy obrien]

My "experiments"  (many receptions and 2 transmissions)  today with
ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode.
Congratulations Jose.   Of particular interest to me  were the several
occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the
waterfall or audible to my ears.  It will interesting to see if Tony
K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare
it to Olivia.  My "guess" is that it will be close to that of Olivia
1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB.

I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and
layed out.  Over the years we have had many modes come and go.  I
suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used.

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Of course.

Not being a sound card guy when it comes to RTTY.

John, W0JAB


At 04:56 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:


>I use USB dfor FSK, simply because I want the low side of the signals to show 
>up on the left side of the waterfall, and the high frequencies to show up to 
>the right.  Because that puts me opposite than the "normal" signals, I run 
>both send and receive with the reverse button clicked.'
> 
>Danny Douglas

[digitalradio] ROS

[David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD]

of a sudden, when i click on any of the buttons, i see no text show up 
in the
window.  i seem to be transmitting and got some email feedback for my last
transmissions, but nothing shows the text going out.

wierd...opened the Fuentes folder, and see the Teletype TTF font file.
when i open it, it shows empty !

anyone run into this yet ?

david/wd4kpd

[digitalradio] Buglet in ROS

[jhaynesatalumni]

A minor but annoying problem I'm having is that in Windows XP
it keeps maximizing the window without being told to.  I haven't
found for sure what triggers it, but just now I am monitoring
and a ROS signal came on and a second or two after the initial
tone the window maximized itself.

Yup, just happened again, started receiving and about 1 second
into the transmission it maximized the window.

Jim W6JVE

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios

[DANNY DOUGLAS]

I use USB dfor FSK, simply because I want the low side of the signals to show 
up on the left side of the waterfall, and the high frequencies to show up to 
the right.  Because that puts me opposite than the "normal" signals, I run both 
send and receive with the reverse button clicked.'

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
Digital_modes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159

  - Original Message - 
  From: jhaynesatalumni 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:44 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios





  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
  >
  > RTTY "should" be used in the LSB mode regardless of the band.

  Well thats when you aren't using the FSK mode for RTTY; the FSK
  mode does put it into LSB.
  > 
  > I don't use software for RTTY so I cant tell you a thing about that.
  >
  Users of software for RTTY have come around to using USB regardless
  of band, just for the sake of uniformity. In that case they use
  a reverse shift switch in the software to make the signals come out
  right side up.



  

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[vinceinwaukesha]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to 
> think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I 
> have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is 
> something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 
> 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of 
> the song...
> 
> Dave (G0DJA)
>

Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know.  The K's N's W's 
and A's have no such excuse.

Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is.

The first letter is modulation.  Clearly its F Frequency modulated.  I read the 
ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that has its carrier frequency 
modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern.

The number is "nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier".  Clearly its 
2, "A single channel containing quantized or digital information with the use 
of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding time-division multiplex".  That 
sub-carrier is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data.

The second letter is "type of information to be transmitted".  Well, obviously 
that is D for data.  We're not sending "E" voice or "A" telegraph or whatever 
here.

So, the overall "FCC Emission designator" would pretty obviously be "F2D".

Where can we run F2D?  First, hit FCC 97.305(c) "authorized emission types" 
table.  The FCC says SS only on 222 and up.  I have no idea what inspires 
people to publically claim you can only run SS on 432 and up, as 97.305(c) 
explicitly permits it on 222 and up.  For another example, on 30M we can do 
RTTY or DATA.  

How does "DATA" or "RTTY" or "SS" or "PULSE" relate to emissions designators?  
The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c)

To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is "Spread-spectrum emissions 
using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, 
F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third 
symbol."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "SS".

To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is "Telemetry, telecommand and 
computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, 
J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; 
(ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an 
occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur service 
frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized 
in this part may be transmitted."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "DATA".

Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band.  Ooops.

Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably not.  See 
97.305(b) "A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized 
to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes, except 
that ... (essentially no SS or pulse where not otherwise permitted)".  So, 
fooling around for testing and experimentation of a new mode is well within the 
law by this exception.  Running a contest, a regular schedule, a formal net, 
DXing, QSL card collecting, county hunting, or extensive ragchewing would be 
strictly verboten under 97.305(b).  The key is doing it in a documented manner 
as an experiment, like as a research experiment or an article for QEX.  Realize 
that big brother can deprive you of your life and liberty at any time for any 
reason, its not as if a rule prevents that, it just claims Big Bro won't do it, 
and politicians never lie...

In summary, the problem seems to be FM modulating the carrier of the 16FSK.

73 de Vince N9NFB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

¿Olivia is only MFSK?  Why there is so ignorant people in the world?





De: Dave 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Jose (and all), 

My two-cents worth:  

Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS is 
not.  

It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 


Dave
K3DCW  
 
Dave

Real radio bounces off the sky





On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote:

Jose,
>
>We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
>FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
>Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
>
>73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
>  
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.




  

[digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
>
> RTTY  "should"  be used in the LSB mode regardless of the band.

Well thats when you aren't using the FSK mode for RTTY; the FSK
mode does put it into LSB.
>  
> I don't use software for RTTY so I cant tell you a thing about that.
>
Users of software for RTTY have come around to using USB regardless
of band, just for the sake of uniformity.  In that case they use
a reverse shift switch in the software to make the signals come out
right side up.

[digitalradio] Polarized Rotation Modulation (PRZM)

[Robert Tiller]

>From Darpa:

"Polarization modulation introduces an additional dimension. A 
radio with four polarization possibilities 
would transmit four times the information with all other aspects of the 
waveform 
held constant."

 http://www.darpa.mil/sto/strategic/pzrm.html

Sounds interesting.

Robert




  

[digitalradio] FCC Spread Spectrum

[Andy obrien]

 3. " Spread spectrum is a technique whereby the energy of the
transmitted signal is
distributed over a wide segment of spectrum.  The signal power density
can be very low and the
duration of a transmission on any frequency in the segment of the
spectrum can be but a fraction of
a second.  SS systems, therefore, can evenly share all of the spectrum
in the available frequency
segment, despite a number of stations transmitting simultaneously.
They can often share the same
spectrum unobtrusively with non-SS systems because the transmissions
may not be noticeable to a
casual listener. "

 4.   Special Temporary Authority to experiment with SS
transmissions was granted to 25
amateur stations affiliated with the Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corporation 16 years
ago.  These experiments involved on-air evaluation of different
spreading rates, frequency ranges,
and interference to stations transmitting other emission types.  On
the basis of these tests, two types
of spreading techniques -- frequency hopping and direct sequence --
were authorized by our rules.
Under our current rules, SS transmissions may be made on authorized
amateur service frequencies
above 420 MHz with transmitter powers up to 100 watts.  Since
introduction of SS in the amateur
radio service, numerous commercial applications of SS have also
evolved, including personal
communications services, remote meter reading and position locating.


