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

[W6IDS]

I hope no one is deleting this thread.  It's something to chew on slowly.

Thanks, Guys.  Interesting reads, both.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79NV
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band 
plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon


  Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the  
standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ.   I'd be fine with it,  but it is 
quite wide and would start a debate all over again.  I'm also not suggesting we 
use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general 
concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to 
establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO  (or "link" ) .  
The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it 
is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is 
such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments.  
The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a 
niche within a band for these modes.  The result is competing debates about 
which mode should park where.  PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant 
modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes.  That leaves Olivia, 
Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR,  Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 
and PSK variants, as the remainder.  .  While I would love to change the habits 
of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it.  I think there is enough room 
to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good 
segment of each band for the rest.  The plan would be that "the rest" all agree 
to use one mode for a CQ/

  Andy K3UK


  On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman  wrote:

Howard,

With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band 
that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment 
there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning 
there, hear the CQ and respond.

I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common 
mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the 
two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This 
is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link.

I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being 
able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 
48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. 
If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that 
bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software 
would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS"  wrote:
>
> 
> Hello Ed!
> 
> How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?
> 
> Howard W6IDS
> Richmond, IN Em79NV
> 
> - Original Message - 

> From: "ed_hekman" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- 
> reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
> 
> > Andy,
> >
> > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the 
idea 
> > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID 
that 
> > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that 
> > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
> >
> > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the 
> > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is 
the 
> > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be 
> > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I 
> > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for 
> > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
> >
> > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal 
> > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, 
images, 
> > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple 
> > access features for frequency sharing.
> >
> > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to 
> > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the 
QSO. 
> > A dual receiver would make that much easier.
> >
> > Ed
> > WB6YTE
> >
>






  

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[John B. Stephensen]

I had no doubt that it would once the document that the FCC requires was 
published. Since European hams don't normally read FCC regulations, it might 
be useful for the IARU or RSGB to publish an article about U.S. regulations 
so this doesn't happen again.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU" 
To: 
Cc: "Andy obrien" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 02:53 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS


> On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote:
>
> Thank goodness sanity has prevailed!





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/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS discussion - will it ever end

[Lee - AA5J]

Gee-whillikers!  Why don't you folks just filter on the keyword in the 
subject and direct all hits to another folder?   Most of the posts today 
have been on the subject of "ROS discussion - will it ", which 
certainly has absolutely nothing to do with digital communications.


73,
LEE, AA5J

[digitalradio] OFF-Topic - News Feeds to Send via Digital Modes

[Geo]

Good evening,

This message is off-topic, but I hope someone can provide me some help and 
information.

Desire:  To receive updated news (in an ASCII text format), that I can then 
save to a text file and then send using different digital modes.  This will be 
done over the internet, if possible and not on the ham bands, of course.

Background:  CWCom, has a channel that sends news items (the item and a couple 
of lines) in CW.  W7TTY has an internet stream of news (that users upload to a 
queue) that he sends as an RTTY stream.

I would like to have a source for news that could then be used as a feeder to 
the different digital modes.

I do not know anything about RSS feeds other than plugging and chugging at the 
Yahoo RSS web screens on this topic.  Can this information be received in some 
format that can easily be retrieved and saved as an ASCII file that strips out 
HTML or similar kinds of characters?  If so, how?

Anyway, if anyone can provide me a way forward, I would be most appreciative.

Regards,
George, NJ3H

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU]

On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote:

Thank goodness sanity has prevailed!

Leigh/WA5ZNU

> > From Jose's web site
> http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/fcc-ros-legal-in-usa/
> FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA
> By José Alberto Nieto Ros
> ...
> "According to the technical paper and the audio file attached, we
> conclude that ROS can not be viewed as Spread Spectrum and it would be
> encompassed within the section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes)."
>





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/

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[KH6TY]

From the latest at rosmodem.wordpress.com:

   * **14.102  (exclusive 16 baud)**
   * 14.106  (exclusive 16 baud)  
   * 14.109  (exclusive 1 baud)  


73 - Skip KH6TY




John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
 


At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:

>The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive,

It has?

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Jose

has K3TL said anything about his action?

