RE: [digitalradio] PSK SPOTS

[Dave AA6YQ]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Andy obrien
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:56 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] PSK SPOTS



That is a good point, Alan.  Now that i think about it, you would think that
after 10 years we would have come up with a point and click method.

>>>In WinWarbler, one click in the waterfall selects a PSK signal, and one
click of the Spot button generates an outgoing spot (via SpotCollector).

>>>Double-clicking a PSK Spot Database Entry in SpotCollector directs
WinWarbler or MultiPSK to immediately begin decoding the spotted station,
QSYing the transceiver as required to achieve the specified optimal offset.
Alternatively, one can click a plotted DX spot on DXView's World Map or
click a DX spot on Commander's bandspread to accomplish the same result.

>>>WinWarbler's broadband decoder continuously identifies active PSK QSOs
within the receiver bandpass, listing the decoded callsigns in its "Stations
Heard" window. Optionally, these callsigns can be inserted into
SpotCollector's Spot Database, where they are color coded for "need" with
respect to the user's award objectives and award progress, dynamically
obtained from DXKeeper. Thus its straightforward to identify needed PSK DX.

>>>These capabilities have been in broad use by DXLab users for many years.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

RE: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

[Barry Murrell ZS2EZ]

Hi Jose

 

Any indication when selectable soundcards will become a reality?

 

So far unable to try ROS out here, as I use multiple soundcards - all
digital operation through a non-default card.  I have too much set up to
want to mess with that!!!

 

73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ

KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Member : SARL - ARRL

EPC#0558  DMC#1690  OMC#010  WCC#030

DXCC(mixed)#41,146  DXCC(RTTY)#1,916

DXCC(phone)#34,990  DXCC(CW)#11,714

DXCC 20m,17m,15m

WAS(RTTY)#538  WAZ(RTTY)#185  WAE-I(mixed)#72

WAZS(mixed)#214  AAA#1569

AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334  UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75  UKSMG AFRICA#22  WAC
(Satellite)

Website : www.zs2ez.co.za   

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of nietorosdj
Sent: 19 February 2010 02:50 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

 

  

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.

--- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>
> nietorosdj wrote:
> > Hi, tomorrow i will change PTT from COM1 to COM6, but i dont know if
it'll run. 
> 
> Does any one know if it is possible to make the soundcard selectable and 
> increase the options for the COM port?
> 
> I use a US Interface Navigator, and computer control is on COM3 with PTT 
> on COM4. so the switch that allows just COM1 or 2 isn't much use to me 
> and I don't really like having to make the soundcard that I use for 
> digital modes the Windows default either.
> 
> Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
>



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2694 - Release Date: 02/18/10
19:34:00

[digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[John]

Thanks 

I think you make the same point as I am seeking 

Just because the author of the program calls his great work spread spectrum 
does not necessarily make it so. Sorry Jose 

Here is partially why I ask for better clarification  

In Jose's documentation, one of his remarks seems to actually remove a 
qualifier of spread spectrum by his own statement as to why he did not do 
certain things. That is, in every spread spectrum system I have ever worked 
with (microwave, cordless phones, and numerous others), for the systems to 
work, each end had to be pre-programmed to a matching specific coded algorithm 
in order for the receivers and transmitters to hop frequencies in the exact 
same pattern and sync with each other. This pattern was pre-determined by that 
algorithm and NOT by ANY of the input data whatsoever. In other words, even if 
there were no input to the transmitter, it would still hop and transmit on it's 
pre-determined frequency pattern. The presence or absence of data at any given 
point in time would certainly affect the output of the transmitter at that 
particular instant, but would not affect the pre-determined frequency, but 
rather it's phase usually. 

NOW, with that said, this also would cause one other thing to happen, that has 
already been stated in the discussions. In true spread spectrum, if you were to 
look at the entire transmitted signal on an appropriate spectrum analyzer, you 
would see that the entire spectrum of the transmitted signal would be spread 
evenly throughout the bandwidth, regardless of input data. This is not 
necessarily true of an FSK / PSK signal in the short term. In the long term 
averaged over a period of time it may end up that way. Also of note, the 
"frequency hopping" characteristics of FSK/PSK modes are the result of the 
input data alone, not due to a pre-determined frequency pattern. Jose's 
documentation specifically mentioned NOT doing this for the reason of nobody 
would know what code to preset to be able to listen for CQ's, etc. Since Jose 
specifically chose not to implement this form of coding, to my way of thinking 
it also removes one of the specific defining points required to qualify as true 
spread spectrum. 

So the question remains  is it really spread spectrum or not? Until that 
question is really answered, then any discussion of legality remains moot. Just 
because Jose declares it as spread spectrum does not make it that way. And 
unless a signal really is spread spectrum, then the well known laws against 
it's use on HF frequencies does not apply here. 

At the same time, if it does turn out that his definition IS correct and it IS 
spread spectrum rather than FSK or PSK (BPSK), then we now have numerous other 
common sound card based digital modes that become just as illegal because they 
operate the SSB transmitter in exactly the same way, by applying a variety of 
tones in different patterns to the audio input of it and them modulating it, 
which in turn causes the transmitter to output on a variety of different 
instantaneous frequencies based on that input data.

The question of "If we run RTTY with 850 Hz shift like we
did in the old days, has that turned into spread spectrum?" is a very valid 
question indeed ...

John
KE5HAM

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Skip,
> > 
> > Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I 
> > understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am 
> > after.
> > 
> > What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of 
> > digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone 
> > modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one 
> > single mode is called "spread spectrum" output, but is called FSK or PSK, 
> > etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and 
> > suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those 
> > shifted frequencies are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a 
> > great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to 
> > call his scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.
> > 
> 
> That's a good question.  If we run RTTY with 850 Hz shift like we
> did in the old days, has that turned into spread spectrum?
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Ugo]

Hi All.
Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this...
I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its  
bandwidth ?
In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to  
receive/decode ros ?

Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply.
73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE

(sent with iPhone)

Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY  ha  
scritto:



Hi Jose,

Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor  
station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and  
decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode,  
the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and  
not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16  
or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away  
from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth  
of a ROS signal).


In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared  
in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and  
some of those also stopped decoding until they left.


Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e.  
covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the  
ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears  
at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens  
and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance,  
covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with  
the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and  
cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the  
MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and  
decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering  
signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that  
there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode  
with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how  
well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see.


If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an  
interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain  
what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage  
when the Pactor signal came on.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:



Hi,

You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all  
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better  
than you transceiver.





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?


Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the  
following:


1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend  
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not  
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the  
waterfall did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that  
capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of  
decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem  
however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS  
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause  
loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with  
passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough  
of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is  
insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS  
will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the  
weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the  
the weaker one is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS  
signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is  
concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as  
one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS  
signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia  
signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a  
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM  
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF  
filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been  
narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or  
spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding  
disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more  
susceptible to additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be  
more in favor of making it hard to copy a traditional SS signal  
unless the code is available, than QRM survival, but on crowded ham  
bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or MFSK16,  
because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a  
better chance of survivin

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[mikea]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:30:29PM -0500, KH6TY wrote:
> It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a 
> code as explained in the ROS documentation:
> 
> "A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the 
> following requirements:
> 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum 
> bandwidth necessary to send the information.
> 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often 
> called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
> 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is 
> accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a 
> synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information.
> Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code 
> modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they 
> do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all 
> the conditions outlined above.
> 
> Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread 
> spectrum.  I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in less 
> bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in 
> a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly 
> spread-spectrum.
> 
> Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding 
> transmissions so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact 
> actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum, and you can read that 
> here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr.  The difference is the 
> use of a code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and 
> monitoring by those without the same code.

She invented FHSS as a torpedo control technique; most folks don't know
that she had an EE degree. DSSS came about later, as a classified technique
called "Phantom", to permit transmissions with a low probability of
interception ("LPI"). With a typical 3 KHz bandwidth receiver, or even a 50
KHz wide panadaptor, you won't see all the spectrum from a wideband (say,
100 KHz spreading code) DSSS transmission. You may notice only a slightly
raised noise floor.

But that's only part of the deal with DSSS. The correlation and despreading
produces a really nice gain in noise immunity, as well.

-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

No, the shift on RTTY and other soundcard modes is not determined by a 
pseudo random code but always known and predictable. Instead, the tones 
on ROS are driven by a code signal. To quote from the ROS documentation, 
"2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often 
called a code signal, which is independent of the data."


The original intent of spread spectrum was to make it impossible to 
monitor without possessing the despreading code, but ROS can be monitored.


There is a good chance that the FCC will allow us to use ROS on HF - why 
not! But as the rules are written right now, ROS is FHSS - by design, 
and it does not matter if the description is changed or not, so it is 
necessary to get a waiver or other FCC agreement that we can use it on 
HF. ROS can be copied by third parties, and is no wider than a phone 
signal, so I cannot think of any reason the FCC would decline, but they 
have to give permission. That is just the way it works, because that is 
how the rules happen to have been written in the past.


If  the spreading is NOT actually "accomplished by means of a spreading 
signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data" 
then ROS is not spread spectrum and there is no problem.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jhaynesatalumni wrote:
 




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, "John"  wrote:

>
> Thanks Skip,
>
> Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my 
question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is 
not really what I am after.

>
> What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some 
version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or 
series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the 
transmitter, and not one single mode is called "spread spectrum" 
output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the 
aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the 
microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies 
are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a great deal of 
difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his 
scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.

>

That's a good question. If we run RTTY with 850 Hz shift like we
did in the old days, has that turned into spread spectrum?

[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[wd4kpd]

A SOFTWARE G-TOR FOR SOUNDCARD?

WHERE MIGHT IT BE FOUND.

DAIVD/WD4KPD

[digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
>
> Not really Jim
> I for one never stopped using the old machines.
> Therefore never had to bring em back out.
> It's the only way I do RTTY here.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
Cool!  I have a lot of TTY machinery out in my "baudy house" but
none of it is on the air right now.  I switched to sound card
RTTY back when K6STI's RITTY software first came out.  At my
request he did make available a cleaned-up Baudot output on one
of the connector pins so I could drive a Real Teletype printer
from it.

[digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Skip,
> 
> Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I 
> understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am 
> after.
> 
> What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of 
> digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone 
> modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one 
> single mode is called "spread spectrum" output, but is called FSK or PSK, 
> etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and 
> suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those 
> shifted frequencies are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a 
> great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to 
> call his scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.
> 

That's a good question.  If we run RTTY with 850 Hz shift like we
did in the old days, has that turned into spread spectrum?

[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
>
> 
> I tried some connects with Andy and Skip and can confirm the sound card 
> version of G-TOR works with a real G-TOR modem (my KAM-XL). Throughput got up 
> to 200 baud and of course no errors due to the ARQ.
> 
> The GUI is basic on the sound card program and not particularly intuitive but 
> it seems that sound card G-TOR is possible on Windows.
> 
> 73
> 
> Sholto
> K7TMG
>
That's really interesting.  I had no idea there was a sound card
modem for G-TOR, and of course G-TOR has seen very little use since
you always had to have a Kantronics TNC to use it.  Maybe somebody
can write up how to operate the sound card version.

