[digitalradio] ROS
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios
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 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?
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 tm 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 vi...@mulhollon.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... 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
[digitalradio] ros
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
[digitalradio] ros
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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)
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?
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)
[digitalradio] ros
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] ros
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.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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
[digitalradio] Vista Run-time error and ROS
Has anyone had any luck running ROS with Vista? Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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] Re: FCC is not our friend ROS, legal in USA?
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 dave.g0...@... 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: FCC is not our friend ROS, legal in USA?
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
[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...otherwise for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :) 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] ROS now compatible with Vista
All, The latest version of ROS seems to work fine with Vista. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Thanks Jose... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Vista Run-time error and ROS
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 n9...@comcast.net 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 kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments
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 k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 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
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 k3uka...@gmail.com *Para:* digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *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
