[digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling [1 Attachment]
Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Idling ROS pattern
Re: [digitalradio] Idling ROS pattern
Humm, I seems to have trouble with the attachment. I hope you get this : http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/sn/1267152391/name/ROS.jpg 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
[digitalradio] Idling ROS pattern repeat it self
And it clearly repeat it self http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS2.jpg 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 10:58, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Humm, I seems to have trouble with the attachment. I hope you get this : http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/sn/1267152391/name/ROS.jpg 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY frequencies?
On Tuesday 23 February 2010 11:27:21 you wrote: James, you will not have to LOOK. This contest will bring out thousabds of RTTY ops and 80-40-20-15-10 will be full if those bands are open. The ARRL band plan will be where you find them, but some operators will go higher, Andy K3UK Thanks, Andy for the input. If anyone is playing this weekend in the RTTY contest, look for W8PGW and say hi!! James W8ISS Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. â/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/â. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography, whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. âEURoe/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/âEUR?. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Making RSID de rigueur, for Olivia
I want to embark on a campaign to make RSID de rigueur, for Olivia. It is nice to see Olivia continue to be used as a mode , a very effective mode. However, Olivia users need to remind themselves that there are 10 common sets tones/bw, and despite their appearance in a waterfall, it is not easy to determine which Olivia variant it is. RS ID makes that so much easier. Please use it, it will increase your chances of a someone returning to your CQ. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Evidence that ROS is not true Spread Spectrum
This thread now appears to confirm what Jose and a few others have claimed .That ROS has some characteristics of Spread Spectrum and frequency hopping, but does not meet the definition that the FCC has implied when not allowing Spread Spectrum in the USA. The hams involved in this thread (Skip, Rein, and Steinar) , are well known for their technical knowledge. So, although some hams may wish to wait for more definitive opinions from the ARRL and/or FCC, this might be used as reasonable evidence that use on the appropriate parts of the HF is OK for the USA . Thanks to the hams that did some good technical investigation, and thanks to Jose for his substantial contribution to ham radio. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
KH6TY wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Screenshot: HRD-SDR-DM780 sync'd
http://www.obriensweb.com/hrdsdr.jpg FYI, SDR-IQ,, TS2000, SpectraVue, HRD, DM780 all fully sync'd and interfaced. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Hi Skip First , I have read all of your mail's and I think you have argued fair and square. I can't tell if ROS is FHSS or not . This is to complicate for a country boy like me, but I really hope that FCC will let you use narrow band SS on HF some day . Cross my fingers for you and 73 LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 18:21, KH6TY wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: Making RSID de rigueur, for Olivia
Agreed, it is handy for all digi modes.except psk31..why do people insist on using RSID for modes we all know? It gets damned annoying seeing little boxes popping up on my screen to tell me it has heard a psk31 signal.Qpsk even i could accept, but psk31 using rsid for psk31 is just dumb. So just use it for the more exotic modes please! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: I want to embark on a campaign to make RSID de rigueur, for Olivia. It is nice to see Olivia continue to be used as a mode , a very effective mode. However, Olivia users need to remind themselves that there are 10 common sets tones/bw, and despite their appearance in a waterfall, it is not easy to determine which Olivia variant it is. RS ID makes that so much easier. Please use it, it will increase your chances of a someone returning to your CQ. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: Making RSID de rigueur, for Olivia
Gavin, what software are u using ? Mine (Multipsk) can be set to allow RS ID by modes... I can exclude BPSK31 RS ID alerts. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Gavin g0...@... wrote: Agreed, it is handy for all digi modes.except psk31..why do people insist on using RSID for modes we all know? It gets damned annoying seeing little boxes popping up on my screen to tell me it has heard a psk31 signal.Qpsk even i could accept, but psk31 using rsid for psk31 is just dumb. So just use it for the more exotic modes please! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: I want to embark on a campaign to make RSID de rigueur, for Olivia. It is nice to see Olivia continue to be used as a mode , a very effective mode. However, Olivia users need to remind themselves that there are 10 common sets tones/bw, and despite their appearance in a waterfall, it is not easy to determine which Olivia variant it is. RS ID makes that so much easier. Please use it, it will increase your chances of a someone returning to your CQ. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Does ROS spectrum match the specification?