[digitalradio] Re: Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave 'Doc' Corio"  wrote:

> However, there is one thing the tuner will NOT do. It will not remember
> any band or frequency, until the transmitter is keyed.
> 

Well, sure.  The only thing going from the radio to the tuner is
the antenna cable, so the tuner has no way to know that you
have changed frequency on the transceiver.  Whereas a tuner
built into the radio, or one made for the radio you have and
connecting to the radio with a control cable, can get frequency
information from the radio.  But the third-party tuner only knows
you have changed frequency when you tickle it with some RF.

[digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow  wrote:
 
> I've also observed a significant power mindset with many RTTY ops.
> Bigger is better.
> 
This pretty much comes with the territory.  I've been in RTTY since
the late 1950s, and I just remembered recently that back then we all
ran lots of power - had to, to get good copy.  I used a home-built
500 watt transmitter for a number of years, then switched to a TMC
rig with a KW linear amplifier.  Used that until the AMTOR mode
came along, and then I got a TS-940 and used that barefoot and other
radios in the 50-100 watt class ever since.  And I don't do much RTTY
anymore, but then nobody else does either except the DX guys and
contesters.

[digitalradio] PSK SPOTS

[Andy obrien]

That is a good point, Alan.  Now that i think about it, you would think that
after 10 years we would have come up with a point and click method.

Andy K3UK


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Alan Barrow  wrote:

>
>
> jhaynesatalumni wrote:
> > -
> >
> > My belief is that all the RTTY is largely from contesting and DX
> > chasing. Those two operations have two things in common:
>
> Another aspect I had not thought of until I asked a DX'er friend of mine
> why they did not use PSK much for DX. His answer:
>
> "no one has found a good way to do psk spots".
>
> Most DX is spot & click initially. I see some psk spots, but there is
> wide variation in how people spot them. so you have to (heaven forbid)
> listen to the psk signals to see which one is the dx. :-)
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[Alan Barrow]

jhaynesatalumni wrote:
> -
>
> My belief is that all the RTTY is largely from contesting and DX
> chasing.  Those two operations have two things in common: 

Another aspect I had not thought of until I asked a DX'er friend of mine
why they did not use PSK much for DX. His answer:

"no one has found a good way to do psk spots".

Most DX is spot & click initially. I see some psk spots, but there is
wide variation in how people spot them. so you have to (heaven forbid)
listen to the psk signals to see which one is the dx. :-)

I've also observed a significant power mindset with many RTTY ops.
Bigger is better.

I also see that for many RTTY ops it's not love of the mode, but another
way to add DX credit.

Sweeping generalization, of course. But I have more respect for the guy
with the ASR. I'm not anti-DX, but do believe it often leads to some bad
operating practices.

Have fun,

Alan

km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Has anyone tried this?

[F.R. Ashley]

G-Tor was only useable by the Kantronics line of TNCs years ago, like Clover 
and HAL gear.

73 Buddy WB4M
- Original Message - 
From: "sholtofish" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:12 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Has anyone tried this?


> Came across this the other day:
>
> http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip
>
> Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a 
> butterfly icon so something to do with MixW??
>
> Does it work?
>
>
>
> 
>
> Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
> http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[digitalradio] Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners

[Dave 'Doc' Corio]

This is for anyone thinking about an external automatic antenna tuner.
It is not meant as an endorsement or indictment of these devices.

I operate CW, digital, and once in a while SSB. Because of the vastly
different operating frequencies, no one antenna can work perfectly on every
one. My IC-746 (non-Pro) has a very good auto-tuner built in, but it wasn't
quite good enough to cover all the frequencies I use. I decided to get an
external ATU. I decided on the LDG AT-200Pro and have been using it now for
several months.

The tuner works great. It tunes quickly on a new frequency, and has more
than enough memories to remember all the various settings for all the bands
and frequencies I operate on. It also has manual overrides should they be
needed.

However, there is one thing the tuner will NOT do. It will not remember
any band or frequency, until the transmitter is keyed.

For example: I operate CW on 14.035 for a period of time. I then have a
CW sked on 18.075. After the sked I move back to 14.035. The tuner is still
set for the last transmission, which was on 18.075. Until I transmit on
14.035 again, the signals are a bit attenuated, since the tuner is set for a
different frequency.

My IC-746 built-in tuner "remembered" the tuner settings for each band.
In fact, I believe with the triple-stacking band registers that it would
remember three settings per band. I suspect most modern rigs probably have
the same performance.

To be fair, it only takes a very short time to transmit a low-power
"pulse" that will activate the tuner's memory for the frequency, but it IS
an extra step that may not be welcome when working a contest or DX.

In my situation, the ability to quickly tune a wide variety of
frequencies quickly, outweighs the downside stated. I only point this out
for benefit of anyone considering the addition of an outboard tuner.

73
Dave
KB3MOW

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[Alan Barrow]

KH6TY wrote:
> It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a
> code as explained in the ROS documentation:
>
> "A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the
> following requirements:
> 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum
> bandwidth necessary to send the information.
> 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often
> called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
> 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is
> accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a
> synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the
> information.
> Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code
> modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they
> do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy
> all the conditions outlined above.
>
> Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread
> spectrum.  I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in
> less bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing
> speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is
> probably truly spread-spectrum.
>

The key is the "much in excess"  in  item 1.  If you were to use 31hz vs
2000, you'd be approaching the minimum bandwidth expansion factor in
practical usage at 64:1. I'd have to go look at realistic bandwidth for
psk, I was thinking it's a bit higher in the real world. Modern SS runs
way higher, often 1000:1.

But just like the fsk symbol rate anachronism in the regs, I suspect the
spread spectrum restriction in the regs was targeted the very broad
(50-100khz minimum) spread spectrum signals. Realistically, they did not
anticipate that we'd have the capability to do SS in a 2khz signal. (and
we probably could not have pre-sound card)

But after reading the NTIA definition, and the one in the docs, I agree
it's technically SS by a strict interpretation. Just like P3 is
technically FDM. But since both live in a SSB signal bandwidth, they are
not what the regs were trying to prevent.

Based on the FCC ruling on P3 OFDM, my suspicion is they'd fall in favor
of ROS. I don't see a practical reason for them to disallow it, it does
not have expanded footprint, etc.

But all this points out to me how out of date the US regs are! It would
be easier if they had used the NTIA definition, and ideally put some
practical measures around bandwidth expansion factor and overall bandwidth.

No matter what, it's a neat idea, and thanks for taking the time to code it!

have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

Gentlemen,

I have spent way too much time with my limited knowledge trying to make 
some sense of this issue and answer questions. I am going to use ROS on 
UHF only anyway, and it is legal there no matter if it is FHSS or not, 
so I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss the issue.


Thanks for the bandwidth and I hope it can be used on HF!

73, Skip, KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

That is only ONE of the three conditions outlined by Jose. I thought I 
did not need to repeat the other two.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave AA6YQ wrote:
 

re "PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, 
instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum."
 
Applying this logic to RTTY, which employs ~10X the bandwidth employed 
by PSK31, would lead us to conclude that RTTY is also spread spectrum.
 
73,
 
Dave, AA6YQ
 
-Original Message-
*From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *KH6TY

*Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2010 8:30 PM
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

 

It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a 
code as explained in the ROS documentation:


"A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the 
following requirements:
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum 
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often 
called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is 
accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a 
synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the 
information.
Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code 
modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they 
do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy 
all the conditions outlined above.


Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread 
spectrum.  I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in 
less bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing 
speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is 
probably truly spread-spectrum.


Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding 
transmissions so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact 
actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum, and you can read that 
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr.  The difference is the 
use of a code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and 
monitoring by those without the same code.


Download the documentation from www. rosmodem.wordpress.com and read 
about spread spectrum and the ROS implementation. That will make it 
clear I think. Remembering that a single tone creates a single RF 
carrier makes it easy to see how just about anything can be done with 
tones, including sending data over several tones at once so if one 
carrier is lost, others carry the same data, or using a psuedo-random 
code to determine the carrier frequencies, as I think is done in ROS.


That documentation also explains the difference between FHSS and modes 
like MFSK16.  However, a main point is that the data does not have to 
be scattered over such a wide bandwidth to achieve communication, but 
ROS does, so it qualifies as spread spectrum.


If you have a receive bandwith of 10,000 Hz, and you spread over that 
bandwidth, you really are using way more bandwidth than necessary to 
send the same data at a given speed. MT63 uses 64 carriers with the 
data divided among the carriers for redundancy and about 40% of the 
signal can be obilterated by QRM and still produce good copy. I think 
the difference with ROS is that the carrier frequencies are varied 
according to a code, instead of being at a fixed position, but I am no 
expert on modes, so someone else can probably explain it better and 
with more accuracy.


Generally it is qualifies as spread spectrum if a code is used for the 
spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I 
think) the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so 
that the intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same 
code.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



John wrote:
 


Thanks Skip,

Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my 
question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is 
not really what I am after.


What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some 
version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or 
series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the 
transmitter, and not one single mode is called "spread spectrum" 
output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the 
aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the 
microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies 
are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a great deal of 
difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his 
scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.


Thanks 

John
KE5HAM

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, KH6TY  wrote:

>
> John,
>
> Given sufficient carr

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[Dave AA6YQ]

re "PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz,
instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum."

Applying this logic to RTTY, which employs ~10X the bandwidth employed by
PSK31, would lead us to conclude that RTTY is also spread spectrum.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of KH6TY
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:30 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -



It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a code
as explained in the ROS documentation:

"A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the
following requirements:
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth
necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a
code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is
accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a
synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information.
Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code
modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do
not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the
conditions outlined above.

Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread spectrum.
I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in less bandwidth,
but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of
31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum.

Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding transmissions
so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact actress Hedy Lamarr
invented spread spectrum, and you can read that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr.  The difference is the use of a
code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and monitoring by
those without the same code.

Download the documentation from www. rosmodem.wordpress.com and read about
spread spectrum and the ROS implementation. That will make it clear I think.
Remembering that a single tone creates a single RF carrier makes it easy to
see how just about anything can be done with tones, including sending data
over several tones at once so if one carrier is lost, others carry the same
data, or using a psuedo-random code to determine the carrier frequencies, as
I think is done in ROS.

That documentation also explains the difference between FHSS and modes like
MFSK16.  However, a main point is that the data does not have to be
scattered over such a wide bandwidth to achieve communication, but ROS does,
so it qualifies as spread spectrum.

If you have a receive bandwith of 10,000 Hz, and you spread over that
bandwidth, you really are using way more bandwidth than necessary to send
the same data at a given speed. MT63 uses 64 carriers with the data divided
among the carriers for redundancy and about 40% of the signal can be
obilterated by QRM and still produce good copy. I think the difference with
ROS is that the carrier frequencies are varied according to a code, instead
of being at a fixed position, but I am no expert on modes, so someone else
can probably explain it better and with more accuracy.