APPENDIX A


Comments


On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Marco IK1ODO  wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
> >>Â
> >>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
>
> The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to
> be "spread spectrum", ROS does so :-) - but it's
> exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
> So, what is the exact "spread spectrum"
> definition given by FCC? There should be one, somewhere.
>
> 73 - Marco IK1ODO
>
> 




Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios

[jhaynesatalumni]

If the radio has RTTY as a mode, as does the TS-940 for
example, it means (1) there is an input on the back where
you put in a baseband signal and FSK comes out the antenna,
and (2) for receiving it will use a narrow filter and 
center the filter up around 2.2 KHz.  (By "baseband" I
mean the actualy RTTY signal at 45.45 baud, as would come
out of a Teletype keyboard.)  In the case of the TS-940
and other radios there is a misfeature that in SSB mode
you can't get the narrow filter switched in; you have
to use RTTY or CW mode to get the narrow filter.

The main reason you want the narrow filter is to suppress
strong signals that are in the IF passband of the radio but
not in the middle of the signal you are trying to receive.
Such signals will affect the gain of the receiver through
AGC action, so that the level of the desired signal goes up
and down as those off-channel signals come and go.  So you
want the narrow filter to have the AGC focus on the signal you
are trying to receive.

The reason the receiver puts the filter up at 2.2 KHz in the
FSK mode is that in olden days FSK signals were translated to
audio, originally at 2125 and 2975 Hz, later changed to 2125
and 2295 when 170 Hz shift came into use.  So if you were
using a typical RTTY terminal unit for receiving its input
frequency range would be up there.

Jim W6JVE

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios

[John Becker, WØJAB]

RTTY  "should"  be used in the LSB mode regardless of the band.
 
I don't use software for RTTY so I cant tell you a thing about that.

[digitalradio] Re: MT63 Operation

[kb3fxi]

We use MT63 on our wpaNBEMS nets here in Western PA on 3.5835 USB, 1000hz 
center on the waterfall.  Our nets start out on 8/500 Olivia then we transmit a 
1000hz MT63 1k long (64 bit) interleave bulletin.  We stay on MT63 1k long and 
then go for comments since we're in the faster mode.  

We have been using MT63 2k long on 2m and 70cm FM now for about 5 years.  Many 
of our net participants send and receive messages on fm simplex and over 
repeater using nothing more than a laptop and hand held (no direct interface).  
It works amazingly well and will let you  send about 1k per minute (repeater 
timeouts get you right around the 3k mark).  We send detailed messages and 
spreadsheets using NBEMS/FLDIGI and WRAP (checksum) which allows us to transmit 
a bulletin and have an unlimited number of stations simultaneosly receive and 
confirm 100%.

Other than the local stuff on 80m and VHF/UHF, I've not seen much in the way of 
DX'ing with MT63.

-Dave, KB3FXI
www.wpaNBEMS.org


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas F. Giella NZ4O"  wrote:
>
> Lately I've been playing around with MT63 at the 500 hz bandwidth. It was 
> just about the only digital mode that I had not experimented with since 
> getting on the digital modes in 2003.
> 
> I've made some contacts around 3584 kc and 14074 kc. The band plans that I 
> see for 20 meters on the internet call for 14109 kc but I've seen no 
> activity there or on any of other band
> 
> The question is where most is the MT63 activity at? Or is there any?
> 
> 73 & GUD DX,
> Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
> Lakeland, FL, USA
> n...@...
> 
> PODXS 070 Club #349
> Feld Hell Club #141
> 30 Meter Digital Group #691
> Digital Modes Club #1243
> WARC Bands Century Club #222
> 
> NZ4O Amateur & SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
>

[digitalradio] ROS...

[David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD]

kinda of neat, and seems to work ok...some partial qso's so far.

big problem is bandwidthits way to wide for the digi segments in 
general.
20m should be up around 110 or so.  along with 20m, anyone got some 
frequency
ideas ?

to the designer...all those meters need to be dampened a bit, they 
fluctuate way
to fast to read.

david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Marco IK1ODO]

>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>>Â
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to 
be "spread spectrum", ROS does so :-) - but it's 
exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
So, what is the exact "spread spectrum" 
definition given by FCC? There should be one, somewhere.

73 - Marco IK1ODO

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios

[Ralph Mowery]

--- On Fri, 2/19/10, James French  wrote:

> From: James French 
> Subject: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 3:58 PM
> Wondering if someone can point me to
> a link or some literature explaining 
> about why there is a FSK mode on the HF radios like the
> Icom ic-746pro, 
> Kenwood TS0940sat, and Ten-tec Paragon (585)? Is there a
> reason for this?
> 
> I am asking this because I have listened to some RTTY using
> either USB or LSB 
> dependent on what band I am on and could copy it with any
> software programs I 
> have but then switched to the FSKmode on the radios and
> loose the signal 
> completely.
> 
> Is this mode just for the older ancient RTTY eqiupment to
> interface with the 
> radio?
> 
> I haven't tried to send any RTTY yet but planning to be on
> the air next 
> weekend for the NAQP RTTY contest from the Red Cross
> station in Ann Arbor,MI.
> 
> 
> James W8ISS
> 
> 

RTTY should not be referred to as afsk even if audio is fed into a ssb radio.  
What comes out of the transmitter is the same if true FSK or AFSK is used.  
Whoever started that wording should be shot.  It is AFSK if AM or FM is used.

For the ham bands rtty should be received and transmitted in the LSB mode on 
all bands if ssb is used.YOu can set the tones up in reverse and use usb, 
but it is not recommended.  When you switch from lsb to the rtty mode, most 
receivers will shift up or down 2125 hz if you have it set up correctly.  That 
is what the mark tone should be.  Actually any two tones can be fed into a ssb 
transmitter as long as they are 170 hz apart. The lowest tone should be around 
1500 hz or so as the second harmonic of it will be out of the pass band of the 
filter.  The station on the other end will not know the differance, just your 
dial frequency will not match his.

RTTY was origionally sent on the low bands by shifting the frequency of the 
transmitter lower in frequency when the space was sent.  When ssb transceivers 
came into use it was found that if you put a pure sine wave into the microphone 
input you generated just a single output frequency.  If that audio tone was 
changed a small ammout the frequency of the output would change the same 
ammount.  If usb is used the frequency would shift up and if lsb was used the 
frequency would shift down.  LSB is used to keep everything the same weather 
the shift was the actual carrier or if audio tones are used.