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[KH6TY]

Technically, that is true. However, the problem I see over here is many 
times ROS decoding is stopped because of interference by other modes 
(Olivia and Pactor both), and not so many times as ROS interfering to 
other modes. Yes,  that has been complained about also, and I have 
sometimes also seen ROS 16 stopping Olivia 32-1000 decoding.


Perhaps others will offer an opinion.

73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
KH,
 
ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. 
Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds.
 
So, has no sense what you proposse.

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[jose alberto nieto ros]

I dont create ROS 1 baud only for EME operation. ROS 1 baud is also for QRP 
enthusiasts in HF. I think these people have the same right to experiment with 
weak signals in HF, and we should select some channel for this propose.  

But obviusly, should have more channels to 16 bauds than 1 baud.




De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 01:42
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

  
Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be "stupid".

The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests to 16 
baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users than 1 baud 
if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, allowing for more 
users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily for VHF/UHF, where it is 
more effective, would provide more suggested space for 16 baud users on HF and 
relieve congestion.

20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be applied to 
other bands. 

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

73 - Skip KH6TY



Dave Ackrill wrote: 
  
>KH6TY wrote:
>> I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 
>> 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even 
>> though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the 
>> advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a 
>> greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive 
>> to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid 
>> QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space.
>
>Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid...
>
>Dave (G0DJA)
>



  

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:


>The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, 

It has?

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[KH6TY]

Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be "stupid".

The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests 
to 16 baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users 
than 1 baud if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, 
allowing for more users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily 
for VHF/UHF, where it is more effective, would provide more suggested 
space for 16 baud users on HF and relieve congestion.


20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be 
applied to other bands.


Perhaps I misunderstood you.

73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:
> I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been 
designated as

> 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even
> though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the
> advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a
> greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive
> to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid
> QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space.

Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[jose alberto nieto ros]

KH,

ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. Before quit 
1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds.

So, has no sense what you proposse.





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 00:40
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

  
I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud 
exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an 
advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater 
at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 
14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF 
users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, 
twice as much space.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
>I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go 
>to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want 
>to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. 
>
>What i cannot say is "The 20-meters band is only mine".
>
>
>
>

De: KH6TY 
>Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02
>Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
>
>  
>Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the 
>other side of the coin is that we need to "police" ourselves, and that usually 
>means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by 
>their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal 
>spectrum allocations.
>
>I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause 
>as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the 
>relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's 
>stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106.
>
>Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and 
>UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is 
>on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m 
>frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia 
>interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal 
>work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is 
>also disrupting ROS on 14106.
>
>Just my personal opinion...
>
>73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>  
>
>Steinar Aanesland wrote: 
>  
>>Hi Jose
>>
>>I support you completely 
>>
>>73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>>
>>On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> >From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for
>>DIGIMODES until 2700Hz.
>>>
>>> You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is
>>for all hamradio.
>>>
>>> OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that
>>will emerge over the coming years.
>>>
>>> About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal
>>transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Jose Alberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
 From: m...@pp.inet. fi
 To: nieto...@hotmail. com
 Subject: ROS
 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200

 Hi Jose,

 since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.

 Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50
>>14.105,50... .
 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100
>>where other
 modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz
>>wide.

 Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at
>>worse conditions.
 We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
 For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you
>>cannot hear signals
 in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm
>>3 Olivia
 channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.

 I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia
>>- which is up to now
 only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own
>>experiences I know that
 Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some
>>s-stages, will copy errorfree.
 In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same
>>strength as ROS
 made ROS transmissions unreadable.

 You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a
>>good idea as above
 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb
>>stations, nothing else.

 To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO
>>frequencies below 14.110 MHz
 for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS
>>and Olivia users.

 I hope you will understand our problems,

 Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>



  

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 
> 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even 
> though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the 
> advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a 
> greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive 
> to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid 
> QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space.

Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid...

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[Andy obrien]

>From Jose's web site
http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/fcc-ros-legal-in-usa/
FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA
By José Alberto Nieto Ros
It ended the controversy about whether ROS is legal in USA or not. For
which they insisted on it was illegal: “A mamarla”

The case you submitted via the FCC has been resolved. The resolution
details for Case ID HD001311878 are below.
If you have any questions contact us at (877) 480-3201
Thank You!

