RE: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?

[Dave AA6YQ]

CPU "capability" is but one set of dimensions (clock speed, instruction
issue rate, cache size, cache organization) in a multi-dimensional problem
that includes motherboard capabilities (CPU-memory interface, GPU
organization and interface, memory organization and speed), disk
capabilities (rotational latency, track-to-track seek time, transfer rate),
and Windows configuration (settings on "Performance Options" window's
Advanced tab, and a bunch more accessible via a Registry Editor).

If you monitor the excellent FlexRadio reflector, you'll see how challenging
it is to "compute" a hardware configuration for optimized for just one
application; building and evaluating multiple configurations was required to
find the "sweet spot". Computing an optimal configuration to host 12
applications is hopeless; this requires the application of general
principles, not a spreadsheet.

The most critical decision should be made up front: do all of the
applications you need run correctly in a 64-bit environment? If so, then
plan on building a 64-bit system (Windows 7, if your applications will all
run there correctly); I wouldn't choose a motherboard that supports less
than 16 GB of RAM, but you can start out by populating it with 2GB or 4GB as
your budget allows (don't start with an initial increment that's would have
to be discarded to utilize the maximum memory capacity, however). A 64-bit
operating system does reduce the choice of serial port interfaces; see



As far as I know, none of the applications on your list can exploit more
than one processor core, so you should choose a dual-core processor (Windows
will run on one core, and your applications will compete for the second
core); if PhotoShop were on you list, you'd reach a different conclusion.
Spend some time on Intel's and AMD's web sites looking at the desktop
processor comparison charts, e.g.



Dvorak's old rule of "third best" is a good starting point, as companies
charge big premiums for their most-powerful CPUs. CPU selection should also
consider cache size and architecture (bigger, with more sets is better).
Also don't buy a CPU built with an older production process. From Intel, you
want 32 nm lithography, not 45 nm; smaller transistors run faster and
generate less heat.

In choosing a GPU, pick one that offloads all graphics processing, and will
handle the screen resolution you'll likely be using over the next couple of
years (taking multiple monitors into account, if that's a possibility). This
will be an add-in card that can later be upgraded, so tradeoffs can be made.
Alternatively, you can save some money by starting with the GPU from your
current PC, assuming its above the bar and will run under the new PC's
version of Windows.

With hard drives, its tempting to buy the biggest disk you can afford, but
those spacious 1+TB drives are relatively slow, and a PC with one hard drive
is slower than a PC with two hard drives. If you can, go with two hard
drives - a ~100 GB device with fast track-to-track times and low rotational
latency to host the operating system, and a larger slower drive for your
applications and data. Western Digital's Velociraptor family is a good
candidate for the small/fast C: drive; you could consider a solid state
"drive" for this role, but I have no personal experience with them. Choose a
motherboard that supports a 3 GB SATA interface, and choose hard drives that
exploit this interface. Again, you can save some money up front by starting
with your current PC's hard drive in your new system, and upgrade later.

All DXLab applications run correctly under 64-bit XP, Vista, and Windows 7.

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Andy obrien
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:17 PM
To: digitalradio
Subject: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?



I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on
several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with
enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a
way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here
is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could)

Commander (or HRD)
Winwarbler (or Multipsk)
DX Keeper
Spotcollector
Pathfinder
DX View
Weather Watcher
Firefox
Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console
Fldigi
WSJT/JT65-HF
Dimension 4

Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon

[Andy obrien]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, g4ilo  wrote:

> To be honest I think the basic problem is just that there isn't enough space 
> on the busy bands for all the people who want to use a 2.2kHz wide digital 
> mode to use it. Because of all the QRM you just end up making the same 
> contacts you could make with PSK31 but using 20 times the bandwidth
>
> Julian, G4ILO


This is a key point, one that I am sometimes guilty of forgetting.  I
STILL think ALE is best method of establishing a QSO/contact.
Establish the contact and switch to a mode that suits the conditions.
ALE , of  course,  has its own problems, a wide mode, and some people
dislike the unattended operations.