You have to have a good understanding of how a single frequency fed into a ssb 
transceiver will change the output frequency to understand rtty.



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave]

Jose (and all),

My two-cents worth:  

Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS is 
not.  

It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 


Dave
K3DCW  

Dave

Real radio bounces off the sky





On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote:

> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
> FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
> Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> 
> jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Bill V WA7NWP]

> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
> FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
> Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.

Might this give some wider data on UHF?   20KHz?   50 KHz?   Would it
be limited by more then the soundcard and RF platform?

Bill - WA7NWP

Re: [digitalradio] MT63 Operation

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I have found it only around 14,109.
But like many many modes - it's not used much.

John, W0JAB


At 03:37 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:
>Lately I've been playing around with MT63 at the 500 hz bandwidth. It was 
>just about the only digital mode that I had not experimented with since 
>getting on the digital modes in 2003.
>
>I've made some contacts around 3584 kc and 14074 kc. The band plans that I 
>see for 20 meters on the internet call for 14109 kc but I've seen no 
>activity there or on any of other band
>
>The question is where most is the MT63 activity at? Or is there any?
>
>73 & GUD DX,
>Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O

[digitalradio] Check out my photos on Facebook

[Raymond E Lunsford]

Hi Digitalradio,

I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and 
I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join 
Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile.

Thanks,
Raymond

To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1671433254&k=ZYB444TYPZTFWF1HQA56T5PQUSEBY62C&r



Already have an account? Add this email address to your account 
http://www.facebook.com/n/?merge_accounts.php&e=digitalra...@yahoogroups.com&c=6db9cf413c73c46092fe12a907a66689.digitalra...@yahoogroups.com
 was invited to join Facebook by Raymond E Lunsford. If you do not wish to 
receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the 
link below to unsubscribe.
http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=bab39e&u=1844803135&mid=1e904ecG6df5763fG0G8
Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

Jose,

We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.


 



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

 


All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency 
hopping is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the 
carriers are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all 
morning I have been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations 
on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above 
the noise.


I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion 
and interpretation of the FCC rules.


However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) 
where SS "is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily 
digital experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, 
multipath distortion, and "fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep 
as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have 
been also been testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX 
does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 
4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  SSB 
phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. 
The path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise 
threshold during these winter months where there is no propagation 
enhancement.


I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two 
weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied 
when even Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, 
much like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it 
were possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and 
VHF are using a second soundcard for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



nietorosdj wrote:
 



One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on 
standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read 
Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading.


--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
, Andy obrien  
wrote:

>
> >Joe,

> N8FQ...
>
> http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ 
d-305.html 


>
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 
part of

> part 97 I am missing ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] MT63 Operation

[Thomas F. Giella NZ4O]

Lately I've been playing around with MT63 at the 500 hz bandwidth. It was 
just about the only digital mode that I had not experimented with since 
getting on the digital modes in 2003.

I've made some contacts around 3584 kc and 14074 kc. The band plans that I 
see for 20 meters on the internet call for 14109 kc but I've seen no 
activity there or on any of other band

The question is where most is the MT63 activity at? Or is there any?

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

PODXS 070 Club #349
Feld Hell Club #141
30 Meter Digital Group #691
Digital Modes Club #1243
WARC Bands Century Club #222

NZ4O Amateur & SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org







Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios

[Andy obrien]

FSK is RTTY but so is AFSK.  Some rigs support the use of RTTY in FSK while
others require a TNC or sound card to generate the tones.  FSK on
transceivers tends to invoke narrower filters and the frequency you are
receiving is displayed differently.  The serious RTTY guys tend to prefer
FSK.

This post from the N1MM Logger reflector illusrates some issues..  (see also
http://www.mcwa.org/AFSKvsFSK.pdf)



Doug Haft wrote:
>
> Are you running AFSK, or FSK? Does this mismatch in frequency happen on
> every spot, or randomly? If AFSK, which sideband, LSB or USB? I haven't
> thought this trough, so I might be off base here, but its possible the
> spotter is running AFSK. So, their rig is in USB (or LSB). Their audio
> tones will be up (or down if using LSB) in the sideband. The freq on their
> rig will be offset from where the "tones" really are. If you're running
> FSK, you'll tune to the freq they spotted, but the target station won't be
> there! Worse yet, if you're in USB running AFSK and the spotting
> station is
> in LSB AFSK... the spot he puts out will be quite a ways from where
> you land
> as a result of clicking that spot.
>

>
>





On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM, James French wrote:

>
>
> Wondering if someone can point me to a link or some literature explaining
> about why there is a FSK mode on the HF radios like the Icom ic-746pro,
> Kenwood TS0940sat, and Ten-tec Paragon (585)? Is there a reason for this?
>
> I am asking this because I have listened to some RTTY using either USB or
> LSB
> dependent on what band I am on and could copy it with any software programs
> I
> have but then switched to the FSKmode on the radios and loose the signal
> completely.
>
> Is this mode just for the older ancient RTTY eqiupment to interface with
> the
> radio?
>
> I haven't tried to send any RTTY yet but planning to be on the air next
> weekend for the NAQP RTTY contest from the Red Cross station in Ann
> Arbor,MI.
>
> James W8ISS
>  
>

[digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios

[James French]

Wondering if someone can point me to a link or some literature explaining 
about why there is a FSK mode on the HF radios like the Icom ic-746pro, 
Kenwood TS0940sat, and Ten-tec Paragon (585)? Is there a reason for this?

I am asking this because I have listened to some RTTY using either USB or LSB 
dependent on what band I am on and could copy it with any software programs I 
have but then switched to the FSKmode on the radios and loose the signal 
completely.

Is this mode just for the older ancient RTTY eqiupment to interface with the 
radio?

I haven't tried to send any RTTY yet but planning to be on the air next 
weekend for the NAQP RTTY contest from the Red Cross station in Ann Arbor,MI.


James W8ISS

[digitalradio] How many ?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Just how many sound card modes are there now?

And what is the number that look just like another mode?

[digitalradio] ROS install problem

[Marco IK1ODO]

ROS 1.6.2 beta refuses to install here, I get 
"Run time error '76' - path not found" when running the .exe
Win XP SP3, P4.

José, any hint?