Summary* : Request for clarification of ROS Digital Mode
Description* : Some days ago, Timothy J. Lilley got in touch with the
FCC to clarify the legality of the digital mode that I created. This
person gave the FCC without my permission and consent an incorrect and
incomplete documentation, which is inconsistent with the
characteristics of the digital mode.
I attach the technical description of ROS written by its developer and
an audio file for you to judge the legality of ROS in USA.
If it is no longer possible, I take legal action against Timothy J. Lilley.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Jose Alberto Nieto Ros
Telecommunication Engineer

Solution Details : Dear Mr. Nieto,

As I reported Timothy J. Lilley, the licensee of the station
transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the
operation of the station complies with the rules.

According to the technical paper and the audio file attached, we
conclude that ROS can not be viewed as Spread Spectrum and it would be
encompassed within the section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes).

FCC Committee will remain outside of any legal action you decide to take.

Should you have any further questions, or need additional information,
please contact the ULS Customer Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201
(877) 480-3201, selecting option 2.
Sincerely,
Agent 3820




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: Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?

[ed_hekman]

Andy,

Probably the best we can do is try a specific configuration with a similar load 
and look at CPU benchmarks for comparisons.

Applications currently running:
DxLabs Launcher
DXView
Pathfinder
SpotCollector
Firefox with one window
Internet Explorer with one window
UI-View32
Weather Display
HRD/Logbook/DM780 Superbrowser
MultiPSK with SDR sampling rate 48KHz, panoramic display, RSID & CallID 
detection on
MS Outlook

The computer:
Intel E2180 dual core cpu at 2.0 GHz (old)
2.5 GB RAM
IDE HD (old)
WinXP
Display mode 1680x1050

The CPU usage average is around 45%.  This spikes up to 100% briefly when 
changing windows or navigating the internet.  The biggest user is MultiPSK/SDR 
at 35% with DM780 a distant 2nd at 5% or less.  The rest of the aplications 
rarely show more than 1 or 2%.  45% total cpu usage doesn't leave much margin 
for doing things triggered by operator interaction.  AVG (antivirus) also kicks 
the usage up to near 100% when it is scanning.

I have used this web site for comparisons between CPUs.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Of course there are many other factors that determine the capability of a PC 
but most dual core CPUs should handle this load with no problems.  A quad core 
will give some room for growth - such as running 2 SDR radios.  The advice to 
stay away from the fastest available is good.  The performance/cost ratio gets 
very steep as the high end of performance is approached.

Another thing that we can consider is that the high performance PCs are driven 
by video games that require high video speed.  For ham radio applications video 
activity is usually relatively slow.  The most important factor for digital 
mode and SDR applications is CPU calculation speed.

Ed
WB6YTE


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 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
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[KH6TY]

I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 
1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even 
though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the 
advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a 
greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive 
to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid 
QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by 
Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is 
occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same.
 
What i cannot say is "The 20-meters band is only mine".



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

 

Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, 
but the other side of the coin is that we need to "police" ourselves, 
and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users 
of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at 
bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations.


I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia 
stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all 
depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I 
see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106.


Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on 
VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater 
problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the 
recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions 
with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use 
the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the 
most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 
14106.


Just my personal opinion...

73 - Skip KH6TY

  



Steinar Aanesland wrote:
 


Hi Jose

I support you completely

73 de LA5VNA Steinar

On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> >From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for
DIGIMODES until 2700Hz.
>
> You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is
for all hamradio.
>
> OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that
will emerge over the coming years.
>
> About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal
transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.
>
> Best regards, Jose Alberto
>
>
>
>> From: m...@pp.inet. fi 
>> To: nieto...@hotmail. com 
>> Subject: ROS
>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
>>
>> Hi Jose,
>>
>> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
>>
>> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50
14.105,50... .
>> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100
where other
>> modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz
wide.
>>
>> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at
worse conditions.
>> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
>> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you
cannot hear signals
>> in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm
3 Olivia
>> channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.
>>
>> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia
- which is up to now
>> only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own
experiences I know that
>> Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some
s-stages, will copy errorfree.
>> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same
strength as ROS
>> made ROS transmissions unreadable.
>>
>> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a
good idea as above
>> 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb
stations, nothing else.
>>
>> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO
frequencies below 14.110 MHz
>> for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS
and Olivia users.
>>
>> I hope you will understand our problems,
>>
>> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
>>
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[Dave Ackrill]

jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
> I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go 
> to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want 
> to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. 
> 
> What i cannot say is "The 20-meters band is only mine".

