Re: [digitalradio] Re: Airmail
Or, Scott, try Google with airmail agwpe there are many links to answer your question several ways. 73, Chuck AA5J Gary wrote: Scott, Take a look here. Question #3015 http://www.winlink.org/faq http://www.winlink.org/faq 73, Gary N7XOO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Scott firebug...@... wrote: OK, got a question here - and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction. I am using the AGW Packet Engine and Winpack for me packet radio operation - that is all working great. Now, I would like to add airmail into the mix - I have been told time and time again that you cannot use airmail with AGW, that you have to have an actual TNC - BUT I found the info on how to do that online about 2 years ago, and it worked great, unfortunately stupid me, I didn't save them or they got deleted, anyway they are gone, and I really would like to get that working here on my laptop. So if any of you have any idea how to do it, would you please let me know, or point to me where I can figure it out? I don't have much time online to search for stuff like that right now or I would sit down and start searching again. Thanks for any help, and if you need any more info, please let me know. Scott, W7SOT
Re: [digitalradio] There really is no flame war from my perspective OT OT OT OT TO
So, is this discussion off topic or what? This must be the 50th time that I have had to delete this same discussion. What say you give it a rest? Please? Chuck AA5J Rick W wrote: Hi Stelios, The reason you may not have heard from others with their difficulties with Linux, is that they there are few who have even tried and those who have may not talk about it. I take the middle path, where I see the value of both OS's, but the value of Microsoft is still very large, at least here in the U.S. As Andy can tell you, I had a lot of trouble for several years with Linux not able to run my 22 Samsung SyncMaster 225BW, particularly with my higher end AMD/Nvidia HP computer. I have been able to run openSolaris from a live disk, not that I would plan to move toward that OS, HI. They always tell you to make sure that you try the live disk so everything can be checked out to work properly. Then when it does not, they tell you to install the OS and do the various configurations, downloads of software, etc. to get it to work. Most people have no interest in doing that and never will. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours with Linux, partly because I was going to figure this out and get it to work. It has been quite expensive compared with Microsoft products because of books and some commercial software that I have bought to try and get a better understanding. But after considerable interfacing with support groups and even to the point of getting a commercial product sent to me from the company, I could not match Microsoft. I eventually realized that if techy types like me are having this much trouble, it just is not going to go anywhere with average users, and that includes ham users too, if they can't get something to work well. Not just getting by, but with good usability. More recently I have tried live disks of Mandriva One 2009, Ubuntu 8-10, openSUSE, fedora 10,and others and found that although I could get the resolution correct for the monitor from some (not all), on my lower end emachines computer (2.4 GHz/512 Meg RAM), the font rendering of all Linux that I have seen thus far is inferior to WinXP and Vista. And I have also found that Vista is better than WinXP. Some will outright deny it, but I have had some agree that, yes Linux is not quite as good with font rendering, but that doesn't bother them because they want the freedom from MS, etc. I don't have any problem with MS at all as long as the product works well and supports what I am doing with computers. I have a brother who is an administrator for a well known University system and he runs many Linux and MS servers and has no problem with either. When I mention the desktop, he laughs and says that he would never use Linux for that, although he might use Apple Mac OSX. For me, (not others perhaps, but for me), if I switch to another OS, there has to be a reason other than I hate someone. It just has to work as well as what I am currently using and have additional advantages. Linux may have advantages in terms of viruses and malware, however a prudent person will still run security software on any system. But most all the programs that people like to use on Linux, which are generally free as in beer and free as in speech, are also available on Microsoft OS's too. For casual users who need mostly the web and an office suite, they could use Firefox and Open Office on either platform. For those who have specialty interests, especially ham radio, then MS has the edge since the best ham software is often only available on Microsoft OS's. Sometimes the only software. Since Microsoft OS's are typically pre-installed