73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF

RE: [digitalradio] ROS

[kq6i]

I had to disable Norton antivirus temporally to install hr. Norton considers 
.exe as evil. But, I use XP pro. Perhaps install
using XP mode es disable antivirus software?

rgrds
Craig
kq6i
 

-Original Message-
From: Mobile Me [mailto:ugo.dep...@me.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:47 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: jose alberto nieto ros
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS



Hi All. 
I'm trying to install ROS on my pc running windows 7 ultimate (64 bit) but I'm 
not able to install, it seems to be impossible
to do it on this operativ system. 
Could someone help me ? 
Best regards and thanks in advance. 
73 - Ugo

Il 19/02/2010 20:09, jose alberto nieto ros ha scritto: 

  
Ah, OK, thats button exit already:
 
Is the button:  +BYE

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  



Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station 
Button will fill the text field automatically
when clicked with the stations equipment.) The over button would place at the 
end of the text field: his call de my call  K .
Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the "Custom" button?  RenameCustom either Over or 
End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros  
 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  



Hi, Glenn.
 
Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, 
please
 
Thank you
 

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser http://yahoo.com/> >
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  



I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you 
Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an 
"over" button so that after the text is typed
I would be able to press the "over" button. The "over" button would place the 
other stations call + my call K then switch
back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS sound card

[kq6i]

Works hr with MicroHAM KEYER II es virtual router 7.6.0. I use COM 6, same as 
used for HRD/DM-780, wspr, jt65-hf etc. Piece
of cake.

rgrds
Craig
kq6i 

-Original Message-
From: lew cason [mailto:lew_j...@att.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:53 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode



I run the SignalLink USB and it works with no problems with the ROS software
 

- Original Message - 

[digitalradio] Primer QSO con el ROS [2 Attachments]

[Francesco Piccone]

Mi primer QSO con el nuevo modo ROS  Frecuencia 14.080 con el amigo Peter 
PJ2/DF7DQ  en la isla de CURAZAO
73
Francesco
YV4GJN

Re: [digitalradio] (unknown)

[John B. Stephensen]

The FCC specificly allows multiple-subcarrier transmissions on HF but bans 
"spead spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation." 
Multiple-subcarrier modes don't have to increase the bandwidth as the signal is 
split into N parallel streams and each can occupy 1/N the bandwidth of the 
original. 

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: AC TALBOT 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:18 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] (unknown)



The term "Spread Spectrum"  can apply to any mode that spreads its 
energy over more than the necessary bandwidth.   If we assume the necessary 
bandwidth to be equal to the signalling rate than anything other than single 
carrier modes technically fall into this category.

Even WSPR coul dbe considered spread spectrum!   Its 6Hz bandwidth is 
wider than the 1.5 B/s rate.Within the WSJT suite, JT65 is more of a spread 
spectrum mode, and outside Joe's suite, MT63 with its 2.5kHz for a few tens of 
Bits / second is even more extreme.

Andy
www.g4jnt.com
   


  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John B. Stephensen]

It's my interpretation of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part 
97. You can see the authorized emissions table at 97.305 and the definition of 
SS (spread spectrum) at 97.3(c)(8). You can acces a copy via the FCC web site 
at www.fcc.gov. FCC rules are much more restrictive than those of any other 
country that I have seen. A few years ago, the ARRL proposed changes (which I 
supported) that would have changed the regulations to limit bandwidth rather 
than emission type but their members rejected the idea and they withdrew the 
petition.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: jose alberto nieto ros 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:30 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?




  That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.




--
  De: John B. Stephensen 
  Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
  Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

  73

  John
  KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


  
Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB






  

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

[Mobile Me]

Hi All.
I'm trying to install ROS on my pc running windows 7 ultimate (64 bit) 
but I'm not able to install, it seems to be impossible to do it on this 
operativ system.

Could someone help me ?
Best regards and thanks in advance.
73 - Ugo

Il 19/02/2010 20:09, jose alberto nieto ros ha scritto:

Ah, OK, thats button exit already:
Is the button:  +BYE



*De:* Glenn L. Roeser 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS

Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station 
Button will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the 
stations equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the 
text field: his call de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.

I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the "Custom" button?  RenameCustom either Over 
or End TX?

Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)



*From:* jose alberto nieto ros 
*To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Sent:* Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS

Hi, Glenn.
Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please
Thank you



*De:* Glenn L. Roeser http://yahoo.com/>>
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
*Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS

I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you 
Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an 
"over" button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press 
the "over" button. The "over" button would place the other stations 
call + my call K then switch back to receive automatically.

Just a suggestion.
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John B. Stephensen]

This 1999 report and order didn't change the frequencies allowed. The 2007 
edition of the FCC rules and regulations shows that SS is allowed down to 222 
MHz.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: Glenn L. Roeser 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:46 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?




  Hello to all,
  I found this on the ARRL Site:

  QST de W1AW  
  ARRL Bulletin 62  ARLB062
  From ARRL Headquarters  
  Newington CT  September 9, 1999
  To all radio amateurs 

  SB QST ARL ARLB062
  ARLB062 FCC relaxes rules for spread spectrum

  The FCC has relaxed rules governing the use of spread spectrum
  techniques by radio amateurs and opened the door to the possibility
  of international spread spectrum communication. The Report and Order
  in WT Docket 97-12 adopted August 31 concludes a proceeding that
  originated with an ARRL petition in December 1995 and has been
  pending since 1997.

  The FCC adopted rules that will allow Amateur Radio stations to
  transmit additional spread spectrum emission types. Once the new
  rules become effective November 1, hams will be able to use
  techniques other than frequency hopping and direct sequence
  spreading. In addition, the new FCC rules will permit US hams to use
  spread spectrum techniques to communicate with amateurs in other
  countries that permit SS. Spread spectrum communication has been
  limited to stations within FCC jurisdiction.

  The new rules require that spread spectrum stations running more
  than 1 W incorporate automatic transmitter power control. Amateur
  stations using SS are restricted to a maximum power of 100 W.

  The Commission also amended the rules to eliminate what it called
  ''now-unnecessary record keeping and station identification
  requirements'' that apply only to stations using spread spectrum.
  The FCC agreed to let SS stations identify themselves using
  conventions developed by the Amateur Radio community.

  Roanoke Division Vice Director Dennis Bodson, W4PWF, who has
  followed the League's Spread Spectrum initiative through from start
  to finish was pleased with the outcome of the proceeding. ''I'm very
  happy,'' he said. ''The League got everything it wanted and
  more--all of which, I believe, will help to promote this mode on the
  amateur bands.''

  Stations employing spread spectrum techniques will remain secondary
  to--and must accept all interference from--stations employing other
  authorized modes. The FCC declined to authorize the use of spread
  spectrum techniques on additional bands or frequencies.