That has always been true Jose.

Unfortunately, some people think that they either have 'the right of 
might' or 'previous occupancy' rights on a frequency.

The right of might involves using high power and big antennas and, I 
think, comes from SSB and CW on the 'DX' bands.

(Here I speak as an enthusiast for CW as well as data modes, but not for 
imposing your own will in either case)

Previous occupancy now seems to come from various other modes.  As if 
"we were here first" was an argument for excluding other people who have 
the same rights to use the bands that they have.

'They' might say that 'We' are interfering with them, but equally 'We' 
might say that 'They' are interfering with us.  After all, no one owns 
the bands.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Hi Tony, you will have to repeat the test next days when i improve lenght 
interleaver as I had expected :-)

The first think i said about ROS is that minimize the power "at the same 
character/minute rate", and that is just what you are tester :-). You cannot 
match Washl Function FEC with Viterbi Algorithm. If you want OLIVIA be equal of 
robust that ROS you will have to transmit much slower than ROS necessarily.  
You can see as the different between OLIVIA and ROS is the not inconsiderable 
number of 5 dBs (3.2 times less power at the same character/minute).

Equally, the next mode ROS 8 baudios/2250 Hz will be 3dBS better than ROS 16 
baudios, but, obviusly is half as slow than ROS 16. You can not go against 
mathematics.

About frequency spreading of 25 Hz, thats is a value exaggerated. Normally, the 
spread doppler is usually of 1 or 2 Hz in the higher bands of the HF.

About ROS threshold, ROS is designed in a way that the Initial 
Acquisition Sequence poses no funnel. That is, the Initial sequence always has 
better sensitivity than the data demodulator. Sometimes you will see the 
initial sequence is activated but the data cannot be demodulated. This is how 
it should be.

Good job, and i expect you repeat the test with the new improvements I am 
making.





De: Tony 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:29
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations

  
All,

I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator 
showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the 
same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the 
same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it 
is roughly 5db less sensitive. 

Mode   Sensitivity baud rate    WPM 

Olivia 128/2K  -14db    163 times slower than 
ROS-16
Olivia   32/2K  -10db    64same as ROS-16
ROS-16  -15db   16
 
That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel 
conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same 
speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps 
across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low 
signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge 
over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. 
 
In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off 
dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely 
distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 
25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. 
 
I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum 
decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is 
not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is 
something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose 
can answer that.
 
I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K 
modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as 
well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. 
 
Many thanks to Jose for the new mode.  
 
Tony -K2MO
 
 
 
 



  

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

[Andy obrien]

Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the
standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ.   I'd be fine with it,  but it is
quite wide and would start a debate all over again.  I'm also not suggesting
we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the
general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received
data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO  (or
"link" ) .  The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and
preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans
between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and
"narrow" band segments.  The world is also split in to "favourite" modes
where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes.  The result
is competing debates about which mode should park where.  PSK , PACTOR,
RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most
used modes.  That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia,
WINMOR,  Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder.  .
While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I
could do it.  I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR
, JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the
rest.  The plan would be that "the rest" all agree to use one mode for a CQ/

Andy K3UK

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Howard,
>
> With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band
> that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that
> segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be
> tuning there, hear the CQ and respond.
>
> I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common
> mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received
> the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the
> QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link.
>
> I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being
> able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth -
> 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of
> operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ
> anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency
> so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls.
>
> Ed
> WB6YTE
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ,
> "W6IDS"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Ed!
> >
> > How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?
> >
> > Howard W6IDS
> > Richmond, IN Em79NV
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "ed_hekman" 
> > To: >
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-
> > reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the
> idea
> > > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID
> that
> > > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that
>
> > > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
> > >
> > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the
> > > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is
> the
> > > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be
> > > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I
>
> > > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for
> > > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
> > >
> > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal
> > > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email,
> images,
> > > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple
> > > access features for frequency sharing.
> > >
> > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to
> > > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the
> QSO.
> > > A dual receiver would make that much easier.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > > WB6YTE
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID & MSG-ID with SDR

[Andy obrien]

Since the RS ID works well over this range with my SDR, I see no reason why
the MSG ID would not work.