Generally it is qualifies as spread spectrum if a code is used for the
spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I think)
the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so that the
intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same code.


73 - Skip KH6TY



John wrote:

  Thanks Skip,

  Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I
understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am
after.

  What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version
of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone
modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one
single mode is called "spread spectrum" output, but is called FSK or PSK,
etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and
suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those
shifted frequencies are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a
great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to
call his scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.

  Thanks 

  John
  KE5HAM

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
  >
  > John,
  >
  > Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the microphone
  > makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the
  > suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus
  > the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the ton

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

The only entity competent to answer the question is the FCC, and the 
accepted procedure when one is not sure is to ask for a clarification. 
Unfortunately, it is everyone's legal responsibility to understand the 
law and obey it. Since most of use cannot do that, we have to turn to 
lawyers to do it. You may or may not like the answer given, but the FCC 
does try to protect the ham bands for everyone and seems to make 
interpretations on that basis. Digital users are a tiny minority of 
users of the bands, but the FCC is accountable to all hams, so they must 
try to do what is right for all hams, not just for a minority. If it 
were not for that approach, the HF bands today might be covered with 
automatic messaging systems and it would be hard to even find a place to 
play or have a QSO without interference from an automatic station that 
does not listen first, does not QRL, and does not share frequencies. We 
may not like the time it takes for the process to play out, but that 
gives everyone a chance to present their case before any rules are made 
- EVERYONE, not just a vocal minority.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Alan Barrow wrote:
 


John wrote:
> Thanks Skip,
>
> Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my 
question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is 
not really what I am after.

>
> What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some 
version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or 
series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the 
transmitter, and not one single mode is called "spread spectrum" 
output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the 
aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the 
microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies 
are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a great deal of 
difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his 
scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.

>

OFDM used in Pactor 3 is legal due to it's low symbol rates and SSB
sized effective bandwidth. If prior to P3 someone asked if FDM was legal
on HF most would say no. Traditional FDM (frequency division
multiplexing) as practiced in the real world would not ever be legal on
HF. So technically it's FDM, but practically, it's not, as it's much
narrower bandwidth.

Lumping ROS in with Spread spectrum is similar. You can use FDM or SS
approaches on an audio modulated sideband signal and not meet practical
definitions. quack test- walks like a duck, must be a duck.

Regarding the perfect SSB transmitter sending a 1khz tone equaling CW at
a 1khz beat frequency, we all know there is a big difference between
theoretical and reality.

But in theory, ROS, P3, whatever could be represented by multiple
transmitter signals, so could technically fall into legal gray area. I'm
sure if we tried hard enough we could find a way to decide it's illegal,
and should be banned. And in reality, the FCC won't care, as it did not
meet the quack test of spread spectrum. :-)

I don't have a horse in this race, however. :-)

Have fun,

Alan
KM4BA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[Alan Barrow]

John wrote:
> Thanks Skip,
>
> Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I 
> understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am 
> after.
>
> What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of 
> digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone 
> modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one 
> single mode is called "spread spectrum" output, but is called FSK or PSK, 
> etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and 
> suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those 
> shifted frequencies are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a 
> great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to 
> call his scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.
>   

OFDM used in Pactor 3 is legal due to it's low symbol rates and SSB
sized effective bandwidth. If prior to P3 someone asked if FDM was legal
on HF most would say no. Traditional FDM (frequency division
multiplexing) as practiced in the real world would not ever be legal on
HF. So technically it's FDM, but practically, it's not, as it's much
narrower bandwidth. 

Lumping ROS in with Spread spectrum is similar. You can use FDM or SS
approaches on an audio modulated sideband signal and not meet practical
definitions. quack test- walks like a duck, must be a duck.

Regarding the perfect SSB transmitter sending a 1khz tone equaling CW at
a 1khz beat frequency, we all know there is a big difference between
theoretical and reality.

But in theory, ROS, P3, whatever could be represented by multiple
transmitter signals, so could technically fall into legal gray area. I'm
sure if we tried hard enough we could find a way to decide it's illegal,
and should be banned. And in reality, the FCC won't care, as it did not
meet the quack test of spread spectrum. :-)

I don't have a horse in this race, however. :-)

Have fun,

Alan
KM4BA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a 
code as explained in the ROS documentation:


"A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the 
following requirements:
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum 
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often 
called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is 
accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a 
synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information.
Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code 
modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they 
do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all 
the conditions outlined above.


Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread 
spectrum.  I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in less 
bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in 
a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly 
spread-spectrum.


Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding 
transmissions so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact 
actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum, and you can read that 
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr.  The difference is the 
use of a code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and 
monitoring by those without the same code.


Download the documentation from www. rosmodem.wordpress.com and read 
about spread spectrum and the ROS implementation. That will make it 
clear I think. Remembering that a single tone creates a single RF 
carrier makes it easy to see how just about anything can be done with 
tones, including sending data over several tones at once so if one 
carrier is lost, others carry the same data, or using a psuedo-random 
code to determine the carrier frequencies, as I think is done in ROS.


That documentation also explains the difference between FHSS and modes 
like MFSK16.  However, a main point is that the data does not have to be 
scattered over such a wide bandwidth to achieve communication, but ROS 
does, so it qualifies as spread spectrum.


If you have a receive bandwith of 10,000 Hz, and you spread over that 
bandwidth, you really are using way more bandwidth than necessary to 
send the same data at a given speed. MT63 uses 64 carriers with the data 
divided among the carriers for redundancy and about 40% of the signal 
can be obilterated by QRM and still produce good copy. I think the 
difference with ROS is that the carrier frequencies are varied according 
to a code, instead of being at a fixed position, but I am no expert on 
modes, so someone else can probably explain it better and with more 
accuracy.


Generally it is qualifies as spread spectrum if a code is used for the 
spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I 
think) the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so 
that the intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same code.


73 - Skip KH6TY




John wrote:
 


Thanks Skip,

Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). 
I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what 
I am after.


What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some 
version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or 
series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the 
transmitter, and not one single mode is called "spread spectrum" 
output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the 
aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the 
microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies 
are now called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a great deal of 
difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his 
scheme "spread spectrum" in his technical documentation.


Thanks 

John
KE5HAM

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, KH6TY  wrote:

>
> John,
>
> Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the 
microphone

> makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the
> suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus
> the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the tones determines
> what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone
> frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook
> usually has an explanation of this.
>
> Hope that answers the question.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> John wrote:
> >
> >
> > So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even
> > further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question.
> >
> > How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when
> > the sourc

Re: [digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -

[Jose A. Amador]

Nothing is altered. In a SSB transmitter, amplitudes are scaled (usually 
UP) and frequencies just shifted. So, if audio tones change frequency, 
RF tones do likewise.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

El 22/02/2010 18:04, John escribió:
> So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I 
> would like to ask a fairly simple question.
>
> How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the 
> source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that 
> transmitter?
>
> Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some 
> form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input?
>
> Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given 
> time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the 
> audio input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's DM780, MixW modes, 
> MMSSTV, or many other sound card driven software packages. They all have one 
> thing in common, they generate a sequence of tones which is then processed by 
> the very same transmitter in the very same way. The maximum output bandwidth 
> is supposed to be somewhat limited in the bandpass of the transmitter 
> circuitry (which is NOT being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is 
> being altered in any way that I am aware of.
>
> With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter output 
> definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond my feeble 
> mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the "source" of the 
> modulation itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the carrier 
> frequency by the frequency of the input tone.
>
> To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these modes is 
> rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two together. To simply 
> start an argument about a particular FCC rule, without showing the 
> correlation to the subject is somewhat like arguing the color of orange peels 
> in an apple pie instruction sheet. They simply don't necessarily relate. Both 
> may have valid points about their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go 
> together.
>
> Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning from 
> all these rules being bandied about, that may have no application here at all.
>
> John
> KE5HAM
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -

[Alan Barrow]

John wrote:
> How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the 
> source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that 
> transmitter?
>
> Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some 
> form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input? 
>
> Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given 
> time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the 
> audio input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's DM780, MixW modes, 
> MMSSTV, or many other sound card driven software packages. They all have one 
> thing in common, they generate a sequence of tones which is then processed by 
> the very same transmitter in the very same way. The maximum output bandwidth 
> is supposed to be somewhat limited in the bandpass of the transmitter 
> circuitry (which is NOT being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is 
> being altered in any way that I am aware of.
>   

That's indeed the question! Given the way (legal) rigs filter the SSB to
a voice grade bandwidth, it's really hard to see the many modes as
anything but variants/nuances of AFSK, PSK, etc.

And for what it's worth, spread spectrum is nearly always BPSK, just
spread across many frequencies via some pseudo random or direct sequence.

There are some technical descriptions of spread spectrum, and they
nearly always consist of:

1- signal bandwidth to information bandwidth ratio significantly greater
than one. (usually 100 or more)
2- Frequency shift driven by something other than the information itself.

Item 1 actually is indicative of gain, the larger the ratio, the more
effective the circuit gain is in terms of S/N. Given the low ratio in
ROS, most definitions would exclude it based on this alone. A corollary
to this is that a single bit must be spread across multiple frequencies.
The larger the bandwidth expansion factor, the less of a "bit" is ever
present on any single frequency.

Item 2 is referring to sequence generators driving RF vco's directly,
along with the signal in an adder mode. It is not referring to
randomization of the in band audio signal, or even dividing the signal
into multiple bands and sending information in parallel. 

Based on these measures, most ham grade transmitters would be incapable
of spread spectrum operation.

Pretty much all SS is a form of "code division", as opposed to frequency
division or time division. Code division is the clock signal (direct or
random) which shifts the carrier frequency unrelated to the information
modulation. IE: Even sending all zero's, ones or random data, the base
frequency shift sequence will be the same.

NTIA has two definitions for spread spectrum:

1. Telecommunications techniques in which a signal is transmitted in a
bandwidth considerably greater than the frequency content of the
original information. Note: Frequency hopping, direct sequence
spreading, time scrambling, and combinations of these techniques are
forms of spread spectrum.

[INFOSEC-99] 2. A signal structuring technique that employs direct
sequence, frequency hopping or a hybrid of these, which can be used for
multiple access and/or multiple functions. This technique decreases the
potential interference to other receivers while achieving privacy and
increasing the immunity of spread spectrum receivers to noise and
interference. Spread spectrum generally makes use of a sequential
noise-like signal structure to spread the normally narrowband
information signal over a relatively wide band of frequencies. The
receiver correlates the signals to retrieve the original information
signal. [NTIA]

ROS appears to me to be a neat  audio j3? mode using spread spectrum
type techniques. But does not meet the technical definition of spread
spectrum by FS-1037C or subsequent NTIA definitions.

You could say it does have some aspects of the non-technical SS  NTIA
definition. IE:  interference & noise immunity.

All that said neat idea, nice to see a new mode!