Perhaps we can invent a new digital QSO calling method , essentially
establishing just one or two modes that are used to initiate a QSO.  ,
Using a mode that is "average" in terms of  bandwidth and also in
terms of throughput/robustness?  This would be in "zone 1" of the band
.  "Zone 2" would be the area of a band suited for wider digital modes
but again, you would only CQ in one well known and easy to use  wider-
mode (Olivia ?)

In Zone 1 the initial CQ and response would exchange signal report and
callsigns only, then based on generally approved concepts , would
switch to one of perhaps 4 other modes with significantly varying
throughput and bandwidth.  Of course, there are modes that do this
automatically (PACTOR and Winmor), but they are not widely used.  I
doubt we could get digital mode operators to change habits (we can't
even persuade most RTTY ops  to even TRY some non-RTTY modes),  but
rather than change  thousands of PSK31 users, maybe we can change the
non-PSK31/RTTY digital mode users (us ?) .  Regardless of where you
are operating , call CQ in PSK31 , when someone answers choices would
be

Zone 1
2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia or ROS
2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with PSK31 (or perhaps MFSK16)
2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to PSK125/250, RTTY

Zone 2
Initial CQ in Olivia 1000/16

2-way signals are 339 or below switch to Olivia 1000/32 or ROS16
2-way-singals are 449 to 549 stay with Olivia 1000/16
2-way-signals are 559-599 switch to a NARROWER mode PSK250-63 , RTTY

Where a band has no clear "wide mode" allocation, , or very little
bandwidth at all , Zone 2 type communication would never be expected.

This may be too radical to be well received and adopted by the average
digital ham.  Instead of everyone having varying patches of territory
and calling plaintively looking  for that rare ham that actually uses
the same obscure mode, the digital portions of a band would have PSK31
(or MFSK16) calling CQ over a much wider range of frequencies then
switching as conditions dictate.  A CQ might start with PSK31 and
result in a QSO that ends in PSK250.  The only dilemma then would be,
do you revert to calling CQ in PSK31  after the QSO or "QRZ?" in the
mode that ended the QSO.  That might just have to be up to the
individual ham to decide.

Example bandplan
14070-080 "narrow mode QSO zone " CQ in PSK31
14081-14099 RTTY,
14101 Packet ,
14102-14110 Wide mode QSO fzone  . CQ  in ROS 16 or Olivia 1000/16

No need to list any individual modes except RTTY and packet.
Andy K3UK




R = READABILITY
1 -- Unreadable
2 -- Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable
3 -- Readable with considerable difficulty
4 -- Readable with practically no difficulty
5 -- Perfectly readable

S = SIGNAL STRENGTH
1 -- Faint signals, barely perceptible
2 -- Very weak signals
3 -- Weak signals
4 -- Fair signals
5 -- Fairly good signals
6 -- Good signals
7 -- Moderately strong signals
8 -- Strong signals
9 -- Extremely strong signals

Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?

[Phil Barnett]

On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:17 -0500, Andy obrien wrote:
> I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on
> several things at once.  I am thinking about a better PC, one with
> enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time.  Is there a
> way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications.  Here
> is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could)
> 
> Commander (or HRD)
> Winwarbler (or Multipsk)
> DX Keeper
> Spotcollector
> Pathfinder
> DX View
> Weather Watcher
> Firefox
> Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console
> Fldigi
> WSJT/JT65-HF
> Dimension 4

In a word, no.

Modern operating systems are very good at seemingly doing several things
at once, even though you may only have a single CPU. If you are
concerned with this, get a multi-core CPU so you can give your operating
system more parallel capabilities. Also having a great graphics card
with a proper driver can lift a lot of CPU responsibility. I prefer
nVidia with the nVidia drivers.

You don't say which operating system you are running. XP has a natural
limit of 2 CPU's. Windows servers have an option to buy support for
multiple CPU's. Linux can use all the CPU's it can find. From what I
read, Windows 7 can support 2 sockets and each socket can have a
multicore CPU in it. That means it would be possible and even reasonably
inexpensive to have a pair of 4 core AMD Opterons running under Windows
7 or Linux.