on computers here in the U.S., I don't see any change coming soon where you would buy a computer without an OS. Even the eeePC which Linux had a lock on the market for many months, is now mostly MS. If it can not beat MS on that platform, when will it? I see Linux gaining momentum in developing nations and since they make up the majority of the world's population, that has to eventually cause the tide to shift toward Linux. But that could be a decade or two away here in the U.S? For PSKmail, my expectation is that you need a sort of critical mass of users. That can not happen here without running the client on Microsoft OS's. Even then there are competing systems depending upon what you want for capabilities. Even for those who are Linux averse, it is not unreasonable that someone who wants to run a server could get that to work. I know that I could do it, as at one time I had fldigi running under Linux. (It did take quite a bit of effort and tremendous help from Dave, W1HKJ who is simply outstanding with his support). One area that you mention with the use of ARM based computing, or other low cost, low power systems, has to be the strongest value of Linux at this time. It can scale up or down as needed and Microsoft can not match it on the low end. It will
Re: [digitalradio] SL-1 with Ten Tec 540
Kim My guess is that 20-30 watts out is all you will be able to get and have your signal remain linear. Make sure you have zero ALC. 73, Chuck AA5J Kim wrote: I am using my new old Ten Tec 540 in digital mode. What I am finding is I am only able to get 20-30 watts out due to my sound card not providing enough gain in the audio (I get 100 watts in CW mode). I am using a manual ptt connection to the back of the radio. Will an SL-1 provide the umpf I need to get a better signal out? Or an interface from a different manufacturer? Thanks for your assistance. Kim AB7JK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group
I only wish Yahoo would find another sponser for the group. What happened to all the good information in the files section? What happened to all the good information in the posts? Who actually owns the posts by group members? Are we all to be punished? John, Exactly how does one actually contact Yahoo?? Chuck AA5J Rick W wrote: It sounds like either Mark is being dishonest with me, or your contact had inside information that he did not share with Mark. I too would think that Yahoo gave a warning, but at this point we just don't know. Don't bitch about Mark being reinstated as long as he stops his over promotion of digital. It is too bad that he could not channel his enthusiasm for digital in a more productive manner. It is rare to find many who really try to promote digital and while you might think it is a gain to be rid of him, I think that it is really more of a net loss. Talking about the stock market right now is depressing though. I wonder if we can ever recover from our current losses we already have, not to mention the possibility of further losses if we really do go into a depression. Never thought we would have something like this happen in my lifetime. But the checks and balances were all bought and sold by the rich it appears:( Pretty sad country we now live in. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: DIRECT MESSAGE - Rick He was warn many many times. People have been bitching at him for the last 2 years. I was myself was not told if yahoo gave any warning but one would think they did before taking any action. But what I do know is that they (yahoo) saw the same post going to some 43 list it opened eyes. The day he got booted my contact told me he would be removed that day. I for one talk to the corp office as a yahoo stock holder about 6 weeks ago. And if he is reinstated I'll be bitching with a very loud voice. And if he reinstated I will sell ALL of the close to 93K shares. You know what they say - money talks and bullshit walks. I put a hell of a lot of money into yahoo when I sold my company 3 years ago. John
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY Dilemma
Aha! I get the point. I was thinking 'casual' and you were thinking 'competitive'. Sorry for the QRM. :-[ Michael Keane K1MK wrote: On 9/28/2008 9:04 PM, Chuck Mayfield wrote: Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? Of course not. It's be much more effective to ask those using software with that sort of defect to refrain from generating inaccurate spots; or learn how to set up the radios and software they're using according to convention :-) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY Dilemma