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Not really Jim
I for one never stopped using the old machines.
Therefore never had to bring em back out.
It's the only way I do RTTY here.

John, W0JAB

>Then I guess there are a few people
>bringing old mechanical Teletype gear back to life and using it for
>rag-chewing for old times' sake.
>
>Jim W6JVE
>
>
>
>
>
>Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
>http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
> 
> Otherwise why so much RTTY on the bands? Even AX:25 is getting a bit 
> long in the tooth now, but people still struggle on with it...

My belief is that all the RTTY is largely from contesting and DX
chasing.  Those two operations have two things in common: they
benefit from very fast turnaround, and the operators don't care
much about the high error rate.  Other modes like PSK31 have a
longer turnaround time because they transmit for a second or so
before and after the keyboard text, while RTTY is immediate and
that translates into more contacts.  The operators don't care
much about all the errors because they already know what they want
to see.  They already know the call sign of the other station, and
they already know the signal report will be 599, so if the mess
on the screen looks like their call sign and QSL that is enough
to consider it a contact.  Then I guess there are a few people
bringing old mechanical Teletype gear back to life and using it for
rag-chewing for old times' sake.

Jim W6JVE

[digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -

[John]

So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I would 
like to ask a fairly simple question.

How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the source 
of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that transmitter?

Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some form 
of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input? 

Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given 
time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the audio 
input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's DM780, MixW modes, MMSSTV, or 
many other sound card driven software packages. They all have one thing in 
common, they generate a sequence of tones which is then processed by the very 
same transmitter in the very same way. The maximum output bandwidth is supposed 
to be somewhat limited in the bandpass of the transmitter circuitry (which is 
NOT being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is being altered in any way 
that I am aware of.

With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter output 
definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond my feeble mind. 
I really do not know. To me, regardless of the "source" of the modulation 
itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the carrier frequency by the 
frequency of the input tone.

To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these modes is 
rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two together. To simply 
start an argument about a particular FCC rule, without showing the correlation 
to the subject is somewhat like arguing the color of orange peels in an apple 
pie instruction sheet. They simply don't necessarily relate. Both may have 
valid points about their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go together. 

Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning from all 
these rules being bandied about, that may have no application here at all.

John
KE5HAM

[digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -

[John]

Thanks Skip,

Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I 
understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am after.

What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of 
digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone 
modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one single 
mode is called "spread spectrum" output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we 
get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via 
the microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies are now 
called "spread spectrum" instead. I am having a great deal of difficulty 
understanding, other than the author happened to call his scheme "spread 
spectrum" in his technical documentation.

Thanks 

John
KE5HAM


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the microphone 
> makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the 
> suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus 
> the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the tones determines 
> what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone 
> frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook 
> usually has an explanation of this.
> 
> Hope that answers the question.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John wrote:
> >  
> >
> > So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even 
> > further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question.
> >
> > How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when 
> > the source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that 
> > transmitter?
> >
> > Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than 
> > some form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input?
> >
> > Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any 
> > given time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a 
> > tone at the audio input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's 
> > DM780, MixW modes, MMSSTV, or many other sound card driven software 
> > packages. They all have one thing in common, they generate a sequence 
> > of tones which is then processed by the very same transmitter in the 
> > very same way. The maximum output bandwidth is supposed to be somewhat 
> > limited in the bandpass of the transmitter circuitry (which is NOT 
> > being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is being altered in 
> > any way that I am aware of.
> >
> > With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter 
> > output definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond 
> > my feeble mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the 
> > "source" of the modulation itself, the modulation still remains an 
> > offset of the carrier frequency by the frequency of the input tone.
> >
> > To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these 
> > modes is rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two 
> > together. To simply start an argument about a particular FCC rule, 
> > without showing the correlation to the subject is somewhat like 
> > arguing the color of orange peels in an apple pie instruction sheet. 
> > They simply don't necessarily relate. Both may have valid points about 
> > their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go together.
> >
> > Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning 
> > from all these rules being bandied about, that may have no application 
> > here at all.
> >
> > John
> > KE5HAM
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[sholtofish]

I tried some connects with Andy and Skip and can confirm the sound card version 
of G-TOR works with a real G-TOR modem (my KAM-XL). Throughput got up to 200 
baud and of course no errors due to the ARQ.

The GUI is basic on the sound card program and not particularly intuitive but 
it seems that sound card G-TOR is possible on Windows.

73

Sholto
K7TMG

Re: [digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -

[KH6TY]

John,

Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the microphone 
makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the 
suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus 
the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the tones determines 
what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone 
frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook 
usually has an explanation of this.


Hope that answers the question.

73 - Skip KH6TY




John wrote:
 

So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even 
further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question.


How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when 
the source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that 
transmitter?


Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than 
some form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input?


Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any 
given time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a 
tone at the audio input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's 
DM780, MixW modes, MMSSTV, or many other sound card driven software 
packages. They all have one thing in common, they generate a sequence 
of tones which is then processed by the very same transmitter in the 
very same way. The maximum output bandwidth is supposed to be somewhat 
limited in the bandpass of the transmitter circuitry (which is NOT 
being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is being altered in 
any way that I am aware of.


With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter 
output definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond 
my feeble mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the 
"source" of the modulation itself, the modulation still remains an 
offset of the carrier frequency by the frequency of the input tone.


To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these 
modes is rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two 
together. To simply start an argument about a particular FCC rule, 
without showing the correlation to the subject is somewhat like 
arguing the color of orange peels in an apple pie instruction sheet. 
They simply don't necessarily relate. Both may have valid points about 
their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go together.


Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning 
from all these rules being bandied about, that may have no application 
here at all.


John
KE5HAM

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

Andy, you have used ALE. What center frequency or suppressed carrier 
frequency should be used to be on the ALE channel at 14.109?


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone 
is on 14.111.65
 
According to that, wich would the best option?



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference 
to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to 
narrow band modes.
 
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS 
ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings 
are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone is on 
14.111.65

According to that, wich would the best option?




De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
>That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, 
>and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes.
>
>The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.
>
>
>
>

De: KH6TY 
>Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
>Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
>
>  
>The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others 
>around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity 
>(according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of 
>short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities. 
>



  

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[Dave Ackrill]

Andy obrien wrote:
> It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
> developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
> nothing that says "gee...this is way better ".  It is GOOD, and a mode to
> add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app.  The software interface is
> very nicely done, Jose should be congratulated on this.  I'll place a few
> modes in a robustness category for us all.

I'm not sure things tend to boil down that way, to be honest Andy,

Otherwise why so much RTTY on the bands? Even AX:25 is getting a bit 
long in the tooth now, but people still struggle on with it...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -

[John]

So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I would 
like to ask a fairly simple question.

How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the source 
of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that transmitter?

Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some form 
of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input? 

Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given 
time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the audio 
input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's DM780, MixW modes, MMSSTV, or 
many other sound card driven software packages. They all have one thing in 
common, they generate a sequence of tones which is then processed by the very 
same transmitter in the very same way. The maximum output bandwidth is supposed 
to be somewhat limited in the bandpass of the transmitter circuitry (which is 
NOT being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is being altered in any way 
that I am aware of.

With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter output 
definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond my feeble mind. 
I really do not know. To me, regardless of the "source" of the modulation 
itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the carrier frequency by the 
frequency of the input tone.

To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these modes is 
rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two together. To simply 
start an argument about a particular FCC rule, without showing the correlation 
to the subject is somewhat like arguing the color of orange peels in an apple 
pie instruction sheet. They simply don't necessarily relate. Both may have 
valid points about their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go together. 

Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning from all 
these rules being bandied about, that may have no application here at all.

John
KE5HAM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[Dave Ackrill]

sholtofish wrote:
> Hi Andy, I have a real G-TOR modem here so will test with you.

I remember a friend of mine, back in the mid-1980s I think, running 
AMTOR.  He graduated from RTTY and ran something like an FT-101ZD with a 
dual beam scope showing when the two tone signals were correctly spaced.

I guess RTTY goes back even further though.

Then Packet (AX:25) came on the scene and I went for that instead. 
Although I did own a KAM+ at one time, I never did get the hang of the 
TOR modes.

Dave (G0DJA)

RE: [digitalradio] Winlink and Regulation by Bandwidth

[Dave AA6YQ]

The issue is not the protocol, but rather automatic operation without a busy 
frequency detector. An operator invokes a remote automatic station, whose 
subsequent transmissions QRM an ongoing QSO that the operator doesn't hear (but 
would hear clearly if he or she were monitoring the remote station's receiver). 
Participants in the ongoing QSO have no way convey "QRL" to the automatic 
station.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on 
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:47 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Winlink and Regulation by Bandwidth


  
 

Pactor was FSK with a 100% duty cycle (or peak to average power ratio - PAPR), 
but Pactor-III is OFDM which has a PAPR similar to SSB and much less than SSB 
with RF clipping so I don't see how its any worse than digital voice or SSTV. 
Were the two stations in the automated segments fighting or just transferring 
data in both directions? I just don't see the threat from automated Pactor 
stations as they are legal on every amateur frequency outside the U.S. and they 
haven't taken over there.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 00:04 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]

  John,

  The principle of regulation by bandwidth that was fostered by Winlink through 
the ARRL was that any mode would be allowed in a particular segment of 
bandwidths as long as the bandwidth was the same or similar. No restriction on 
content or operating methods.This would have meant that the messaging stations 
would have full access to all of the phone bands with no restrictions. For 
example, Pactor-III which has about 100% duty cycle (modulation), compared to 
30% average for uncompressed phone, could easily displace any phone QSO and the 
phone operator would not even be able to identify the interfering station 
because he would not be operating Pactor-III. The result would have been 
dominance by messaging systems with no place left to have phone QSO's without 
the possiblity of being interfered with by an automatic messaging station. 
Messaging stations are run with ARQ so they fear competition of their own kind 
and you can often see two automatic stations battling automatically for a 
frequency. As a result they want to spread out over the band as much as 
possible to avoid interference from each other instead of sharing frequencies 
on a first-come-first-served basis like everyone else.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[Andy obrien]

It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
nothing that says "gee...this is way better ".  It is GOOD, and a mode to
add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app.  The software interface is
very nicely done, Jose should be congratulated on this.  I'll place a few
modes in a robustness category for us all.

SUPER WEAK MODES
JT65A (and family)
WSPR
ROS 1
Jason


WEAK MODES
Olivia 1000/32
ALE400
Domino
MFSK16/8
Pactor III
MT63
ROS 16
PSK10
PSKAM10
Contesia 500/12
DominoEX 4
FEC31
THROBx4
THOR 11

AVERAGE
PSK31
PSK63
PACTOR II /I
Hell
RTTYM
Contestia 50016
Chip 64/128
Olvia 8/500


Strong signal required
RTTY
PSK125-500
Standard ALE
Packet 300 baud
WINMOR

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> Jose,
> 
> I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US 
> hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and 
> flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and 
> can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is 
> going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month.
> 

I'd be interested in those results as I hope to fix a problem on my 
1296MHz antenna soon, and aircraft reflection (Doppler) is definitely a 
problem on many other data modes on 23cm.