I'm running a single quad core AMD Phenom 9600 under Linux and it's
loafing all the time, regardless of what I'm doing. I have yet to see
any CPU lag on this machine. It has an Nvidia 9600 video card.

Generally speaking, RAM is more important than CPU so make sure you are
not ram starved before you blame the CPU.

Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

[Tony]

Dave,

There's been a lot of ROS activity close enough to 14100 to cause interference 
to the NCDXF beacons, not to mention the Packet network on 105, the ALE network 
on 109 and the Olivia activity near the same frequencies. I understand that 
some are anxious to work a new mode, but it shouldn't come at a cost to others. 

I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to 
move up the band a bit anyway. 

Glad to hear it - and what better forum is there than the digital reflector to 
inform others about the QRM? I'm sure most of the ROS operators found the mode 
on this reflector. 

> the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots 
> stomping up and down on
> a new experimental mode.

I'm not trying to condemn the mode, in fact, I admire those like Jose, Patrick 
and others. I was just trying to bring attention to the handful of 
ROS operators who were less than courteous to their fellow hams. There's really 
no excuse for this kind of blatant free-for-all. 

> I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode 
> is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon
>  frequency and stomping on that as well?

If I hear it, I will. It's our duty to inform others about interference they 
may be causing, especially the QRM that might cause harm in the event of an 
emergency. I guess I'm a bit touchy about the interference issue after 9/11. 

By the way Dave, I monitored a contact from Haiti after the earthquake and it 
was riddled with QRM at times. I'm not saying the interference was deliberate, 
but the station receiving the emergency traffic had to clear the frequency more 
than once - go figure. 

Tony -K2MO






- Original Message - 
From: Dave Ackrill 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM


  
Tony wrote:
> Sholto, 
> 
> The silence is deafening... 
> 
> I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network ( 
> www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've witnessed. 
> I'm very surprised... 

I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade 
people to move up the band a bit anyway. So, the deafening silence has 
been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on 
a new experimental mode.

I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR 
mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and 
stomping on that as well?

In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most 
digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably 
about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a 
wide/normal CW filter? If so, please explain how you are so sure it is 
ROS that is causing a problem. Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz 
above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting 
that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above 
a 'standard' CW filter width...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

I still do not think they will get involved. This is kindergarten politics
and bad for our hobby.





From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:09:57 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
idling

 
 
 
   

Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the
honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in
regulations. "Regulating" means following rules, not interpreting them for
our own benefit, but as accurately as possible.

If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing ROS as
FHSS, and then later received a two page "technical description" that was
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you believe the
first document or the second, knowing that the mode may really be FHSS
butis  now called something else in order to achieve legal status?

Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into this
to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe the
author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would think they
feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the mode really is
FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer can trust what the
author says. The change is so enormous that it is not just a matter of
having left something out the first time.

My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral analysis Steiner has made,
there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who claims he is
the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to tell the truth, and
has already reversed himself once.

Tough situation. :-(

73 - Skip KH6TY



W2XJ wrote: 
>    
>  
> 
> Skip
>  
> Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really
> want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the
> comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our
> activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support it.
> I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this.
>  
> What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed
> it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination.
> They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a
> staff member.  Part of holding a license is being able to determine which
> operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years
> ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were
> qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and
> interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves.  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: KH6TY 
>  Reply-To: 
>  Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500
>  To: 
>  Subject: 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  by any
> of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and
> practice of 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  ,
>> 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 conce

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

A good portion of the FCC rules is almost cut and paste from ITU standards
which apply worldwide.



From: "John B. Stephensen" 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:02:44 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
idling

 
 
 
   

 
The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a
specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the
licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask
for help in this forum when something is not clear.
 
73,
 
John
KD6OZH
>  
> - Original Message -
>   W2XJ wrote:
>> > Skip
>> > 
>> >  An FCC staff member told an interested group at
>> > Dayton that if they  were qualified to hold their license, they should have
>> > the ability to  read and interpret the rules and figure it out for
>> > themselves.  
> 
> That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as  well.
> 
> The problem then was that some people thought they had the  authority to
> tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not,  do.
 