Rick, Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? Oh, say, does everyone know which is the Mark and which is the Space? On twenty meters you are talking about the 5th and 6th decimal places. 14.08 vs 14.080085 MHz. Give me a break!!! Chuck AA5J Rick Ellison wrote: That should be 85hz not 86hz 73's Rick N2AMG Yahoo:n2amg Aim:n2amg *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Rick Ellison *Sent:* September 28, 2008 8:39 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* [digitalradio] RTTY Dilemma After an email exchange with Joe W4TV about some support help he was giving to a person using one of my gateways . He brought to my attention on the way the frequency was being read and displayed RTTY. If I wanted to place a spot on the correct frequency I would need to place the actual frequency +/-86hz because this app I am connecting to uses the center frequency as it’s marker. So I made the changes in the code to compensate for that and spent since this morning clicking on over a thousand spots (1225 to be exact) to see if it landed on the correct spot in the waterfall. But what I found was a little more than half(714) of the spots I clicked I was always off by the 85 hz I adjusted for. If I just used the center frequency I was correct in those spot’s placement. So I went and did some checking. Every digital app that copied RTTY except for the 3 main contest loggers(N1MM,Writelog,Win-Test), MMTTY in Stand-alone, and WinWarbler. All use the center frequency even when spotting stations if they can spot. Those mentioned all use the Mark Frequency when clicking on a spot and placing the station in the waterfall. It is a long standing standard that The standard for BOTH amateur and commercial FSK has ALWAYS been specify MARK with MARK being the higher RF frequency and SPACKE being the lower RF frequency (e.g., shift low). With all of the Digital Apps that use a center frequency When dealing with RTTY should be using the mark frequency for their frequency calculations not the center. Even tho USB has become the standard when LSB always has been, The recorded frequency for logging and spotting should be the Mark. If all of the software developers stuck to this standard clicking on a spot would reduce additional tuning needed to tune the off frequency stations. 73's Rick N2AMG Yahoo:n2amg Aim:n2amg Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] SignaLink USB Interface Reviewed in Popular Communiations, September 2008
Mark Thompson wrote: http://www.popular-communications.com/PC%20Highlights%20Sept%2008.html TECH SHOWCASE The SignaLink USB Interface—A Plug-And-Play Solution For Digital Communications Modes by John Kasupski, KC2HMZ Anyone who has experimented with receiving digital format signals by radio has undoubtedly experienced one or more of the difficulties that typically arise when you set out to decode digital signals using a radio and computer. Your sound card is incompatible with your software, or you don’t want it tied up doing digital decoding. You have more than one radio you want to use and don’t want to have to buy or build separate interfaces for each. Or perhaps you just don’t want to pay a fortune for all the software you need in order to decode the numerous digital modes that exist (with new ones seemingly being invented daily). If this is the situation you’ve found yourself in, you’ll find this article to be just what the doctor ordered. Earlier this year, I purchased a SignaLink USB interface (Photo A) from Tigertronics in Grants Pass, Oregon. This device, which costs less than some of the competing commercially available radio/computer interfaces ($104.95 if ordered with a cable to fit Kenwood and ICOM radios using a 13-pin DIN accessory port; $99.95 for everybody else), not only interfaces your computer to any radio, it also contains its own built-in USB sound card. That means that the sound card already in your computer is left free for whatever else you want to do with it. How It Works And What You Get The SignaLink USB connects to your computer’s USB port and is powered from the USB port so that no external power source is needed. All the necessary cables come with the device, including the USB cable, the cable to interface the SignaLink USB to your radio, and a mono cable to connect to radios that don’t have receive audio on the mic or accessory jack. Additional cables can be ordered if you have more than one radio and they don’t use the same cable. The mono cable can be used to connect the SignaLink USB to an external speaker jack on a scanner or shortwave receiver, or if using a transceiver, the connection is made using the radio cable. This can be accomplished using a connection to a 4-pin round, 8-pin round, RJ-11, or RJ-45 mic connector, or you may instead order the radio cable to connect to a data or accessory port that uses a 5-pin DIN, 8-pin DIN, 13-pin DIN, or 6-pin mini-DIN connector. An un-terminated cable for radios that use a different type of connector is also available in case you have an unusual situation, such as wanting to build a cable for a handheld radio. Also included with the device is a set of jumper wires that simply push into a socket on the SignaLink USB’s circuit board. A software CD is also included with the device and contains jumper settings for the most popular radios. Settings for other radios can be determined by following the procedure in the included manual, or by contacting the Tigertronics tech support staff. To read the entire article, subscribe to Popular Communications http://unix8.sunserver.com/cq/Search.bok?category=Popular+Communications+Subscription+NEW+or+RENEWAL Digital Ham Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoisdigitalham/ I am sorta hesitant to enter this thread, so I will simply make the suggestion that the noise in the original post is not noise, but rather it is interference, i.e. signals caused by the electronics in the unit and not from external sources. Please excuse this interruption Chuck AA5J Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Fast ARQ Hardware