Now, if we could crack extreme doppler, like Aurora on VHF or 
rain/hail/snow scatter on 10 and 24GHz, that would be a real step forward...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[sholtofish]

Hi Andy, I have a real G-TOR modem here so will test with you.

A traditional frequency is 14.111 (center frequency).

The tones in my KAM are 1400/1600 so my dial (in LSB) reads 14.112.5

Though G-TOR is polarity independent.

73

K7TMG



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj"  wrote:
>
> It works , Sholto.  I am able to get PTT working and generate tones.  
> 
> Anyone for G-Tor?
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Interesting.  The "about" info reveals Mixw 2003.
> > 
> > I also found this
> > 
> > "G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate 
> > compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that 
> > assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability 
> > to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud 
> > but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 
> > baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and 
> > Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted 
> > for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is 
> > rarely used today."
> > 
> > 
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Came across this the other day:
> > > 
> > > http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip
> > > 
> > > Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a 
> > > butterfly icon so something to do with MixW??
> > > 
> > > Does it work?
> > >
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to 
ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow 
band modes.
 
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS 
ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings 
are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities.

[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[obrienaj]

It works , Sholto.  I am able to get PTT working and generate tones.  

Anyone for G-Tor?

Andy K3UK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj"  wrote:
>
> 
> Interesting.  The "about" info reveals Mixw 2003.
> 
> I also found this
> 
> "G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared 
> to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in 
> minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix 
> garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops 
> to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The 
> protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the 
> Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio 
> use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today."
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
> >
> > Came across this the other day:
> > 
> > http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip
> > 
> > Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a 
> > butterfly icon so something to do with MixW??
> > 
> > Does it work?
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and 
at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes.

The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others 
around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity 
(according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of 
short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities. 


  

[digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[obrienaj]

Interesting.  The "about" info reveals Mixw 2003.

I also found this

"G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to 
Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing 
the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor 
tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if 
difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that 
brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space 
shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found 
in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today."


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
>
> Came across this the other day:
> 
> http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip
> 
> Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a 
> butterfly icon so something to do with MixW??
> 
> Does it work?
>

[digitalradio] ROS...suggested QRG on 20M.

[obrienaj]

I would suggest  14109.  Anything from 14101 to 14112 should work but Winmor is 
often at 14112.   PACTOR is everywhere in this range but that is just the way 
the band can be.  14101 has been good most of the day  but 14102 is a common 
frequency for Olivia, see below.

+8h EA3AQS Spain14102.41OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h OH/DK4ZC Finland14102.52OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h EU6PW Belarus   10141.97MFSK16  G0UZP
+8h DM2AUO Germany  14103.28OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h DM2AUO Germany  14103.27OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h DM2DTH Germany  14102.25OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h IK4G Italy  14102.52OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h IK4GBU Italy14102.51OLIVIA  DL7JP
+8h OH2HN Finland   14102.49OLIVIA  DL7JP

and 14101 is common for packet, I think.

When I do a search for DX spots oon the frequency range 14101 to 14112
, 14101-14103 come out the busiest .  14104 to 14112 have very little posted 
activity.  ALE and Olivia can be on 14109 but activity is light, and brief.  

14101 was crowded for ROS 16 today , but it seems that using 14104 to 14112 
would be a good choice for most activity .  There may be QRM from RTTY during 
contests.

Andy K3UK

  
PE1AUV 14100.0 RA6FCU   olivia 32/1000 tnx 1744 22 
Feb   European Russia
EA8BJM 14106.0 EA8ATE   OLIVIA 32/1000 SERGIO  1857 21 
Feb   Canary Islands
F4BMY-@14144.0 WA1VMG   tnx fer qso olivia 1830 21 
Feb   United States
EA8BJM 14106.0 EA8BJM   OLIVIA 32/1000 SERGIO  1730 20 
Feb   Canary Islands
HB9BTI-@   14105.0 HB9GTCQ Olivia  1453 20 
Feb   Switzerland
TF3AO  14107.0 EA8ATE   OLIVIA CQ  0959 20 
Feb   Canary Islands
EA8BJM 14106.0 EA8ATE   OLIVIA 32/1000 SERGIO  0954 20 
Feb   Canary Islands

OZ1PMX-@   14105.0 IK4GBU   OLIVIA vy wide signal  0728 15 
Feb   Italy
UU4JII-@   14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA 1000/32 CQ  0945 12 
Feb   Ukraine
UU4JII-@   14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA 1000/32 CQ  0939 12 
Feb   Ukraine
RK

9A3JB  14105.5 9A0HRS   cq olivia  2147 09 
Feb   Croatia

UN7TK-@14107.5 UN7TKOLIVIA  Cq  CQ  Cq 0648 09 
Feb   Kazakhstan
IV3DAI-@   14106.0 UU4JOOLIVIA MODE1235 08 
Feb   Ukraine
UU0AK-@14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA MODE 1000/321217 08 
Feb   Ukraine
UU8JC-@14106.5 UU4JOMODE OLIVIA 1000/321437 07 
Feb   Ukraine
UU8JC-@14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA 1000/32 599 1336 06 
Feb   Ukraine
UA1CSB-@   14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA 1000/32 599 NICE SIGNAL CQ  1320 06 
Feb   Ukraine
UU4JII-@   14106.5 UU4JOOLIVIA 1000/32 1313 06 
Feb   Ukraine
EA1EYG 14099.9 TI8IITU Carlos OLIVIA 731703 05 
Feb   Costa Rica
9H1EI  14099.4 9H1LOTESTING OLIVIA 1655 05 
Feb   Malta
VE1GW  14106.2 UA6CEOlivia 16/500 Tnx Vlad!!!  1405 04 
Feb   European Russia
PE1AUV 14107.7 UA6CEolivia 32/1000 tnx 1345 04 
Feb   European Russia
16/500  2352 30 Jan   Japan
8/250   1723 24 Jan   United States

ON3VHF 14105.0 KZ6ZZolivia tks qso Jack1723 20 
Jan   United States
ON3VHF 14105.0 KB1EZW   olivia tks qso mike1659 20 
Jan   United States

ON3VHF 14105.0 AA4FSolivia tks qso Frank call vhf  1633 20 
Jan   United States
DD8HB-@14106.0 ON3VHF   OLIVIA 1604 20 
Jan   Belgium

YO4BTB-@   14106.5 OH2BNOLIVIA 0919 15 
Jan   Finland
UN7TK-@14107.5 TEST OLIVIA 2205 12 
Jan   Not Found
UA0ZEO-@   14072.6 VE7NBQ   OLIVIA PETER VANCOUVER 2346 11 
Jan   Canada
A61BN-@14107.0 A61BKOLIVIA SPECIAL CARD BURJ KHALIFA   1256 11 
Jan   United Arab Emir
SWL-@  14108.5 RN3DVOLIVIA 32/1000 u r 599 in OE6  0937 10 
Jan   European Russia
UA9OEX-@   14105.6 UA9OEX   OLIVIA via buro or direct Igor Asi 1033 09 
Jan   Asiatic Russia
UA9OEX 14105.6 UA9OEX   OLIVIA via buro or direct Igor 0833 09 
Jan   Asiatic Russia

G1OCN  14108.3 VE2AHS   OLIVIA CQ  1031 07 
Jan   Canada
UN7TK-@14107.5 UN7TKOLIVIA Cq DX Cq1236 05 
Jan   Kazakhstan

UN7TK  14107.5 UN7TKOLIVIA Cq DX Cq1036 05 
Jan   Kazakhstan
DC6MY 

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

Jose,

I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US 
hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and 
flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and 
can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is 
going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month.


The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS 
activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are 
infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities. They are also already in the area for 
wide bandwidth signals, I think.


On 20m, those frequencies appear to be 14100.5, 14109.0, and 14.112.0. 
See http://hflink.com/channels/.


Keep in mind there are NO frequencies completely free of QRM except on 
VHF and UHF, but some can be found on HF that have less opportunity for 
interference than others, so the ALE frequencies might be a good place 
to try. Of course, ALE users MUST, by US law, be sure the frequency is 
clear before transmitting, and the same applies to ROS users. We all 
have to share frequencies, since no frequencies are "owned" by anyone, 
but are used on a first-come, first-served basis.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the 
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the 
gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will 
lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the 
sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid 
of the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed 
filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, 
but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you 
are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal.


14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long 
enough, you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, 
most of the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the 
problem may not be as big on the other side of the big pond.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:

> 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that 
capture

> the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
> expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
>

As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC 
switched off.


Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Has anyone tried this?

[sholtofish]

Came across this the other day:

http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip

Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a 
butterfly icon so something to do with MixW??

Does it work?

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Dave Ackrill]

Glenn L. Roeser wrote:
> I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good 
> as using JT65a
> With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is 
> a very slow throughput though.
> Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

You have to be the patient sort, maybe a WSPR QSO fan, to use ROS 1 baud.

It does, however, allow you to nip down, get a pint and get back before 
the other person has finished calling CQ though. :-)

Yet to receive an email confirmation for 1 baud as yet.  Has anyone 
received one from me for 1 baud yet?  I've see full email addresses for 
  at least one station, IW1GJJ, tonight.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the AGC is 
disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the gain for strong 
signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will lose the weak station 
because you have reduced the gain and the sensitivity. The only way to still 
copy your weak station and get rid of the strong one is to filter at IF 
frequencies, which is what fixed filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will 
do it also these days, but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio 
frequencies if you are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger 
signal.

14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, you 
will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of the 
automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may not be as 
big on the other side of the big pond.

73 - Skip KH6TY



Dave Ackrill wrote: 
  
>KH6TY wrote:
>
>> 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
>> the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
>> expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
>> 
>
>As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off.
>
>Dave (G0DJA)
>



  

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[W2XJ]

I am not going to wade back into part 97 for this, but I believe 5 khz audio
is beyond the scope of being communications quality. I know a number people
who have a lot of rebuilt broadcast audio gear and are also audiophiles,
many in the pro audio business and they are really in to this. Regardless,
more than 3 khz if not blatantly illegal is certainly not what the FCC
intended.



From: "John B. Stephensen" 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:27:41 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

 
 
 
   

 
The 300 baud limit applies only to the HF RTTY/data segments. In the
phone/image segments below 29 MHz there s no baud rate limit but the
bandwidth is limited by the following parts of 97.307(f).
 
(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater
than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.
(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a
communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The
total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the
first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not
exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.
Given the width of some amateur AM signals on 80 meters, this limit seems to
be 10 kHz below 29 MHz.
 
73,
 
John
KD6OZH
>  
> - Original Message -
>  
> From:  Trevor . 
>  
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 09:18  UTC
>  
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC  Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> However, there may be scope in interpretation  of the regs. Up until a few
> years ago many US amateurs were under the  impression that you could only send
> a maximum of 300 bits per second on HF.  What the rules actually specified was
> a maximum symbol rate of 300 Baud and,  probably because no had thought to do
> so, there was no limit specified on the  number of carriers you could
> transmit. That's how these days US hams can run  digital voice/sstv.
> 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the 
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the 
gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will 
lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the 
sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid of 
the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed 
filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, but 
it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you are 
going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal.