   

[digitalradio] Re: New subject: FSK clicks

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Wes Linscott  wrote:
>
> The EPC PSK125 contest was in operation.  Is that possibly what you were 
> seeing/hearing?
> 
> Wes W1LIC
Well if PSK125 signals are clicky then that's just as bad as if
it's FSK.  However I was able to copy one or two of the clicky
signals as FSK RTTY.  Didn't try on all of them.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[John B. Stephensen]

The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a 
specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the 
licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask 
for help in this forum when something is not clear.

73,

John
KD6OZH
  - Original Message - 
W2XJ wrote:
  > Skip
  > 
  > An FCC staff member told an interested group at
  > Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have
  > the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for
  > themselves. 

  That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well.

  The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to 
  tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US

[John B. Stephensen]

There is a technical descrption at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/. I doesn't 
describe the start and stop tone sequences or completely describe the mapping 
from the convolutional encoder to the 128 tones used for data. However, it's 
more compete than some of the technical specifications on the ARRL web site. 
Perhaps he can add more detail in the future.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: jbh...@bluefrog.com 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Cc: AE5IL 
  Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 20:27 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US




  §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions
  This is a one-stop Web site for technical characteristics called for in FCC 
rules § 97.309(a)(4), which reads: 

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital 
code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical 
characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or 
PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
  Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or protocol 
when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations in communication 
and read the content of the transmissions. Click on names of the techniques 
already documented:

  A technical description from you about ROS would help us in the US a lot. For 
other technical descriptions go to 
www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/.


  

[digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?

[Andy obrien]

I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on
several things at once.  I am thinking about a better PC, one with
enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time.  Is there a
way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications.  Here
is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could)

Commander (or HRD)
Winwarbler (or Multipsk)
DX Keeper
Spotcollector
Pathfinder
DX View
Weather Watcher
Firefox
Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console
Fldigi
WSJT/JT65-HF
Dimension 4


Andy K3UK

[digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

[sholtofish]

Hi Dave,

I don't think using 14.101 USB is the main reason for QRM on the 20m NCDXF 
frequency. But some guys were definitely using ROS on 14.098 which was very 
silly.

I agree - I think the ROS waveform starts around 400Hz so I would expect the 
lowest ROS tone to be about 1400Hz higher than the NCDXF CW frequency.

With a 500Hz narrow filter certainly it would be far enough away but I suspect 
that many of the monitoring stations might be using a wider bandwidth, 
especially the automatic monitors. I know for a fact the FAROS program requires 
a wider bandwidth than 500Hz and I remember reading somewhere it needs about 
2KHz for optimal detection of the NCDXF signals. I don't know the reason why 
but if so then it is conceivable that ROS on 14.101 is indeed causing a problem.

My horse in this race is that ROS on 14.101 USB does interfere with our packet 
network on 14105 LSB. It's just the few top tones of ROS but they unfortunately 
coincide directly with our packet tones.

I believe the modes you allude to (TOR and Packet) are most likely WinMOR (the 
TOR mode) and perhaps APRS beacon packets. I too have unfortunately heard 
WinMOR stations also way too close to the NCDXF frequency. They are not regular 
however so maybe someone just picked the wrong frequency for testing?

I am not 100% sure about the APRS but I recently read something about a UK 
based 20m APRS experiment and remember thinking they may be a little close to 
the NCDXF frequency but I can't seem to find any information on it when I just 
Googled it so can't tell for sure. Unfortunately I can't hear them from this 
QTH on the West Coast of the USA.