Tom Tcimpidis wrote: As an engineer who designed RF systems in a place far away and long ago, the cost of switching 100 watts of RF electronically as opposed to a fast relay device is MUCH higher. Most Amateurs simply would not want to pay the price of fast all-electronic switching when they don’t need it and it brings little to the table. Tom K6TGT/AAR9BD This is a sidebar to the current discussion but I've always been surprised at the amount of mechanical T/R switching that goes on in modern transceivers vs. a no moving parts approach. How long ago was it Tom? What happens to the 100 watt output if the 1 watt driver is electronically switched off? Is it switched off electronically? How much does it cost to switch a 1 watt exciter off??? AA5J Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New
Several modems on that link claim fx.25 compatibility; TNC-X comes to mind, but they all seem to have been developed for VHF/UHF use, so YMMV on HF. Chuck AA5J Rick W. wrote: I have not heard of anyone doing this, but it sounds like it could be an improvement. Is anyone on the group experimenting with such proposals? 73, Rick, KV9U Chuck Mayfield - AA5J wrote: Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: Phil's paper is from many years ago but the reality is that there was no further movement away from the legacy AX.25 equipment toward a new layer, much less toward a completely new protocol. There is some movement... Check out: FX.25 - Forward Error Correction Extension to AX.25 Link Protocol For Amateur Packet Radio (pdf file 138k) The FX.25 extension to AX.25 implements a Forward Error Correction (FEC) ?wrapper? around a standard AX.25 packet and is designed to supplement the existing AX.25 infrastructure without displacing it. http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf ... and, perhaps this link http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm, http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm, http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm but that was in 2006... Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: Phil's paper is from many years ago but the reality is that there was no further movement away from the legacy AX.25 equipment toward a new layer, much less toward a completely new protocol. There is some movement... Check out: FX.25 - Forward Error Correction Extension to AX.25 Link Protocol For Amateur Packet Radio (pdf file 138k) The FX.25 extension to AX.25 implements a Forward Error Correction (FEC) ?wrapper? around a standard AX.25 packet and is designed to supplement the existing AX.25 infrastructure without displacing it. http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf http://www.stensat.org/Docs/FX-25_01_06.pdf ... and, perhaps this link http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm, http://www.stensat.org/projects/FX-25/FX-25_performance.htm but that was in 2006... Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New
Rud Merriam wrote: I suggest anyone interested in this topic start by reading http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/2504/http:zSzzSzpeople.qualcomm. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/2504/http:zSzzSzpeople.qualcomm. comzSzkarnzSzpaperszSznewlinkpaper.pdf/karn94toward.pdf by Phil Karn KA9Q. If anyone does not recognize his name or call then research him because he is an icon in amateur packet and digital communications. One of the experts. I recognize him, Rud, but that link is gobbledegook to me. Can you resend it? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] AX.25 vs Something New
Rud Merriam wrote: You mention protocol layers. Which model do you want to use for discussion, OSI or the Internet model? Perhaps not a big question since layers 1 2 are the same but once we start moving up the stack they differ. I have a problem with the formatting on this reflector. Please excuse me for that. My question, as an unenlightened retired engineer, is What difference does it make which model is used if the proposed changes are to Level 1? Apparently I don't speak the same language ...but can the same model(s) not be used with a differing Level 1 protocol? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?