  A copy of the FCC's complete Report and Order is available at
  http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt97-12.
  
  /EX





--
  From: jose alberto nieto ros 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 2:30:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.




--
  De: John B. Stephensen 
  Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
  Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
  Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

  73

  John
  KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


  
Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB








  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John Bradley]

please,  please, no , not to Canada, they all argue too much hi hi

 

john

VE5MU

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

 

  

Do I hear the sound of a mass exodus to Canada? Or maybe back to Europe?

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

http://sdr-radio.com

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen




Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

 

[digitalradio] ROS - CQ100

[George]

Has anyone tried this mode on CQ100?
 
Regards,
George
NJ3H


  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Glenn L. Roeser]

Hello to all,
I found this on the ARRL Site:

QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 62  ARLB062
>From ARRL Headquarters  
Newington CT  September 9, 1999
To all radio amateurs 

SB QST ARL ARLB062
ARLB062 FCC relaxes rules for spread spectrum

The FCC has relaxed rules governing the use of spread spectrum
techniques by radio amateurs and opened the door to the possibility
of international spread spectrum communication. The Report and Order
in WT Docket 97-12 adopted August 31 concludes a proceeding that
originated with an ARRL petition in December 1995 and has been
pending since 1997.

The FCC adopted rules that will allow Amateur Radio stations to
transmit additional spread spectrum emission types. Once the new
rules become effective November 1, hams will be able to use
techniques other than frequency hopping and direct sequence
spreading. In addition, the new FCC rules will permit US hams to use
spread spectrum techniques to communicate with amateurs in other
countries that permit SS. Spread spectrum communication has been
limited to stations within FCC jurisdiction.

The new rules require that spread spectrum stations running more
than 1 W incorporate automatic transmitter power control. Amateur
stations using SS are restricted to a maximum power of 100 W.

The Commission also amended the rules to eliminate what it called
''now-unnecessary record keeping and station identification
requirements'' that apply only to stations using spread spectrum.
The FCC agreed to let SS stations identify themselves using
conventions developed by the Amateur Radio community.

Roanoke Division Vice Director Dennis Bodson, W4PWF, who has
followed the League's Spread Spectrum initiative through from start
to finish was pleased with the outcome of the proceeding. ''I'm very
happy,'' he said. ''The League got everything it wanted and
more--all of which, I believe, will help to promote this mode on the
amateur bands.''

Stations employing spread spectrum techniques will remain secondary
to--and must accept all interference from--stations employing other
authorized modes. The FCC declined to authorize the use of spread
spectrum techniques on additional bands or frequencies.

A copy of the FCC's complete Report and Order is available at
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt97-12.

/EX






From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 2:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.





De: John B. Stephensen 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
 
73
 
John
KD6OZH
 
- Original Message - 
>From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
>
>  
>Ok what's the bottom line?
>
>Is it or is it not?
>
>At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
>And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 
>
>Can someone just tell me?
>
>John, W0JAB
>
>




  

Re: [digitalradio] (unknown)

[jose alberto nieto ros]

I could not explain it better. Unfortunately there are people on this forum 
seems to want to look for the three-legged cat. 





De: AC TALBOT 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:18
Asunto: [digitalradio] (unknown)

  
The term "Spread Spectrum"  can apply to any mode that spreads its energy over 
more than the necessary bandwidth.   If we assume the necessary bandwidth to be 
equal to the signalling rate than anything other than single carrier modes 
technically fall into this category.

Even WSPR coul dbe considered spread spectrum!   Its 6Hz bandwidth is wider 
than the 1.5 B/s rate.    Within the WSJT suite, JT65 is more of a spread 
spectrum mode, and outside Joe's suite, MT63 with its 2.5kHz for a few tens of 
Bits / second is even more extreme.

Andy
www.g4jnt.com
 



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.





De: John B. Stephensen 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
 
73
 
John
KD6OZH
 
- Original Message - 
>From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
>
>  
>Ok what's the bottom line?
>
>Is it or is it not?
>
>At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
>And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 
>
>Can someone just tell me?
>
>John, W0JAB
>
>



  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Simon HB9DRV]

Do I hear the sound of a mass exodus to Canada? Or maybe back to Europe?

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

http://sdr-radio.com

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen



Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

 

[digitalradio] (unknown)

[AC TALBOT]

The term "Spread Spectrum"  can apply to any mode that spreads its energy over 
more than the necessary bandwidth.   If we assume the necessary bandwidth to be 
equal to the signalling rate than anything other than single carrier modes 
technically fall into this category.
 
Even WSPR coul dbe considered spread spectrum!   Its 6Hz bandwidth is wider 
than the 1.5 B/s rate.    Within the WSJT suite, JT65 is more of a spread 
spectrum mode, and outside Joe's suite, MT63 with its 2.5kHz for a few tens of 
Bits / second is even more extreme.
 
Andy
www.g4jnt.com
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John B. Stephensen]

Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

73

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Ok what's the bottom line?

  Is it or is it not?

  At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
  And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

  Can someone just tell me?

  John, W0JAB



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

Claudio wrote:
> HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.
> 
> claudio-LU2VC

Sorry Claudio, things seemed to be getting quiet and I went to 30M using 
JT65a.

Dave (G0DJA)




Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all"  or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Ah, OK, thats button exit already:

Is the button:  +BYE

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station Button 
will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the stations 
equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the text field: his call 
de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the "Custom" button?  RenameCustom either Over or End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an "over" 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the "over" 
button. The "over" button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)






  

[digitalradio] Welcome F4AWY

[obrienaj]

>>> Hello My call is F4AWY and i am a beginner in digital mods best 73 >>> from 
>>> France .

Welcome to the group, please tell us what modes you use, we will be happy to 
help with any questions.

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode

[lew cason]

I run the SignalLink USB and it works with no problems with the ROS software

  - Original Message - 
  From: Gary 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:07 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode




  How do I select a specific sound card? Some of us are using external USB 
sound card devices for digital operation.

  Gary - N0GW

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "nietorosdj"  wrote:
  >
  > HI,
  > 
  > As you know i have created a new mode at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/
  > 
  > I wish you tested it and I will answer if you have any questions.
  > 
  > Jose Alberto
  >



  

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

[Glenn L. Roeser]

Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station Button 
will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the stations 
equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the text field: his call 
de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the "Custom" button?  RenameCustom either Over or End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an "over" 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the "over" 
button. The "over" button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)





  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John B. Stephensen]

I agree. Spread spectrum is illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S. and the ROS 
documentation describes a spread-spectrum system. It's certainly no wider than 
modes that use Walsh codes or low-rate convolutional codes but these systems 
increase bandwidth by increasing redundancy and are therefore legal. ROS is 
another good reason for regulation by bandwidth instead of the overly 
restrictive system in the current FCC regulations. 