Andy K3UK

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ackrill wrote:

>
>
> sholtofish wrote:
> > I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with
> an SDR radio?
>
> I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go.
>
> Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly,
> if you have step by step instructions that would help.
>
> If it's reasonably straight forward to do I may have it configured later
> this evening.
>
> Dave (G0DJA)
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations

[Andy obrien]

Good tests, thanks Tony.


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Tony  wrote:

>
>
> All,
>
> I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The
> simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to
> run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run
> at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as
> ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive.
>
> Mode   Sensitivity baud rateWPM
>
> Olivia 128/2K  -14db163 times slower
> than ROS-16
> Olivia   32/2K  -10db64same as ROS-16
> ROS-16  -15db   16
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[jose alberto nieto ros]

I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to 
another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to 
transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. 

What i cannot say is "The 20-meters band is only mine".





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

  
Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the 
other side of the coin is that we need to "police" ourselves, and that usually 
means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by 
their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal 
spectrum allocations.

I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause 
as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the 
relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped 
by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106.

Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and 
UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on 
HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m 
frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia 
interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal 
work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is 
also disrupting ROS on 14106.

Just my personal opinion...

73 - Skip KH6TY



Steinar Aanesland wrote: 
  
>Hi Jose
>
>I support you completely 
>
>73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> >From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for
>DIGIMODES until 2700Hz.
>>
>> You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is
>for all hamradio.
>>
>> OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that
>will emerge over the coming years.
>>
>> About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal
>transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.
>>
>> Best regards, Jose Alberto
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: m...@pp.inet. fi
>>> To: nieto...@hotmail. com
>>> Subject: ROS
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
>>>
>>> Hi Jose,
>>>
>>> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
>>>
>>> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50
>14.105,50... .
>>> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100
>where other
>>> modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz
>wide.
>>>
>>> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at
>worse conditions.
>>> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
>>> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you
>cannot hear signals
>>> in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm
>3 Olivia
>>> channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.
>>>
>>> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia
>- which is up to now
>>> only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own
>experiences I know that
>>> Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some
>s-stages, will copy errorfree.
>>> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same
>strength as ROS
>>> made ROS transmissions unreadable.
>>>
>>> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a
>good idea as above
>>> 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb
>stations, nothing else.
>>>
>>> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO
>frequencies below 14.110 MHz
>>> for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS
>and Olivia users.
>>>
>>> I hope you will understand our problems,
>>>
>>> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



  

[digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations

[Tony]

All,

I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator 
showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the 
same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same 
word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is 
roughly 5db less sensitive. 

Mode   Sensitivity baud rateWPM 

Olivia 128/2K  -14db163 times slower than 
ROS-16
Olivia   32/2K  -10db64same as ROS-16
ROS-16  -15db   16

That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel 
conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same 
speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps 
across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low 
signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge 
over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. 

In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off 
dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely 
distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 
25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. 

I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum 
decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is 
not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is 
something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose 
can answer that.

I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K 
modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as 
well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. 

Many thanks to Jose for the new mode.  
 
Tony -K2MO

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

[ed_hekman]

Howard,

With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that 
we can monitor on the waterfall.  If someone calls CQ outside that segment 
there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning 
there, hear the CQ and respond.

I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode 
and frequency for calling CQ.  After a response to the CQ is received the two 
parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO.  This is 
the idea of ALE.  It is intended for establishing a link.