Do not laugh. It could come to pass that we (mankind) will need to reinvent spark gap.Who knows what evil lurks in the minds Chuck AA5J At 02:39 PM 6/1/2008, Jack Hamilton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:07:17 -0400, Paul L Schmidt, K9PS mailto:k9ps%40arrl.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Andrew O'Brien wrote: My reading of the message is that Morse code is authorized NOT mandated. It seems a reasonable decision for a organization often dependent on volunteers, if they want to use it.. let'em. MARS will continue to use MT63, ALE, PSK, and many other digital modes. Andy K3UK That's exactly the correct reading. Another tool for the toolbox. Digital modes (ranging in complexity from WL2K and ALE down to PSK31 and RTTY) will carry the bulk of the traffic. But if the computer goes down and propagation stinks, CW certainly beats nothing. I guess it's time for us all to learn how to build spark gap transmitters, just in case. -- Jack Hamilton Sacramento, California mailto:kd6ttl%40arrl.net[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [digitalradio] 10MHz Ham Digi Band Research Survey Chart 10140-10150kHz
At 12:48 PM 4/12/2008, expeditionradio wrote: New 10MHz Ham Digi Band Research Survey Chart 10140kHz to 10150kHz Digital/Auto Sub-Band Click here: http://hflink.com/bandplans/10mhz/http://hflink.com/bandplans/10mhz/ 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA What was the question that was answered to make the chart? V/R Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
Speaking of page 35, Is anyone using Outpost with soundcard? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] RFI-Free PCs?
Is your display LCD or CRT? In my experience, CRT displays are sometimes a major source.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM 8000
dmitry_d2d wrote: 1. A few words about OFDM and serial tone modem. Let's find out how the fight between ISI and Doppler shift takes place in these systems. OFDM uses the great number of low speed channels so the symbol duration increases. While the duration of ISI is much smaller than symbol duration everything goes well. Consequently there is an aim to increase the number of channels ad infinitum BUT at the same time natural limitation takes place. It's just a Doppler shift effect. Hence there is always a compromise between ISI and Doppler shift. Moreover we should take into consideration a big peak factor which results in non-effective usage of power of transceiver. There are methods directed at improvement of peak-factor, but the most part of them makes the system characteristics worse. In case of serial tone modulation the fight ISI with Doppler is provided with adaptive algorithms. The more effective and faster they are the larger number of Doppler and ISI the modem can manage. As for RFSM it should be mentioned that now it includes rather efficient adaptive algorithms that work properly at a speed of 600(500) up to 4800(4000) bps (wide/narrow mode). To work at a speed 6400(5333) - 8000() much more compound algorithms are needed. In particular using turbo-equalization will improve noise proof feature at all rates. Therefore OFDM and serial tone modem can be more efficient in dependence on channel statement. In my opinion serial tone modem with effective adaptive algorithms is the most effective. We'd like to mention that under certain circumstances either serial tone or OFDM modem can fail to provide connection, for example, when the Doppler shift is extremely high (polar communications). In that case one should use the methods of spectrum spread that extending the symbol in time and frequency. Unfortunately the speed would not be high in this case. So the best way out is to measure the channel characteristics and choose the speed of transmission and modulation method according to them. The full adaptation of the all characteristics is required. 2. About our users. The project RFSM-2400/8000 was initially aimed at organizations (not for HAMs)! (First version had no 0,3-2,7 band, which is adapted for HAMs). Its prime value is that high-performance algorithm is used in it. Consequently only technical specialists of organizations where data (files, mail etc.) transmission through HF is needed can estimate the program at its true worth. They need the following: high speed of connection and data transmission. They are the FIRS GROUP OF OUR USERS. For example there are organizations (our users at the moment) who even haven't looked upon HAM -modems (little speed, instability, absence of files transmission in spite of excellent chat-exchange). If you are interested in RFSM as in a program for chat- exchange (or even for file transmitting but you do not need a high speed) and runner is not important for you:. You are the SECOND GROUP OF OUR USERS. $60 may be a pretty penny for this product for you. There is also not numerous GROUP OF USERS - THE THIRD ONE The representatives of this