14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, 
you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of 
the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may 
not be as big on the other side of the big pond.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:

> 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture
> the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
> expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
>

As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched 
off.


Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

Hi Jose,

Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor 
station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and 
decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the 
Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect 
either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 
16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor 
signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal).


In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in 
the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of 
those also stopped decoding until they left.


Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. 
covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS 
signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 
Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is 
a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz 
to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless 
the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, 
then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the 
MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less 
chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more 
narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can 
still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question 
posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see.


If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering 
signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but 
decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal 
came on.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Hi,
 
You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all 
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better 
than you transceiver.
 

 



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 


Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend 
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not 
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the 
waterfall did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that 
capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of 
decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS 
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause 
loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with 
passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of 
the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is 
insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will 
decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one 
is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one 
is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal 
seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five 
Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal 
needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, 
would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 
60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a 
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM 
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering 
can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to 
accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum 
spread might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that 
also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional 
QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it 
hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, 
than QRM survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive 
mode like Olivia or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can 
be tighter, stands a better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS 
signal which is exposed to more possibilities of QRM due to its 
comparatively greater width.


The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be 
as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.


Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to 
accommodate several ROS signals at once so there is no 
cros

Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA

[Alan Barrow]

Dave wrote:
>
>
> The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
> Definitions, Para C, line 8:
>
>   /(8) SS/. 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.
>

I disagree, that's not a definition of Spread Spectrum, it's a
restriction on spread spectrum. And not a very useful one, as in it's
not specific enough to entirely limit the (presumably) bad SS, and yet
it may disallow modes which are not the target. All due to poor wording.

You have to define bandwidth expansion. I'm rusty, but it's normally
when the impacted bandwidth (think footprint) used exceeds the
information bandwidth. Which itself is usually something less than the
Shannon limit.

What they are really saying is bandwidth expansion *factor* greater than
one, and for nearly all traditional spread spectrum (Frequency Hopping &
direct sequence) that is a factor of 20 to 250 or more.

We could argue whether mode X is legal or not, but if you are going to
be legalistic, then modulated CW is illegal as well as it's bandwidth is
greater than the information bandwidth. (bandwidth expansion > 1) And
even regular CW, PSK, and others when the gear is not operated
correctly. Bandwidth > information bandwidth is a harsh measure! Even
some SSB voice stations could be at risk! :-)

Realistically, many modems use "spread spectrum" type approaches to
spread & randomize the energy inside the typical voice/SSB bandwidth.

The FCC cares about bandwidth. We know from the "symbol rate" rulings
that they are not inclined to deal with overly strict legal
interpretation on wording. The symbol rate restriction is used as a
(bad) analog for bandwidth, as it's what was used when the regs were made.

So the same type arguments surfaced around symbol rate (real vs
theoretical, etc). And we know from all the Pactor 3 on the air how that
ended up!

So at the risk of being an armchair lawyer as well, I do think you have
to apply some "rule of reason". What's the intent of the restriction? To
not allow direct or random sequence spread spectrum on the lower bands.
Largely defined by DS-CDMA & FS-CDMA approaches used as the "classical"
spread spectrum modes. This is what the military uses, what the VHF/UHF
devices use, etc. And they have much larger footprints (bandwidth
expansion of 20 or more), so should not be allowed on HF.

Really what we are talking about is an afsk'ish soundcard mode that
stays in one SSB bandwidth slot or less. Is it classical spread
spectrum? Clearly not. Is it technically spread spectrum? Would depend
on exact semantic definitions.

But since the implied dial/carrier frequency does not move, is
detectable without extreme measures, and is not going to effectively
raise the noise floor of the entire HF band, I would be very surprised
to see the FCC wade in and say it's spread spectrum.

> ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition)
> and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well)
>  Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum
> and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative
> interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise.
So using your literal test, modulated CW is not legal, as it's J and has
bandwidth expansion factor > 1 in the real world. You could question
several AFSK modes as typically used by hams. (artifacts and all).

Each time we go to the FCC for things like this it's like small children
going to the teacher and asking "is this allowed?". There is a certain
amount of impatience, and based on past discussions/interpretations the
FCC will lean toward common sense interpretations. Largely defined by
bandwidth, crypto definitions and not obscure technical definitions.

Ideally, we'd have a reasonable approach to using our spectrum. I think
there is 2-3 options in use in other countries we could adopt that would
simplify this type issue and result in "no net loss" for current legacy
modes. Yet they always dies with FUD from the broader community without
being debated on their merits. There is no option to rationally discuss,
it's all or nothing. So we get to pay the price with digital definitions
based on 30's (or older) technology.


Just about all the modes which achieve good weak signal performance do
so by trading off effective throughput for bandwidth. Some are more
efficient than others in this regard. Do I think the FCC cares about
another soundcard mode that lives politely in a single SSB width signal?
Nope, as long as it's not encrypted. But that's just my read. I'm sure
we'll have many others! :-)

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:

> 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
> the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
> expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
> 

As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Hi,

You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in 
your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver.


 




De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest 
often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to 
AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker.

2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the 
AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. 
Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.

3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, 
and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and 
it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do 
that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency 
hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.

4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one 
of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out 
until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded.

5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to 
be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 
signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering 
the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of 
three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.

In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage 
because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within 
the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the 
passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider 
expansion or spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding 
disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to 
additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it 
hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM 
survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia 
or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a 
better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to more 
possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width.

The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be as QRM 
resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.

Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate several 
ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is much easier to 
find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for even two ROS signals.

These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find 
differently.

I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift and 
flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone signals. 
Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we have found so 
far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB phone, but for very 
weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though the note is very rough 
sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can still be copied by ear as it 
modulates the background noise.


73 - Skip KH6TY



Howard Brown wrote: 
  
>Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
>limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
>waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to 
>get it accepted. 
>
>Howard K5HB
>
>
>
>

From: J. Moen 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>
>  
>Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS 
>really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this 
>reflector.
>
>After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses 
>FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the 
>code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear 
>to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it 
>is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.
>
>As Bonnie points out, ROS "doesn't hop the VFO frequency," but within the 2.5 
>bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz 
>bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300

[digitalradio] Re: FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[John]

Trevor,
I sure hope we do not go down that road again! Seems that every time "we" as a 
group go ask the FCC to make a definite decision on an issue that is being 
discussed, "we" get a forced answer "we" don't really want to hear, and then 
"we" start yet another discussion as to the appropriateness of their decision. 
A very prominent recent example was the use of amateur radio to train for 
emergencies by employees of emergency service providers such as hospitals, 
police, fire departments, etc. What a bag of worms this one stirred up. Or, how 
about the discussions about the no-code license ramifications. The self 
proclaimed experts of every field seem to materialize out of nowhere. I am NOT 
an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but have been on these reflectors 
long enough to see what generally happens.

Let's hope calmer, cooler heads prevail to determine the facts of this new 
mode, not try to find other thi8ngs to fit them in to make certain points one 
way or the other.

My earlier point was, I do not know how to tell the difference "with a 
receiver" as to what a given mode is. In the nature of how SSB works, any 
modulation "could" be considered spread spectrum, even voice, if only viewed 
from the purely emission standpoint. One could even show cause to identify an 
SSB signal as FM in some viewpoints. Don't misunderstand me, I am not making 
this proclamation, just indicating there are ways to view it that don't 
necessarily follow generally accepted definitions of things (sort of like 
saying FSK, PSK, etc. could be considered SS). 

I have had this very conversation with folks at the FCC on more than one 
occasion, and was told they are really only interested in what gets emitted 
into the ether. I suspect that basic premise has not really changed in the time 
after Riley left.

John
KE5HAM


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Trevor ."  wrote:
>

> So it's down to interpretation and it'll hinge on the FCC's formal definition 
> of Spread Spectrum with luck ROS will fall outside of it. 
> 
> Does anybody plan to contact the FCC this morning to get their view ? 
> 
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Glenn L. Roeser]

I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good 
as using JT65a
With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is a 
very slow throughput though.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)





From: Howard Brown 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 9:55:11 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get 
it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

  
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS 
really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this 
reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses 
FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the 
code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear 
to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it 
is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS "doesn't hop the VFO frequency," but within the 2.5 
bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz 
bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz 
bandwidth.  So I have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content instead 
of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment.  
 
   Jim - K6JM

- Original Message - 
>From: expeditionradio 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 PM
>Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>
>  
>Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread 
>Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to 
>obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF 
>without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need 
>an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 
>
>Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.
>
>If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, 
>and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a chance for it to 
>be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. 
>
>But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in 
>a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no 
>knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it 
>in USA. 
>
>But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".
>
>ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of 
>n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for 
>signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
>Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
>(using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
>within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
>description as a conventional wideband technique. 
>
>It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention 
>of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according 
>to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud 
>rule. 
>http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html# 307f3 
>
>This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping 
>USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams move forward 
>with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new 
>ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!
>
>But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" 
>against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it 
>relates to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth".
>
>There is the other issue of "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have 
>brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams 
>seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" in 
>the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the 
>ham band to operate it or not operate it. 
>
>FACT:
>"There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA 
>ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges."
>
>FACT:
>"FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on "content" of the emission, 
>not bandwidth."
>
>New SDR radios hav

Re: [digitalradio] Winlink and Regulation by Bandwidth

[John B. Stephensen]

Pactor was FSK with a 100% duty cycle (or peak to average power ratio - PAPR), 
but Pactor-III is OFDM which has a PAPR similar to SSB and much less than SSB 
with RF clipping so I don't see how its any worse than digital voice or SSTV. 
Were the two stations in the automated segments fighting or just transferring 
data in both directions? I just don't see the threat from automated Pactor 
stations as they are legal on every amateur frequency outside the U.S. and they 
haven't taken over there.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 00:04 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]

  John,

  The principle of regulation by bandwidth that was fostered by Winlink through 
the ARRL was that any mode would be allowed in a particular segment of 
bandwidths as long as the bandwidth was the same or similar. No restriction on 
content or operating methods.This would have meant that the messaging stations 
would have full access to all of the phone bands with no restrictions. For 
example, Pactor-III which has about 100% duty cycle (modulation), compared to 
30% average for uncompressed phone, could easily displace any phone QSO and the 
phone operator would not even be able to identify the interfering station 
because he would not be operating Pactor-III. The result would have been 
dominance by messaging systems with no place left to have phone QSO's without 
the possiblity of being interfered with by an automatic messaging station. 
Messaging stations are run with ARQ so they fear competition of their own kind 
and you can often see two automatic stations battling automatically for a 
frequency. As a result they want to spread out over the band as much as 
possible to avoid interference from each other instead of sharing frequencies 
on a first-come-first-served basis like everyone else.