I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style.  Being 
able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 
48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. 
 If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that 
bandwidth.  Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software 
would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS"  wrote:
>
> 
> Hello Ed!
> 
> How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?
> 
> Howard W6IDS
> Richmond, IN  Em79NV
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "ed_hekman" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- 
> reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > Some great ideas there.  I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea 
> > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that 
> > Patrick has developed.  The software should include S/N measurement that 
> > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
> >
> > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the 
> > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact.  PSK31 is the 
> > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs.  It would be nice to be 
> > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions.  I 
> > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for 
> > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
> >
> > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal 
> > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, 
> > documents).  Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple 
> > access features for frequency sharing.
> >
> > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to 
> > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. 
> > A dual receiver would make that much easier.
> >
> > Ed
> > WB6YTE
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[KH6TY]

Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but 
the other side of the coin is that we need to "police" ourselves, and 
that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the 
spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan 
divisions of the legal spectrum allocations.


I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations 
cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends 
upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many 
ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106.


Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on 
VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater 
problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the 
recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with 
Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 
baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. 
Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106.


Just my personal opinion...

73 - Skip KH6TY




Steinar Aanesland wrote:
 


Hi Jose

I support you completely

73 de LA5VNA Steinar

On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> >From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for
DIGIMODES until 2700Hz.
>
> You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is
for all hamradio.
>
> OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that
will emerge over the coming years.
>
> About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal
transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.
>
> Best regards, Jose Alberto
>
>
>
>> From: m...@pp.inet.fi 
>> To: nieto...@hotmail.com 
>> Subject: ROS
>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
>>
>> Hi Jose,
>>
>> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
>>
>> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50
14.105,50
>> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100
where other
>> modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz
wide.
>>
>> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at
worse conditions.
>> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
>> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you
cannot hear signals
>> in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm
3 Olivia
>> channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.
>>
>> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia
- which is up to now
>> only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own
experiences I know that
>> Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some
s-stages, will copy errorfree.
>> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same
strength as ROS
>> made ROS transmissions unreadable.
>>
>> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a
good idea as above
>> 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb
stations, nothing else.
>>
>> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO
frequencies below 14.110 MHz
>> for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS
and Olivia users.
>>
>> I hope you will understand our problems,
>>
>> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
>>
>
>
>

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

[W6IDS]

Hello Ed!

How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  Em79NV

- Original Message - 
From: "ed_hekman" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- 
reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon


>
>
> Andy,
>
> Some great ideas there.  I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea 
> of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that 
> Patrick has developed.  The software should include S/N measurement that 
> can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
>
> In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the 
> minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact.  PSK31 is the 
> best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs.  It would be nice to be 
> able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions.  I 
> would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for 
> situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
>
> I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal 
> operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, 
> documents).  Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple 
> access features for frequency sharing.
>
> I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to 
> develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. 
> A dual receiver would make that much easier.
>
> Ed
> WB6YTE
>

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

[ed_hekman]

Andy,

Some great ideas there.  I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea of a 
universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that Patrick 
has developed.  The software should include S/N measurement that can be used to 
suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.

In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the minimum 
bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact.  PSK31 is the best mode in 
most cases for live keyboard QSOs.  It would be nice to be able to easily 
switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions.  I would like to see 
PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for situations where PSK31 is 
marginal copy.

I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal operation 
or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, documents).  
Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple access features for 
frequency sharing.

I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to develop 
some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO.  A dual 
receiver would make that much easier.

Ed
WB6YTE

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

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Jose

I support you completely 

73 de LA5VNA Steinar




On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> >From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for
DIGIMODES until 2700Hz.
>
> You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is
for all hamradio.
>
> OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that
will emerge over the coming years.
>
> About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal
transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.
>
>  Best regards, Jose Alberto
>
>
>
>> From: m...@pp.inet.fi
>> To: nieto...@hotmail.com
>> Subject: ROS
>> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
>>
>> Hi Jose,
>>
>> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
>>
>> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50
14.105,50
>> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100
where other
>> modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz
wide.
>>
>> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at
worse conditions.
>> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
>> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you
cannot hear signals
>> in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm
3 Olivia
>> channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.
>>
>> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia
- which is up to now
>> only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own
experiences I know that
>> Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some
s-stages, will copy errorfree.
>> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same
strength as ROS
>> made ROS transmissions unreadable.
>>
>> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a
good idea as above
>> 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb
stations, nothing else.
>>
>> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO
frequencies below 14.110 MHz
>> for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS
and Olivia users.
>>
>> I hope you will understand our problems,
>>
>> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
>>
>
>
>

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

[Dave AA6YQ]

my pleasure, Rick.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on 
Behalf Of Rick Westerfield
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:11 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?