group are specialists in HF- radiocommunications and radioamateurs at the same time who is interested in algorithms of a high efficiency - the runner of the program. May be $60 is rather expensive for them but they can trial versions for free. They communicate with us suggesting interesting and moreover useful ideas. We really appreciate their advices and suggestions. Due to the THIRD GROUP the first version of RFSM has transformed in the product adopted for HAM. 3 . There are several remarks on the open source codes. a) RFSM-2400 (and all the more RFSM-8000) is not just a dumb modem though such a rate is also possible (it was used in PSKMail). Our product is an accomplished system of communication that provides different types of services including receiving/transmitting e-mail on Internet. b) Speaking about OFDM it should be pointed out that we have got experience in such a kind of modulation and can remark that to construct this modem is incommensurably easier than Serial Tone Modem. But the modem of this kind doesn't compare with RFSM characteristics. If we were not be able to realize Mil-STD correctly and use OFDM in RFSM, we would not be sorry to distribute source codes. c) Philosophy. Professional free software is possible because qualified developer has been grown up by certain company. The buyers have already paid for software and progressive developer as well. Then at the same time free software appears (like RFSM-2400) - like an ad, to create an image or ease consumers' tasks. The fact that software is free is a result of successful sales of developer. However free software is not possible in fact. The bigger the quantity of it the poorer it's quality. So said Write on C++ for food ;) There is also rather INTERESTING free
OT Re: [digitalradio] Data Defined
Harry Wiliford wrote: [edit] Etymology The word data is the plural of Latin datum, neuter past participle of dare, to give, hence something given. The past participle of to give has been used for millennia, in the sense of a statement accepted at face value; one of the works of Euclid, circa 300 BC, was the Dedomena (in Latin, Data). In discussions of problems in geometry, mathematics, engineering, and so on, the terms givens and data are used interchangeably. Such usage is the origin of data as a concept in computer science: data are numbers, words, images, etc., accepted as they stand. Pronounced dey-tuh, dat-uh, or dah-tuh. Experimental data are data generated within the context of a scientific investigation. data are numbers, words, images, etc., accepted as they stand. Pronounced dey-tuh, dat-uh, or dah-tuh. 73 de wb9iiv - Harry _,_._ Wow! All of a sudden, I feel enlightened. Thanks, Harry. Chuck - AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
This is getting ridiculous! It takes me nearly 10 seconds to say This is AA5J Is the frequency in use?
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other control operators? We are all responsible for our own operations. Right? Chuck AA5J At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, Your call sign, your responsibility. Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: PropNet station, and that station *consistently*, and repetitively, interferes with activity on that frequency, the presumption has to be that the PropNet operator is either willfully transmitting on top of existing activity, or lying about being at the control point. Uh, Skip, how many times have you called another station that you could hear, but they did not come back to you, or came back to with a 53 or so report? Just because you can hear them, does not mean that they can hear you. They KW when you are transmitting 25W. vbg Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said I fear we have waken a sleeping giant after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said Let a sleeping dog lie. Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that Don't stir the pot is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: All I can say is that your comment is extremely odd, Chuck, and are not welcome by thinking hams and reasonable people. Some one has to take action or nothing will change and we will continue to have absurd arguments over each person's individual interpretation. Not a good situation. When you identify a problem in understanding a rule, and clearly there is no question that a number of rules are at issue, and you contact ARRL and ask for understanding, and they consider a rule to be unclear, what else can a reasonable person do than ask those who are the rule interpreters? How could you possibly not agree with that? How could anyone not agree with that other than a person with an extreme agenda? As a long time instructor, I feel that of all people, I should know the answer to most any Part 97 rule since I teach these rules in my classes. If I don't understand it, how can I be expected to explain it to others? It has nothing to do with any power trip. We all know the folks who are involved in that! Remember that even a lawyer can not help in such cases, unless they happen to be the lawyer who is enforcing the rules. That is why you need to find the person where the buck eventually stops and they can make an interpretation. If you don't like their interpretation, you can petition for a change. As a professional consultant involved in environmental safety and health for many years, I did this frequently. You don't just tell your clients that no one really knows. It is not possible to just know the interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt. Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner? 73, Rick, KV9U Chuck Mayfield wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 01:54 PM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: You obviously do not understand reproprocity principle and how it applies to radio, Chuck, and in most cases the PropNet station is running less power than others, or what is the point of using it to determining propagation? Beacon stations also tend to run lower power for the same reason, so if you can copy the Propnet station, 90% of the time it could hear you, IF it listened. You and I are almost the same age, so you surely must have heard the old adage in ham radio, If you can hear'em, you can work'em. However, this is only true if you are running as much power or ERP as the station you are copying, and we are not talking about PropNet stations running 1 KW! Oh, Skip. Thank you for your very welcome feedback. I forgot you always have a perfectly uniform reflecting medium between you and everyone else. That is why you get perfect reciprocity all the time. Well it doesn't always work that way for me. Can we get back to technical discussions now and leave the rules enforcement for others?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
operator, then IMO it would be illegal operation of the ARS. If the ARS is operated legally, then such operation would be functionally no different that a phone patch. Jim WA0LYK --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly agree. Now, given the FCC's position, why do we amateurs need all the activist lawyers and lawyer-wannabes from our ranks sending queries to the FCC concerning practices by other control operators? We are all responsible for our own operations. Right? Chuck AA5J At 10:14 AM 1/13/2008, kh6ty wrote: The FCC's Bill Cross has already stated publicly, Your call sign, your responsibility. Skip KH6TY No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Aw, pshaw. I am sorry that I hurt your delicate sensitivities, Bill. Get over it. All this political and administrative bs has absolutely nothing to do with digitalradio. It is one clique fighting with another clique. One group is asking for clarification about the other group's operation. How is that OK? If you think that I am not allowed to express my opinion, then you prove my point. However, I will not stand by without comment and get wet from your pissing contest. And I will not stand by while less than 0.5 percent of the US amateur radio operators mucks around and potentially screws it up for the other 99.5 percent. It was small groups of activists that got us in the incentive licensing fix, and it was small groups of activists that got us in the separation by bandwidth fix. It will be this small group of activists that makes the next change happen. I just hope the trend doesn't continue to worse and worse and worse. Chuck AA5J At 05:54 PM 1/13/2008, Bill McLaughlin wrote: Ok, I admit it, I mandated Rick to ask questions. Bull But seriously, why the concern about asking for clarification? And yes, it does seem personal. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:57 AM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: My preference would have been for those who want to operate these kinds of modes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their place. So, Rick, from whom did you get your mandate to take action? It certainly was not me. I don't even use any of those modes, but I do not appreciate activists who have to take action when nothing is necessarily wrong. If you want to feel powerful, why don't you run for office or something? Don't take this personally, please. 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Rick, You have stooped to a very low personally insulting level here. I am not doing anything. I have no guilt whatsoever, except that I let you spread your own brand of nonsense on too thickly before I protested. You know very well that your questions are slanted against ALE and WINLINK. Bonny didn't kick me off of any lists. Are you doing this because she kicked you off hers? You don't even know me. You don't know what I do. You don't know what I don't do. How dare you drop that tripe on me? Apparently you can dish it out but you cannot take it when someone directly challenges your actions.