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 18:19 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  All,

  If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier 
frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency 
hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That 
is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and 
printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can 
hardly be heard above the noise.

  I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.

  However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS 
"is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments 
every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and 
"fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone 
signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with 
DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and 
Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  
SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The 
path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold 
during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement.

  I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks 
as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even 
Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much like it is during 
aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select 
alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard 
for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY



  nietorosdj wrote: 
  

One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard 
SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is 
not legal, first we must know what we are reading.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> 
Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal. 

 




De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier 
frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency 
hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That 
is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and 
printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can 
hardly be heard above the noise.

I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.

However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS "is" 
allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments every 
morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and "fast 
flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone 
signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with 
DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and 
Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  
SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The 
path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold 
during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement.

I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks as 
we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even Olivia 
cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much like it is during aroura 
communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select alternate 
soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard for 
digital operations.

73 - Skip KH6TY



nietorosdj wrote: 
  
>
>One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military 
>radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB 
>transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is 
>not legal, first we must know what we are reading.
>
>--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>>
>> > 3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzE 4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3B JZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA 
>> 4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2x rA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1 lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA -?o=6>Joe,
>> N8FQ...
>> 
>> http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html
>> 
>> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of
>> part 97 I am missing ?
>> 
>> Andy K3UK
>>
>
>



  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Claudio]

HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.

claudio-LU2VC

2010/2/19 Dave Ackrill 

>
>
> KH6TY wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
> > suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
> > carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
> > is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers
> > are generated.
>
> That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as
> Olivia and various other data modes...
>
> Dave (G0DJA)
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[Andy obrien]

Thanks Skip, I agree after doing some more reading and I will not use this
mode on HF.  Your UHF idea sounds good.

Andy K3Uk
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:32 PM, KH6TY  wrote:

>
>
> Unfortunately, the ROS explanation of Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping
> in the documentation too closely resembles the definition of Spread Spectrum
> as written in the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum.
> Since ROS claims to be Frequency Hopping and Spread Spectrum by its own
> documentation, it is, no matter what you want to call it.
>
> The FCC recently clarified what a repeater is because a group insisted that
> any time delay meant it was not actually repeating, but their argument lost.
>
> There is good reason to want the FCC to allow ROS to be used in the
> automatic subbands, but that will take time and a petition. Looks like a
> good mode!
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

The difference is the use of Frequency Hopping. In Olivia and the other 
digital modes, frequency hopping is not used but the data is sent 
redundantly over the width of the signal - MT63 is a good example.


From the ROS documentation:

"ROS uses a Spread Spectrum technique known as Frequency-hopping spread 
spectrum (FHSS). In a conventional 16FSK system, the data symbols 
modulates a fixed frequency carrier; but in a FH/16FSK system, the data 
symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency pseudorandomly determined. 
In either case, a single tone is transmitted. ROS modulation scheme can 
be thought of as a two-step modulation process -- data modulation and 
frequency hopping modulation---even thought it can be implemented as a 
single step whereby the frequency synthesizer produces a transmission 
tone based on the simultaneous dictates of the PN code and the data. At 
each frequency hop time a PN generator feeds the frequency synthesizer a 
frequency word (a sequence of l chips) which dictates one of 2^l 
symbol-set positions. The frequency hopping bandwidth, and the minimum 
frequency space between consecutive hops positions, dictate the minimum 
number of chips necessary in the frequency word."


I think the FCC rules are more concerned with the encryption aspect of 
Frequency Hopping than with the spreading bandwidth, but ROS can be 
copied by anyone with the ROS software, so there is a good chance the 
FCC might allow ROS on HF in the US, but as it stands right now, the 
definition of the ROS modulation scheme classifies it as Spread Spectrum 
and Frequency Hopping, and the ROS documentation agrees with the FCC. :-(


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:
> All,
>
> If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
> suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
> carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
> is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers
> are generated.

That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as
Olivia and various other data modes...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Re: ROS

[nietorosdj]

OK, some questions:

We have the "CALL" BUTTON:  NONAME de EATEST

Then we need other button, for example: "KN" BUTTON: NONAME de EATEST kn

Is this correct?

Could you define better the rest of buttons? i am a little confused with k, kn, 
not kn...

Tell me how would be the basics buttons

Thank you a lot



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Jose, a button that hands over to the other person in the call
> 
> e.g.  k3uk de p5dx kn
> 
> K3UK would have "P5DX" " in the destination" box.  I think it would be the
> same as the "call button" though.
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM, jose alberto nieto ros <
> nietoro...@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Hi, Glenn.
> >
> > Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> > *De:* Glenn L. Roeser 
> > *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > *Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
> > *Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS
> >
> >
> >
> >  I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you
> > Vicente!!!
> > I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an
> > "over" button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the
> > "over" button. The "over" button would place the other stations call + my
> > call K then switch back to receive automatically.
> > Just a suggestion.
> > Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
> > Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

Unfortunately, the ROS explanation of Spread Spectrum and Frequency 
Hopping in the documentation too closely resembles the definition of 
Spread Spectrum as written in the Wikipedia 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum. Since ROS claims to be 
Frequency Hopping and Spread Spectrum by its own documentation, it is, 
no matter what you want to call it.


The FCC recently clarified what a repeater is because a group insisted 
that any time delay meant it was not actually repeating, but their 
argument lost.


There is good reason to want the FCC to allow ROS to be used in the 
automatic subbands, but that will take time and a petition. Looks like a 
good mode!


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


Andy obrien wrote:
> 
>Joe,

> N8FQ...
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html 


>
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 
part of

> part 97 I am missing ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>

I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect
as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of
the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the
best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than
RIO does.

Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to
think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I
have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is
something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of
'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of
the song...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> All,
> 
> If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
> suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
> carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping 
> is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers 
> are generated. 

That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as 
Olivia and various other data modes...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping 
is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers 
are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have 
been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many 
times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above the noise.


I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.


However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where 
SS "is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital 
experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath 
distortion, and "fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, 
often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have been also been 
testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive 
Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  
SSB, often with better copy than with  SSB phone, and especially so when 
signals are near the noise threshold. The path length is 200 miles, so 
signals are usually near the noise threshold during these winter months 
where there is no propagation enhancement.


I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two 
weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied 
when even Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much 
like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were 
possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF 
are using a second soundcard for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY




nietorosdj wrote:
 



One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on 
standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read 
Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading.