  

Hello Dave,


  This is awesome. A real keeper of an e-mail. I am not in the market for a 
computer but this is still excellent knowledge to have and I do not have to buy 
a bunch of magazines or join another Yahoo group to get it.


Again, thank you.


Rick - KH2DF

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:10 PM, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:




  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. 

RE: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users or cheese with ur whine

[kq6i]

Jose
Hear, hear

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

P.S. including 14101

-Original Message-
From: nietorosdj [mailto:nietoro...@yahoo.es] 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:34 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

Hi,


>From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 
>2700Hz.

You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all 
hamradio.

OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will 
emerge over the coming years. 

About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at 
worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.

 Best regards, Jose Alberto



> From: m...@pp.inet.fi
> To: nieto...@hotmail.com
> Subject: ROS
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
> 
> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50
> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 
> where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 
> 500 Hz wide.
> 
> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse 
> conditions.
> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you 
> cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the 
> channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz 
> width.
> 
> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - 
> which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS 
> mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears 
> which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy
errorfree.
> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same 
> strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable.
> 
> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good 
> idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb 
> stations, nothing else.
> 
> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO 
> frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any 
> fighting between ROS and Olivia users.
> 
> I hope you will understand our problems,
> 
> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
> 

Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID & MSG-ID with SDR

[Dave Ackrill]

sholtofish wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an 
> SDR radio?

I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go.

Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly, 
if you have step by step instructions that would help.

If it's reasonably straight forward to do I may have it configured later 
this evening.

Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[nietorosdj]

Hi,


>From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 
>2700Hz.

You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all 
hamradio.

OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will 
emerge over the coming years. 

About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at 
worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong.

 Best regards, Jose Alberto



> From: m...@pp.inet.fi
> To: nieto...@hotmail.com
> Subject: ROS
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz.
> 
> Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50
> for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where 
> other
> modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide.
> 
> Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse 
> conditions.
> We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz.
> For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear 
> signals
> in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 
> Olivia 
> channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width.
> 
> I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which 
> is up to now
> only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I 
> know that
> Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will 
> copy errorfree.
> In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same 
> strength as ROS
> made ROS transmissions unreadable.
> 
> You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea 
> as above
> 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, 
> nothing else.
> 
> To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 
> 14.110 MHz
> for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and 
> Olivia users.
> 
> I hope you will understand our problems,
> 
> Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
> 

[digitalradio] RS-ID & MSG-ID with SDR

[sholtofish]

I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an SDR 
radio?

In theory I think it should be possible to use MSG ID to send a little text 
message anywhere in the 20m digital portion and have it display on the 
waterfall of the SDR receiver.

The MSG ID function uses RS ID "technology" to send simple messages that are 
automatically decoded no matter where they appear on the waterfall.

There is also a PROP ID function that sends your callsign, power level, grid 
square etc which also could be decoded in the wide SDR bandwidth.

I don't have an SDR to test it but would be very interested if someone on here 
gave it a go and posted their experience/results.

73
Sholto
K7TMG

[digitalradio] Some confussions

[nietorosdj]

This afternoon somebody was transmitting for several times the following 
message in ROS 14106:

"pse do not use Olivia channel frequencies. With you 2200 hz wide signal you 
qrm 3 Olivia channels 1000 hz wide or 5 Olivia channels 500 hz wide.You are 
also"

I have to say to this person, that Washl Functions are the most inneficient way 
of spread the spectrum (it was used for the first time in NASA Viking Proyect 
because Viterbi Algorithm was not invented yet).

Each people is free of use ROS into 2700 Hz bands plans.

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

[Rick Westerfield]

Hello Dave,

  This is awesome. A real keeper of an e-mail. I am not in the market for a 
computer but this is still excellent knowledge to have and I do not have to buy 
a bunch of magazines or join another Yahoo group to get it.