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[John B. Stephensen]

The 300 baud limit applies only to the HF RTTY/data segments. In the 
phone/image segments below 29 MHz there s no baud rate limit but the bandwidth 
is limited by the following parts of 97.307(f).

(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater 
than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.
(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a 
communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The 
total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the 
first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not 
exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.

Given the width of some amateur AM signals on 80 meters, this limit seems to be 
10 kHz below 29 MHz.

73,

John
KD6OZH
  - Original Message - 
  From: Trevor . 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 09:18 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams



  However, there may be scope in interpretation of the regs. Up until a few 
years ago many US amateurs were under the impression that you could only send a 
maximum of 300 bits per second on HF. What the rules actually specified was a 
maximum symbol rate of 300 Baud and, probably because no had thought to do so, 
there was no limit specified on the number of carriers you could transmit. 
That's how these days US hams can run digital voice/sstv. 

[digitalradio] 15m

[wd4kpd]

cq/qrv 21.111 usb ROS

david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[KH6TY]

Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend 
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not 
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the waterfall 
did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS 
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss 
of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband 
tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS 
signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to 
overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will 
decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one 
is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one 
is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal 
seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five 
Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal 
needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, 
would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% 
of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a 
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM 
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering 
can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to 
accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum spread 
might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that also makes 
the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional QRM. The 
advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it hard to copy 
a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM survival, 
but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or 
MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a 
better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to 
more possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width.


The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be 
as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.


Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate 
several ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is 
much easier to find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for 
even two ROS signals.


These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find 
differently.


I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift 
and flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone 
signals. Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we 
have found so far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB 
phone, but for very weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though 
the note is very rough sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can 
still be copied by ear as it modulates the background noise.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Howard Brown wrote:
 
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether 
the limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the 
robustness of the waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, 
maybe we should all work to get it accepted.


Howard K5HB


*From:* J. Moen 
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for 
USA Hams


 

Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS 
and SS really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've 
seen on this reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if 
ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us 
has seen the code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 
 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is 
similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS "doesn't hop the VFO frequency," but within 
the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS 
used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS 
within the 300 Hz bandwidth.  So I have to agree the FCC regs are not 
well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content 
instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment. 
 
   Jim - K6JM
 


- Original Message -
*From:* expeditionradio 

[digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A

[sholtofish]

Steve,

Yes, MixW allows these sub-modes as does the excellent & free FLDigi program.

73

Sholto


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> I keep returning to DM780 as my main digi mode program. It does NOT support  
> Olivia 32/500 or 64/500. I'm running v5.0 beta. I think one of the older 
> releases had an option to set the tones/baud parameters separately.
> 
> I think MixW will work on these Olivia sub modes.
> 
> Are these sub modes are slower than the staple 16/500?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Steve N6VL
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
> >
> > Andy,
> > 
> > Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony 
> > and I managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster 
> > than JT65 too.
> > 
> > 73
> > 
> > Sholto
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[dl6xaz]

Hi Andy et al.,
I agree with your statement. On 80m I observe some stupid fellow trying to QRM 
with carrier howling and cw-dots on 3576 kHz when there is JT65 ,mainly between 
18z and 21z. I have suffered absolutely no broken QSO even if that QRM was in 
the middle of the signal or spot on the guide tone, but I can imagine that a 
less experienced CW-op could get confused by jt65 or similar mode overlaying 
his QSO.
vy73 Fred DL6XAZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> I often "look" at the CW signal on the waterfall when I hear one close to
> me.  My view is...if his signal is not exactly on the same part of the
> waterfall as mine, we are "OK".  I can notch him out and he can do the same
> to me.  A couple of hundred  Hz separation should be all we need.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Toby Burnett  wrote:
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Howard Brown]

Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get 
it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

   
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations 
issues regarding ROS and SS really well.  It's the best description of the 
US problem I've seen on this reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, 
I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does 
(and none of us has seen the code),  then even though it 1) uses less 
3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal 
and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC 
jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS "doesn't hop 
the VFO frequency," but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is 
SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead 
of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth.  So I 
have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations 
focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment.  
 
   Jim - K6JM
 
- Original Message - 
>From: expeditionradio 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 
>  PM
>Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology 
>  Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>
>  
>Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping 
>  Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio 
>  operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use 
> of 
>  ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, 
> hams 
>  will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 
>
>Sadly, this may 
>  lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.
>
>If ROS Modem had simply 
>  provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it 
>  "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a chance for it to be easily 
> adopted 
>  by Ham Radio operators in USA. 
>
>But, the ROS modem designer is 
>  rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound 
> by 
>  FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising 
>  might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. 
>
>But, as they 
>  say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".
>
>ROS signal can 
>  be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK 
>  presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal 
>  process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
>  Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
>  (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
>  within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
>  description as a conventional wideband technique. 
>
>It probably would 
>  not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC 
> rules. 
>  It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable 
>  algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. 
>http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html# 307f3 
>
>This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, 
>  keeping USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams 
> move 
>  forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of 
>  the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!
>
>But, 
>  for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" against 
>  Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates 
>  to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth".
>
>There is the other issue of 
>  "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other 
>  forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think 
> that 
>  there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" in the FCC rules for data/text 
>  modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or 
> not 
>  operate it. 
>
>FACT:
>"There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on 
>  HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band 
>  edges."
>
>FACT:
>"FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on 
>  "content" of the emission, not bandwidth."
>
>New SDR radios have the 
>  potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz 
>  SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology 
> in 
>  the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit 
>  innovation and progress for

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Toby Burnett]

I agree with that, and I see modern day rigs have a tremendous amount of
filtering capability.  I'm talking about the likes of the 756 pros  / FT1000
s / ts2000's etc etc and other such radios that would take a small mortgage
for me.  I notice that these have variable band pass filters and the like
that could probably narrow the pass band to a few 10's of hertz  enough for
a single cw or bpsk31 signal.  I suspect that these work on TX also ? Like
me and many many others who run older equipment without all the bells and
whistles though, as you say.  I was always taught to listen first and then
listen again.  Although just remember that we don't all have the super dsp
and notch filters on our radio's.
Out of interest,  do common filters work on TX or just rx, and if not   
why??

---Original Message---
 
From: Andy obrien
Date: 22/02/2010 11:32:36
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
 
  
I often "look" at the CW signal on the waterfall when I hear one close to me
  My view is...if his signal is not exactly on the same part of the
waterfall as mine, we are "OK".  I can notch him out and he can do the same
to me.  A couple of hundred  Hz separation should be all we need.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Toby Burnett  wrote:

  
Now Dave, 
C'mon  I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II   
The on / off button is a challenge.   Loljust messing with you now.  No
offence. 
 
On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to
answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper
clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I used
a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso ) 
 Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway. 
I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw id
and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is in
use.  
 
I am so desperate to get my cw receiving up to scratch so I can use it
freely, I wish we had still had to take the test back in 2004 to be honest. 
Maybe we could sked a qrs contact some afternoon / evening. 
 
Toby MM0TOB 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Dave Ackrill
Date: 22/02/2010 11:00:08
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
 
  
Steve wrote:

> The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters.

On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable. Are there any 
radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off' 
buttons difficult to operate? ;-)

Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW as well, saying that people 
with digital modes can, and should, listen 1st and look at the 
frequencies around them, the same should be true for CW operators. In my 
opinion.

Dave (G0DJA)


 






 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Dave Ackrill]

Toby Burnett wrote:
> Dave, 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew about the logbook but not the cwid or /m /p etc   hmm.  I am getting
> out of touch. 
> 
> The only time I can see not using a log book though is when /m   but that's
> just me.  I love looking back over the past 6 years at old qso's and seeing
> if I have a (new one hi hi )

I do tend to keep a record of stations that I work, but I no longer log 
every CQ call, as we used to have to do.  I guess it's a case of not 
being a legal requirement, but a nice record to have.

OK on 2M, it can be the same down here at times.  2M SSB only seems to 
get going in the summer and those of us that prefer CW tend to have to 
wait for Aurora and Meteor Scatter to really kick in.

Anyway, I think were getting off topic for this thread now.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Toby Burnett]

Dave, 

I knew about the logbook but not the cwid or /m /p etc   hmm.  I am getting
out of touch. 
The only time I can see not using a log book though is when /m   but that's
just me.  I love looking back over the past 6 years at old qso's and seeing
if I have a (new one hi hi )  When I was first licensed  March the 5th
2004   everything was a new one and I think for the new breed of M6 / M3's
etc it would be a shame for them to not keep a log. 
Ok I don't log every single net on 160m or VHF for example, but pretty much
every contact still goes in the log, I bet you are the same. 

VHF is such a shame up here in the outer Hebrides, took the puppy for a walk
yesterday and up the hill I can see most of the isle of Lewis for 2m, not a
single reply even through GB3IG which I though was quite sad for a Sunday
afternoon.  There must be at least 25 operators on the island and the
repeater can work some distance out to the NW Scotland.  I don't have a 2m
antenna up at the MO and this was quite sad to not make a single contact. Oh
well. 

Toby

Desperate for CW. lol 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Dave Ackrill
Date: 22/02/2010 11:34:35
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
 
  
Toby Burnett wrote:
> Now Dave, 
> 
> C'mon I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II 
> 
> The on / off button is a challenge. Lol just messing with you now. No
> offence. 
> 
> 
> 
> On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to
> answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper
> clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I
used
> a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso ) 
> 
> Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway. 
> 
> I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw
id
> and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is in
> use. 

Yes, I had an IC706MKIIG for a long while. Maybe it was the poor 
location of the filter button that made me get rid of it? HI.

Here in the UK the requirement for CW ID was removed several years ago 
and the latest UK licence is a much simpler and very cut down document. 
There's not even a legal requirement to keep a logbook anymore and the 
/M or /A or /P suffixes are 'recommendations' that people 'may' use. 
These are mentioned in the notes to the licence, not even in the main 
body...

If anyone wants to see a modern UK licence, a draft copy is available on 
the OFCOM website, go to 
http://www.ofcom.org
uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/amateur/Licences/samplelicence07.pdf

Dave (G0DJA)



 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Dave Ackrill]

Toby Burnett wrote:
> Now Dave, 
> 
> C'mon  I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II   
> 
> The on / off button is a challenge.   Loljust messing with you now.  No
> offence. 
> 
> 
> 
> On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to
> answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper
> clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I used
> a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso ) 
> 
>  Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway. 
> 
> I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw id
> and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is in
> use.  

Yes, I had an IC706MKIIG for a long while.  Maybe it was the poor 
location of the filter button that made me get rid of it?  HI.

Here in the UK the requirement for CW ID was removed several years ago 
and the latest UK licence is a much simpler and very cut down document. 
  There's not even a legal requirement to keep a logbook anymore and the 
/M or /A or /P suffixes are 'recommendations' that people 'may' use. 
These are mentioned in the notes to the licence, not even in the main 
body...