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Andy obrien  wrote:

>
> 
>Joe,

> N8FQ...
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html 


>
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 
part of

> part 97 I am missing ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

[Andy obrien]

Jose, a button that hands over to the other person in the call

e.g.  k3uk de p5dx kn

K3UK would have "P5DX" " in the destination" box.  I think it would be the
same as the "call button" though.

Andy K3UK

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM, jose alberto nieto ros <
nietoro...@yahoo.es> wrote:

>
>
> Hi, Glenn.
>
> Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>  --
> *De:* Glenn L. Roeser 
> *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> *Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
> *Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS
>
>
>
>  I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you
> Vicente!!!
> I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an
> "over" button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the
> "over" button. The "over" button would place the other stations call + my
> call K then switch back to receive automatically.
> Just a suggestion.
> Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
> Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)
>
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

Dave Ackrill wrote:

> I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect 
> as far as RIO is concerned.  It's actually no more 'spread' than some of 
> the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

Sorry, I meant ROS of course.

Mark it down as my senior moment for today. ;-)

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[Dave Ackrill]

Andy obrien wrote:
> Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 

I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect 
as far as RIO is concerned.  It's actually no more 'spread' than some of 
the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the 
best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than 
RIO does.

Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to 
think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I 
have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is 
something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 
'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of 
the song...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the "over" button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an "over" 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the "over" 
button. The "over" button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode

[Dave Ackrill]

Gary wrote:
> How do I select a specific sound card?  Some of us are using external USB 
> sound card devices for digital operation.

At present it uses the Windows default soundcard, although this may 
change in future releases.

So, you will need to open Control Panel, then open Sounds and Audio 
Devices and click on the Audio tab.

There you will find a pair of drop down menus called Sound playback and 
Sound recording.  Select the card you want to use, click Apply and close 
Sounds and Audio Devices and run RIO again.

Now it should be using the sound card you selected.

Personally I'm not keen on this system but the author (Sorry, I've not 
latched onto the authors name and I guess it was mentioned in an early 
post and I didn't pick up on it) did post a message here, when he 
uploaded V1.6.2 with the COM port additions, that selectable sound cards 
would come in a later release.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Go here to download ROS

[Dave Ackrill]

Andy obrien wrote:
> http://*rosmodem*.wordpress.com/
> 

That URL will only work if you take out the '*' of course, as in

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[nietorosdj]

One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military 
radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB 
transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is not 
legal, first we must know what we are reading.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[nietorosdj]

Hi,

One comment. A thing is a transceiver of Spread Spectrum (like military radios) 
and other very different is to send digital data into an audio channel on SSB, 
like PSK31, JT65, OLIVIA 1000, ROS...etc...are differents thinks. So, we must 
know what we are reading. 




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Dave Ackrill]

Toby Burnett wrote:
> Dave, your the only other G station I see testing this.  What are your
> thoughts on the 500hz digi mode band allocation and this type of signal,
> certainly blasted by rtty but cant help think we are doing the same? 

Hi Toby,

I have to say that, given the 'width' of the transmitted signal that it 
would probably be better to move up to the area that the wider 
digi-modes use.

As with all transmissions, you should listen before transmitting to make 
sure you are not clobbering someone else.  However, it seems that 
courtesy isn't always given at times as I hear/see various modes and 
people transmitting on top of each other and, at times, even people 
using the same mode transmitting right on top of others.  There were 
some bizarre transmissions on JT65a on 20M this morning...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Re: ROS width

[nietorosdj]

2250 Hz. From 400 to 2650Hz.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> I think it is 2200 Hz wide.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Glenn L. Roeser  > wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Hello Toby,
> > Your suggestions sound fine with me. I'm sorry that I missed the second M
> > during our QSO. The band was just not there.
> > I'm wondering? How wide is this mode? I'm sure the RTTY stations must hear
> > us as well.
> > Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV)
> >
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[Andy obrien]

Joe,
N8FQ...

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html

Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
part 97 I am missing ?

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode

[nietorosdj]

Hi, i will try to put that option in a future version.

Thank you for testing.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gary"  wrote:
>
> 
> How do I select a specific sound card?  Some of us are using external USB 
> sound card devices for digital operation.
> 
> Gary - N0GW
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "nietorosdj"  wrote:
> >
> > HI,
> > 
> > As you know i have created a new mode at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/
> > 
> > I wish you tested it and I will answer if you have any questions.
> > 
> > Jose Alberto
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode

[Gary]

How do I select a specific sound card?  Some of us are using external USB sound 
card devices for digital operation.

Gary - N0GW


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "nietorosdj"  wrote:
>
> HI,
> 
> As you know i have created a new mode at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/
> 
> I wish you tested it and I will answer if you have any questions.
> 
> Jose Alberto
>

[digitalradio] Ros 1.6.2 beta File not found Switch(16638-29712).ocx

[joe_n8jf]

Have attempted installation on 32-bit Win-7 machine with no luck. Guidance will 
be appreciated.

73/72
Joe, N8JF

Re: [digitalradio] Go here to download ROS

[OSCAR LAMA - CX1CW]

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ 


73´s & Good DX !!
Oscar Lama - CX1CW
MSN: oscar_l...@hotmail.com
MSN: cx...@hotmail.com
RGS#1300
EPC#7536  
30MDG#2645
FD#2519

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:35 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Go here to download ROS



  http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ 



  On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, ivor peters  wrote:

  


m5...@blueyonder.co.uk
hello all.
can someone tell me where i go to
download this ros.
many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply






  

RE: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[Giedrius, LY2CG]

>can someone tell me where i go to

>download this ros.

>many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

 

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com    

 

73 - Giedrius, LY2CG

 

 






 

m5...@blueyonder.co.uk

hello all.

can someone tell me where i go to

download this ros.

many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

- Original Message - 

From: Andy obrien   

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:23 AM

Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

 

  

The description says it uses spread-spectrun

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Dave Ackrill mailto:dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk> co.uk> wrote:

  

Andy obrien wrote:
> Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ?

Why would it not be Andy?

I

 

[digitalradio] Go here to download ROS

[Andy obrien]

http://*rosmodem*.wordpress.com/

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, ivor peters wrote:

>
>
>
> m5...@blueyonder.co.uk
> hello all.
> can someone tell me where i go to
> download this ros.
> many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

[ivor peters]

m5...@blueyonder.co.uk
hello all.
can someone tell me where i go to
download this ros.
many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?



  The description says it uses spread-spectrun



  On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Dave Ackrill  
wrote:

  

Andy obrien wrote:
> Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ?