But thinking about the very wide bandwidth of ROS (wider than ALE even) 
wouldn't it make sense to come up with a "channelized" system of ROS on higher 
frequencies perhaps >14.115MHz but <14.150MHz ? There's no need for ROS to be 
in the automatic segment at all. If I was interested in ROS I would be tempted 
to propose different "Channels" for the US (if deemed legal), Pacific/Asia, 
Australasia and the EU. That would also help with the many ROS signals all 
competing on the same frequency. It would just take a little coordination 
between interested ROS users (and understanding of the international 
allocations) but you guys could have some pretty effective DX communications on 
those higher frequencies where QRM is much less anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

Sholto
K7TMG


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>
> Tony wrote:
> > Sholto, 
> > 
> > The silence is deafening... 
> > 
> > I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network 
> > ( www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've 
> > witnessed. I'm very surprised...  
> 
> I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade 
> people to move up the band a bit anyway.  So, the deafening silence has 
> been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on 
> a new experimental mode.
> 
> I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR 
> mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and 
> stomping on that as well?
> 
> In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most 
> digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably 
> about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a 
> wide/normal CW filter?  If so, please explain how you are so sure it is 
> ROS that is causing a problem.  Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz 
> above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting 
> that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above 
> a 'standard' CW filter width...
> 
> Dave (G0DJA)
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[KH6TY]

Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the 
honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in 
regulations. "Regulating" means following rules, not interpreting them 
for our own benefit, but as accurately as possible.


If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing 
ROS as FHSS, and then later received a two page "technical description" 
that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you 
believe the first document or the second, knowing that the mode may 
really be FHSS butis  now called something else in order to achieve 
legal status?


Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into 
this to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe 
the author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would 
think they feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the 
mode really is FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer 
can trust what the author says. The change is so enormous that it is not 
just a matter of having left something out the first time.


My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral analysis Steiner has 
made, there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who 
claims he is the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to 
tell the truth, and has already reversed himself once.


Tough situation. :-(

73 - Skip KH6TY



W2XJ wrote:
 


Skip

Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They 
really want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people 
who bother the comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the 
administration of our activities become too burdensome, the FCC will 
be less inclined to support it. I can not see them using valuable 
engineering time on this.


What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer 
claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the 
determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully 
worded opinion of a staff member.  Part of holding a license is being 
able to determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up 
over digital repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an 
interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their 
license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules 
and figure it out for themselves.  




*From: *KH6TY >
*Reply-To: *>
*Date: *Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500
*To: *>
*Subject: *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 
 by any of several tests. 
It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of 
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 

> , 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
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[Dave Ackrill]

W2XJ wrote:
> Skip
> 
> An FCC staff member told an interested group at
> Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have
> the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for
> themselves.  

That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well.

The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to 
tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.

Quite why they think that their opinion is any better than anyone 
else's, I have never been able to figure out...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks

[Wes Linscott]

The EPC PSK125 contest was in operation.  Is that possibly what you were 
seeing/hearing?

Wes W1LIC




From: jhaynesatalumni 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 8:05:55 PM
Subject: [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


 

[digitalradio] Testing a post.

[Russell Blair]

My last post didn't make it out it was about Extra class only can use ROS, I 
must have missed it .

Russell NC5O
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


" IN GOD WE TRUST " 


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 


  

Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

[Dave Ackrill]

Tony wrote:
> Sholto, 
> 
> The silence is deafening... 
> 
> I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network ( 
> www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've witnessed. 
> I'm very surprised...  

I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade 
people to move up the band a bit anyway.  So, the deafening silence has 
been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on 
a new experimental mode.

I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR 
mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and 
stomping on that as well?

In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most 
digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably 
about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a 
wide/normal CW filter?  If so, please explain how you are so sure it is 
ROS that is causing a problem.  Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz 
above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting 
that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above 
a 'standard' CW filter width...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

Skip

Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really
want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the
comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our
activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support
it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this.

What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer
claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the
determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded
opinion of a staff member.  Part of holding a license is being able to
determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital
repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at
Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have
the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for
themselves.  



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500
To: 
Subject: 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 
by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the
theory and practice of 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  ,
> 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
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 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.
 > > >
 >

[digitalradio] Re: Making RSID de rigueur, for Olivia

[Jon]

Gentlemen,
Excellent!!! Ideas!!! I have hearing problems, although I can make it in 
the outside world, telling the difference between modes can be a major pain. 
RSID has and will continue to broaden the scope of my digital operating. On the 
other hand, Gavin I see your point, and will shut RSID off on the common modes. 

73 all, de Jon KT4KB WCC-10

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gavin"  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"  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
> >
>