A new technical description was published so you should see what it describes -- fixed start and stop sequences using 16 tones with convolutionally coded data using 128 tones in between. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 16:48 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar .
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The FCC will say that it up to each licensee to check the legality by reading the new technical specification. Unless someone shows that the spectrum doesn't match the specification U.S.hams should feel safe using ROS. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 17:31 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling KH6TY wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
I avoided most of the discussion in the last week or so but finally decided to see what the ARRL Handbook had to say. At first I thought it was totally unhelpful but after it sank in a bit found it some help. What I gleaned is that many digital modes use spectrum spreading techniques. The handbook seemed quite clear on this point. I am still trying to understand what spectrum spreading means. There is an implication in there of using more spectrum than. something. For analog, i.e. voice, this is somewhat clear. If you are sending voice up to 2.5kz then the spectrum 'something' is around 2.5 kHz SSB, or double that for AM. Spectrum spreading would utilize some additional spectrum. Consider a hypothetical mode where you took the voice signal, spread the audio by 4 times to generate a 10 kHz signal, and used that audio to modulate the RF. That would be a spectrum spreading technique. I simply cannot get a handle on what spreading means for a digital signal. Is the base 'something' CW and PSK31? From the Handbook, and I gather from the discussion here, there is another aspect which concerns the way in which the signal is encoded. In my hypothetical analog mode you might somehow invert or fold the frequency spectrum. The reverse technique would be required to decode the signal. It is my sense that some types of encoding are not allowed, while others would be acceptable. Not trying to start the entire debate but hoping to get a better understanding of the meaning of all this. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
[digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks
I was just listening on 80M - some kind of RTTY contest is on - and I hear a bunch of normal-sounding FSK RTTY signals, and some that are awfully clicky, like key clicks except it's FSK. I wonder what those guys are doing wrong. Having the speech processor turned on, perhaps? Or too-rapid switching between mark and space? Please listen when you get a chance and see if you hear what I'm hearing and if you can guess what is causing it. On the waterfall it shows up kinda like an overdriven PSK signal, but that shouldn't matter so much for FSK. Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
Text deleted for a very good reason... And some complained about pactor. Or Amtor. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
Chapter 8 of the 2010 handbook has a short overview of spread-spectrum techniques that could be applied to either analog or digital modulation. The original signal cold be anything (BPSK, FSK, FM...) and is phase or frequency modulated by a pseudorandom sequence in order to spread the signal over a wider range of frequencies. In frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) the receiver and transmitter just shift between a predefined set of frequenies during the transmission. Direct sequence spread-spectrum (DSSS) applies an additional level of phase modulation with a pseudorandom sequence to spread the original signal over a wider range of frequencies. DSSS often just exclusive-ORs (modulo-2 adds) the data with a spreading sequence at a rate that is a multiple of the original symbol rate. Error-correcting codes sometimes increase the bandwidth of a signal, but they do so by increasing the redundancy in the original signal. This could just be sending additional copies of the original data or adding parity bits to the data in block codes or multiplying the current data values with previous data values in convolutional coding. For example the current data value could be added to the previous two values and interleaved with the current value added to the second previous value. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 00:11 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading I avoided most of the discussion in the last week or so but finally decided to see what the ARRL Handbook had to say. At first I thought it was totally unhelpful but after it sank in a bit found it some help. What I gleaned is that many digital modes use spectrum spreading techniques. The handbook seemed quite clear on this point. I am still trying to understand what spectrum spreading means. There is an implication in there of using more spectrum than.. something. For analog, i.e. voice, this is somewhat clear. If you are sending voice up to 2.5kz then the spectrum 'something' is around 2.5 kHz SSB, or double that for AM. Spectrum spreading would utilize some additional spectrum. Consider a hypothetical mode where you took the voice signal, spread the audio by 4 times to generate a 10 kHz signal, and used that audio to modulate the RF. That would be a spectrum spreading technique. I simply cannot get a handle on what spreading means for a digital signal. Is the base 'something' CW and PSK31? From the Handbook, and I gather from the discussion here, there is another aspect which concerns the way in which the signal is encoded. In my hypothetical analog mode you might somehow invert or fold the frequency spectrum. The reverse technique would be required to decode the signal. It is my sense that some types of encoding are not allowed, while others would be acceptable. Not trying to start the entire debate but hoping to get a better understanding of the meaning of all this. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