If anyone wants to see a modern UK licence, a draft copy is available on 
the OFCOM website, go to 
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/amateur/Licences/samplelicence07.pdf

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Andy obrien]

I often "look" at the CW signal on the waterfall when I hear one close to
me.  My view is...if his signal is not exactly on the same part of the
waterfall as mine, we are "OK".  I can notch him out and he can do the same
to me.  A couple of hundred  Hz separation should be all we need.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Toby Burnett  wrote:

>
>
>   Now Dave,
> C'mon  I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II
> The on / off button is a challenge.   Loljust messing with you now.  No
> offence.
>
> On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to
> answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper
> clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I used
> a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso )
>  Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway.
> I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw
> id and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is
> in use.
>
> I am so desperate to get my cw receiving up to scratch so I can use it
> freely, I wish we had still had to take the test back in 2004 to be honest.
> Maybe we could sked a qrs contact some afternoon / evening.
>
> Toby MM0TOB
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Dave Ackrill 
> *Date:* 22/02/2010 11:00:08
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
>
>
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters.
>
> On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable. Are there any
> radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off'
> buttons difficult to operate? ;-)
>
> Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW as well, saying that people
> with digital modes can, and should, listen 1st and look at the
> frequencies around them, the same should be true for CW operators. In my
> opinion.
>
> Dave (G0DJA)
>
>
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Toby Burnett]

Now Dave, 
C'mon  I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II   
The on / off button is a challenge.   Loljust messing with you now.  No
offence. 

On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to
answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper
clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I used
a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso ) 
 Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway. 
I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw id
and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is in
use.  

I am so desperate to get my cw receiving up to scratch so I can use it
freely, I wish we had still had to take the test back in 2004 to be honest. 
Maybe we could sked a qrs contact some afternoon / evening. 

Toby MM0TOB 
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Dave Ackrill
Date: 22/02/2010 11:00:08
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
 
  
Steve wrote:

> The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters.

On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable. Are there any 
radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off' 
buttons difficult to operate? ;-)

Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW as well, saying that people 
with digital modes can, and should, listen 1st and look at the 
frequencies around them, the same should be true for CW operators. In my 
opinion.

Dave (G0DJA)



 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: KH6TY's Post

[KH6TY]

The comment was made that ROS is different from a FFSS mode that 
accomplishes the spreading by shifting the VFO frequency. The point is 
that in a SSB transmitter, the RF frequency is equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus (USB) or minus (LSB) the tone frequency. So it 
does not matter how the RF frequency gets moved, either by VFO shift of 
a carrier, or by tone shift on a SSB transmitter. Unfortunately, Jose 
went to great lengths to establish that ROS is a FHSS mode. He does this 
by using different tone frequencies but the result is the same as 
shifting a VFO frequency in a traditional FHSS transmitter. The RF is 
still shifted according to a pseudo-random code in both cases. To the 
observer, there is no difference except perhaps in the degree of 
spreading used.


It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations were undoubtedly written 
in order to keep really wide FHSS transmissions from covering all of a 
band, and in the aggregate, have a multitude of stations seriously 
interfering with many narrow bandwidth modes. By keeping the spreading 
within the bandwidth of a SSB phone signal, Jose sidesteps the problem, 
but it still takes a clarification, or exemption, or modification, of 
the rules as written to make it possible for us to use ROS on HF. In 
other words, the FCC could say that as long as the spreading is no wider 
than a phone signal, it is legal to use SS on HF, but this would have to 
be done in advance of regular use. If not, I could use a SDR with FHSS 
capability and spread over 100 KHz for whatever benefit that might bring 
and if others did that, seriously interfere with the use of the band by 
many other stations on a different base frequency. Since there is lots 
of room on UHF compared to HF, FHSS is already legal there and a 
reasonable degree of spreading is not of so much importance. This is why 
ATV is only allowed on UHF. It is so wide that it takes a wide band to 
leave room for others to share and operate.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Tony wrote:
 


Skip,

> The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too 
similar to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum
> (frequency hopping) transceivers so to the observer, there is no 
difference.
 
Could you elaborate on this please?
 
Tony -K2MO
 
 


- Original Message -
From: KH6TY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for 
USA Hams



 
RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is 
done, whether by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am 
shocked that Bonnie does not understand that simple principle. For 
example, true FSK is done by VFO shift, but FSK is also done on SSB by 
tone shift. The result is identical, the only difference being that 
the transceiver does not have to be linear with FSK shift, but it does 
with tone frequency shift to prevent splatter. The problem with ROS is 
that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in 
VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers, so to 
the observer, there is no difference. It is the frequency hopping that 
makes ROS spread spectrum, and unfortunately, that is against the FCC 
regulations. If it were not, there could possibly be spread spectrum 
transceivers using tone shifts much wider than an IF bandwidth, even 
using soundcards, just like SDR's spectrum displays use. In that case, 
more than one voice channel would be taken up for the benefit of the 
SS user, to the detriment of adjacent stations, or even those farther 
away, if there were no other limitations on bandwidth utilized.


73 - Skip KH6TY



W2XJ wrote:
 
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the 
end of the day it is BS.






From: expeditionradio 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 -
To: 
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

 
 
 
  

Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping 
Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur 
radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to 
allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or 
waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it 
in USA.


Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.

If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the 
emission, and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a 
chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA.


But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he 
lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had 
little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands 
of hams from using it in USA.


But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".

ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other 
types 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Dave Ackrill]

Steve wrote:

>  The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters.


On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable.  Are there any 
radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off' 
buttons difficult to operate?  ;-)

Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW as well, saying that people 
with digital modes can, and should, listen 1st and look at the 
frequencies around them, the same should be true for CW operators. In my 
opinion.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A

[Dave Ackrill]

Steve wrote:
> 
> I keep returning to DM780 as my main digi mode program. It does NOT support  
> Olivia 32/500 or 64/500. I'm running v5.0 beta. I think one of the older 
> releases had an option to set the tones/baud parameters separately.

Version 4.1 of DM780 does allow these Olivia modes to be selected. 
That's what I use if I'm going to use Olivia.

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

[Steve]

Andy I am both frequent another forum that is CW based. The subject came up 
over the weekend about a two tone mode in the vicinity of 14077 kHz. Andy 
pointed out it was probably JT65A. The other commenter found it annoying with 
two other CW signals in the bandpass.

I almost jumped into the discussion, but held back. I think the commenter was 
inferring the digital signal was interfering with the CW signals. It all 
depends on who was there first. Also it wasn't certain that the two CW ops and 
the digital ops could hear each other, although the commenter could hear all 
three.

I think sound card mode ops can easily look for nearby signals, on the 
waterfall, for the period of a few minutes to get an idea of the activity. The 
same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters. Some rigs have dual 
peak filters for RTTY. There could be a signal in between the filter peaks and 
the op could never hear a signal in between.

A couple years ago, I answered a local buddy calling CQ on 40 meter PSK31. 
After the QSO, one op made a scathing comment about his qso in progress being 
qrm'ed. I didn't reply. From my perspective, I had heard a CQ and answered it. 
My local buddy should have heard the other qso as well. I did email the guy and 
apologized.

It is much easier for the CW op to hear other signals when they are running 
full or semi breakin. Digital ops don't have that luxury, as we transmit a few 
minutes on and few minutes, depending on the speed. Perhaps TOR mode ops could 
hear other signal between the bursts, if they are not automated. CW ops usually 
call QRL? to see if the frequency is in use. How do digi ops do that? How does 
the digi op reply to a CW QRL? query?

There will always be QRM, even with the best of intentions. We should try to 
minimize as much as possible. I operate both digital and CW and don't see an 
easy answer.

73,

Steve N6VL

[digitalradio] Re: KH6TY's Post

[Tony]

Skip, 

> The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar 
> to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum
> (frequency hopping) transceivers so to the observer, there is no difference.

Could you elaborate on this please? 

Tony -K2MO



- Original Message - 
From: KH6TY 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams


  
RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is done, whether 
by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am shocked that Bonnie does not 
understand that simple principle. For example, true FSK is done by VFO shift, 
but FSK is also done on SSB by tone shift. The result is identical, the only 
difference being that the transceiver does not have to be linear with FSK 
shift, but it does with tone frequency shift to prevent splatter. The problem 
with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in 
VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers, so to the 
observer, there is no difference. It is the frequency hopping that makes ROS 
spread spectrum, and unfortunately, that is against the FCC regulations. If it 
were not, there could possibly be spread spectrum transceivers using tone 
shifts much wider than an IF bandwidth, even using soundcards, just like SDR's 
spectrum displays use. In that case, more than one voice channel would be taken 
up for the benefit of the SS user, to the detriment of adjacent stations, or 
even those farther away, if there were no other limitations on bandwidth 
utilized.

73 - Skip KH6TY



W2XJ wrote: 
  
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of 
the day it is BS. 





From: expeditionradio 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 -
To: 
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

 
 
 
   

Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread 
Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to 
obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF 
without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need 
an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 

Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.

If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, 
and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a chance for it to 
be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. 

But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in 
a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no 
knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it 
in USA. 

But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".

ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of 
n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for 
signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
(using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
description as a conventional wideband technique. 

It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention 
of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to 
a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. 
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 

This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping 
USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams move forward 
with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham 
radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!

But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" 
against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it 
relates to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth".

There is the other issue of "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have 
brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams 
seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" in 
the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the 
ham band to operate it or not operate it. 

FACT:
"There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA 
ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges."

FACT:
"FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on "content" of the emission, 
not bandwidth."

New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than 
the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this 
area of technology in t

[digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A

[Steve]

I keep returning to DM780 as my main digi mode program. It does NOT support  
Olivia 32/500 or 64/500. I'm running v5.0 beta. I think one of the older 
releases had an option to set the tones/baud parameters separately.

I think MixW will work on these Olivia sub modes.

Are these sub modes are slower than the staple 16/500?

73,

Steve N6VL

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "sholtofish"  wrote:
>
> Andy,
> 
> Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony and 
> I managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster than 
> JT65 too.
> 
> 73
> 
> Sholto
> 

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[Trevor .]

--- On Mon, 22/2/10, expeditionradio  wrote:
> Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide
> regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it
> failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth
> was withdrawn

And the irony is that in 1977 (33 years ago!) the FCC itself proposed band 
planning by bandwidth with segments for 350 Hz, 3.5 kHz and 7.5 kHz. At the 
time the ARRL bitterly opposed it and the FCC withdrew the proposal.

However, there may be scope in interpretation of the regs. Up until a few years 
ago many US amateurs were under the impression that you could only send a 
maximum of 300 bits per second on HF. What the rules actually specified was a 
maximum symbol rate of 300 Baud and, probably because no had thought to do so, 
there was no limit specified on the number of carriers you could transmit. 
That's how these days US hams can run digital voice/sstv. 

So it's down to interpretation and it'll hinge on the FCC's formal definition 
of Spread Spectrum with luck ROS will fall outside of it. 

Does anybody plan to contact the FCC this morning to get their view ? 

73 Trevor M5AKA