Why would it not be Andy?

I




  

[digitalradio] ROS width

[Andy obrien]

I think it is 2200 Hz wide.

Andy


On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Glenn L. Roeser  wrote:

>
>
> Hello Toby,
> Your suggestions sound fine with me. I'm sorry that I missed the second M
> during our QSO. The band was just not there.
> I'm wondering? How wide is this mode? I'm sure the RTTY stations must hear
> us as well.
> Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV)
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Toby Burnett]

Hi Glenn, yes the band wasn't there and I have a faulty power line pole that
they refuse to fix, it's about 200m from the qth and splatters S8 on 20m
until it rains, (then all quiet and I can hear a pin drop in the south
pacific lol I WISH)  

Well it occurred that this mode 2250hz wide is a little big to play in
between the rtty, olivia 500, ale etc  I see Andy has an idea too and I can
see your point to Andy.  I just think at 080 we will all get stomped on.  I
notice another chap asking about the old 109 MT63 frequency which is kind of
where I was going as I haven't seen any mt63 for ages.   Andy I understand
the wanting to keep it all close together etc but I cant see how well it'd
work.  
If we could make an unofficial experimental  mode slot ??

Keep the suggestions coming though.  I cant be the only one here that has
noticed that RTTY station at 14.081 - 2 all day so far lol

Regards 

And sorry we didn't quite make it last time Glenn.


Toby  

---Original Message---
 
From: Glenn L. Roeser
Date: 19/02/2010 15:52:09
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
 
  
Hello Toby,
Your suggestions sound fine with me. I'm sorry that I missed the second M
during our QSO. The band was just not there.
I'm wondering? How wide is this mode? I'm sure the RTTY stations must hear
us as well.
Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV)





From: Toby Burnett 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 10:29:50 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

  
 
Just submitted this to Jose on his ROS blog page.  
What are your thoughts people please. 
 
Thanks for a quick reply Jose. There will be others who can recommend exact
frequencies. I understand about not being swamped in the past lol, but the
sub bands do kind of work. E.g. You'd never see an MT63 signal down at 14
075. I was thinking along the lines of just above the olivia 1000
frequencies. IE above the beacons and olivia but this may only give 1 spot
frequency before you hit 14.112 14.101 – 14.112 is for unattended but is
also used by olivia and winmor I think, there certainly wouldn't be any rtty
in the way lol. Just thought i’d throw the suggestion out here and see what
others say. I am by no means an expert on band allocations hi hi could you
mention this on the yahoo group too Jose and there will be some ideas for
sure. Toby MM0TOB

 






 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Alan Beagley]

Please include the option to select Virtual Audio Cable as the "sound 
card" -- and COM ports > 6.

73

Alan NV8A


On 02/19/10 07:49 am, nietorosdj wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the New Version 1.6.2 you can select from COM1 to COM6.
>
> For the future versions, i will make soundcard selectable, no problem.
>
> Thank you all for testing ROS. I hear your suggestions.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Glenn L. Roeser]

Hello Toby,
Your suggestions sound fine with me. I'm sorry that I missed the second M 
during our QSO. The band was just not there.
I'm wondering? How wide is this mode? I'm sure the RTTY stations must hear us 
as well.
Very 73 to all, Glenn (WB2LMV)





From: Toby Burnett 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 10:29:50 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

  


Just submitted this to Jose on his ROS blog page.  
What are your thoughts people please. 

Thanks for a quick reply Jose. There will be others who can recommend exact 
frequencies. I understand about not being swamped in the past lol, but the sub 
bands do kind of work. E.g. You'd never see an MT63 signal down at 14.075. I 
was thinking along the lines of just above the olivia 1000 frequencies. IE 
above the beacons and olivia but this may only give 1 spot frequency before you 
hit 14.112 14.101 – 14.112 is for unattended but is also used by olivia and 
winmor I think, there certainly wouldn't be any rtty in the way lol. Just 
thought i’d throw the suggestion out here and see what others say. I am by no 
means an expert on band allocations hi hi could you mention this on the yahoo 
group too Jose and there will be some ideas for sure. Toby MM0TOB




  

[digitalradio] ROS band plan , and other modes

[Andy obrien]

Avoid 14075-76 since this is where JT65A is on 20M.  I like the idea of us
all be around  the  same place with differing modes, that way, we can hear
people calling and do not have to constantly twirl the dial.  Since most
people's waterfalls , including the one in ROS, are 3kHZ wide , and people's
rigs often use an audio range of 3 Khz, I would like to suggest that ROS
stay within 3 kHz of where everyone else is.  Avoid the PSK31, JT65A, and
usual RTTY ranges but have MFSK16, Hell, PSK63, ROS, Thor, Throbx, Olivia,
Pax, ALE400, Dominoex and MT63 all in the same area.  Close to PSK31 too,
that way we can interest PSK31ers to try the odd sounding mode.

I''d like to suggest we look at using this mode on WARC bands too

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Toby Burnett  wrote:

>
>
>
> Just submitted this to Jose on his ROS blog page.
> What are your thoughts people please.
>
> Thanks for a quick reply Jose. There will be others who can recommend exact
> frequencies. I understand about not being swamped in the past lol, but the
> sub bands do kind of work. E.g. You'd never see an MT63 signal down at
> 14.075. I was thinking along the lines of just above the olivia 1000
> frequencies. IE above the beacons and olivia but this may only give 1 spot
> frequency before you hit 14.112 14.101 – 14.112 is for unattended but is
> also used by olivia and winmor I think, there certainly wouldn't be any rtty
> in the way lol. Just thought i’d throw the suggestion out here and see what
> others say. I am by no means an expert on band allocations hi hi could you
> mention this on the yahoo group too Jose and there will be some ideas for
> sure. Toby MM0TOB
>
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Toby Burnett]

 
Just submitted this to Jose on his ROS blog page.  
What are your thoughts people please. 

Thanks for a quick reply Jose. There will be others who can recommend exact
frequencies. I understand about not being swamped in the past lol, but the
sub bands do kind of work. E.g. You'd never see an MT63 signal down at 14
075. I was thinking along the lines of just above the olivia 1000
frequencies. IE above the beacons and olivia but this may only give 1 spot
frequency before you hit 14.112 14.101 – 14.112 is for unattended but is
also used by olivia and winmor I think, there certainly wouldn't be any rtty
in the way lol. Just thought i’d throw the suggestion out here and see what
others say. I am by no means an expert on band allocations hi hi could you
mention this on the yahoo group too Jose and there will be some ideas for
sure. Toby MM0TOB