Again, thank you.

Rick - KH2DF

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:10 PM, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:

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] Re: ROS discussion - will it ever end

[DaveNF2G]

As a participant in this USA-centric foolishness, I can still detect the 
presence of a deceased equine.

de Dave, NF2G

Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end

[Laurie, VK3AMA]

I propose we change this group name to the... ROS Roundabout. I keep 
seeing the same arguments from the same preple over and over. That 
reminds me of GroundHog Day the movie. :-)


I am so over the whole discussion, not to mention the ops who insist on 
firing up ROS16 on 30m at 10141 right in the middle of a band full of 
PSK31 signals.


de Laurie, VK3AMA



Marco IK1ODO -2 wrote:

At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote:
  

rgh 



I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO.

73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF

  

Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end

[Ian Wade G3NRW]

From: IMR 
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010   Time: 09:00:33

>rgh 
>
>I don't hink I can stand it any more and will just have to unsubscribe 
>from this group.I originally joined it as being the author of the 
>Data column in RSGB's RadCom, felt I ought to keep in touch with the 
>people who actually use the datamodes and was hoping for a decent set 
>of technical-type postings on the way datamode usage was moving amongst 
>amateurs.
>

[Snip]

rgh 

As a founder of the RSGB's Data Communications Committee, and the 
founder and first editor of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, I'm 
hanging on in here. Data comms is much more than just the 
technicalities.

To be sure, there have been some nonsensical posts here on this matter, 
and some people seem to have been incredibly naive in their dealings 
with ARRL and the FCC, but the fact remains that we are all constrained 
by the legalities as well as the technicalities. Let the discussion 
continue.

-- 
73
Ian, G3NRW

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

[Simon HB9DRV]

Andy,

As others have said, the answer's no. You list SDR-Radio.com in the list -
the CPU use depends on how you will use the software:

* Sample rate,
* Number of channels being simultaneously decoded,
* Whether you've enabled pseudo-stereo mode,
* Display size and number of monitors,
* Running PSK / CW / RTTY SuperBrowsers (similar to the CW skimmers).

It's not the number of programs, it's how you will use them.

Get a decent computer and forget about it :)

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
http://sdr-radio.com


> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 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)
> 

Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end

[Marco IK1ODO -2]

At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote:
>
>rgh 

I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO.

73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF

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

[John B. Stephensen]

The portions that are causing problems here aren't in the regulations in other 
countries.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: W2XJ 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 01:14 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when 
idling



  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.

  .
   
  

[digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end

[IMR]

rgh 

I don't hink I can stand it any more and will just have to unsubscribe from 
this group.I originally joined it as being the author of the Data column in 
RSGB's RadCom, felt I ought to keep in touch with the people who actually use 
the datamodes and was hoping for a decent set of technical-type postings on the 
way datamode usage was moving amongst amateurs.

But close to 1000 postings on the legality or otherwise of using a bog-standard 
SSB bandwidth single tone hopped frequency diversity system is just too much.

If your FCC is anything like Ofcom, they'd just rather amateurs got on with 
their life and bothered them as slittle as possible, at least until a real 
issue arises.

Its not as if you have the death penalty over there.  
(Actually, yes you do don't you, but presumably not for exceeding the regulated 
bandwidth on the amateur bands)

"It is far, far easier to beg forgiveness that it is to ask Permission"  -  
Solon - the lawmaker of Athens,  437 BCE

Andy
www.g4jnt.com

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

[Dave Ackrill]

sholtofish wrote:

> 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.

If they are using USB and are looking to detect in a 2kHz bandwidth, as 
some programs do, then they should be setting their dial to 14.099MHz to 
cover 14.100MHz.  If they are setting 14.100MHz and covering up to 
14.102 then they are not using their system correctly.

Let's assume that they are using it correctly from 14.099 to 14.101 then 
the 1st ROS tone, for a dial setting of 14.101MHz, will be on 
14.102.4MHz at least 1.4kHz higher than their highest required 
frequency, so I still don't see how it is interfering.

However, it's academic now that they have another 1 kHz of separation.

Dave (G0DJA)