Re: [digitalradio] Is Propnet/HF APRS legal in USA ? (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
Maybe it is nonsense. It is certainly not worth any more effort on my part. I hope you and Bonnie and the Winlink folks can one day see eye-to-eye. I think all three groups are cliques and all are trying to have it their way. Adios. At 04:36 PM 1/13/2008, Rick wrote: Chuck, Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have to wait until we find out. Chuck Mayfield wrote: Yes. Thank you for your very welcome explanation. I guess someone has to stir the pot, but I was having fun in my ignorance and bliss. I don't really want anyone to clarify that I can not do something that I have been doing, just because someone else did not understand the rules. The people who are at FCC now, well most of them, were not even there when the rules, well most of them, were written, and probably don't understand the English language any better than you and I. So why stir the pot for a specific ruling unless you have some sort of agenda or are on some sort of power trip? Yamamoto said I fear we have waken a sleeping giant after attacking Pearl Harbor. Others have said Let a sleeping dog lie. Many other sayings along those lines, might make one think that Don't stir the pot is also appropriate advice. No one has received any citations for the actions you question in your list to the FCC. Who are you after?? 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Welcome to the Group
Howard, Howdy, neighbor. I have * an ft857D that I have yet to use except 80m cw. * computer-ft857 interface that I bought over the internet from BuxComm. * a 25'-55' teletower. * an 11 element 2 m antenna somewhere in the back yard * the windoze version of NBEMS, and * a toshiba laptop that should work Problem is that none of it is hooked up yet. If I can get it up soon, I would like to do some NBEMS experiments with you. I agree that SSB would be best. I'll see if I can get set up in the next couple of days. Chuck AA5J At 08:55 PM 1/13/2008, Howard Brown wrote: Chuck, I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and better things. I think you are located within VHF range from my station (12 miles SW of Denton). I am looking for stations to test the NBEMS package on VHF. What are your digital interests? This would need a sound card interface and it would be best if we used SSB but maybe FM would work too. My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK. Howard K5HB PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card interface in message 25767 of this group recently. I am using an old Rigblaster M8 that I got on Ebay. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1221 - Release Date: 1/12/2008 2:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] KANTRONICS UTU TERMINALS
Hi Michael, I used one of those many years ago with first a Commodore Pet and then an Osborne One. My recollection is that the unit operates with any RS-232 terminal program and interfaces through the serial port. Don't think it takes any special software. Hope this helps. 73, Chuck - AA5J Michael Mihailovic wrote: Hi i am new to this group and since joining learnt a lot great group. I need some help here i was given a kantronics universal terminal unit or the utu i am wondering has anyone used one i need some type of software to run it anyone got any ideas. Any help is appreciated. Thankyou Mike VK2OZ. _
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
Try: http://www.w1khj.com/NBEMS CHUCK AA5J At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote: Hello Haward, Happy New Year! Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a working link. Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com 73! Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote: k Sent this email this morning: k Good morning Charles, k It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to connect k with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the k NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an k hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday, k January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you may k not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G. k Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know k where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One k of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY. k We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the k frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them, k especially since I copied you perfectly. k Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on the k diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up. k We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this k frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied. k You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you k already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of the k NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to k download the software. k We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision k happened. k 73, Skip KH6TY -- Best regards, Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
Yes, Skip. My bad. You are correct except for the . at the end of the link vbg Sorry for the qrm... that is little QRM, like psk31 is 73 Chuck AA5J At 01:02 PM 1/6/2008, Nick wrote: Hello Haward, Happy New Year! Sorry, http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS is not a working link. Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.w1khj.com 73! Sunday, January 06, 2008, 19:50:52, you wrote: k Sent this email this morning: k Good morning Charles, k It is 12:26 PM on Sunday January 6, and you transmitted, calling to connect k with WG3G on 10.138 in Pactor 1, over top of an ongoing test of the k NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System that had been going on for half an k hour. What we want to know is your boat's position at 12:20 PM on Sunday, k January 6, or if you were in Patchogue NY, so we can figure out why you may k not have seen any activity on the frequency before transmitting for WG3G. k Your website says you do not have a cruising boat yet, so we don't know k where you might have been. You were a solid S7 here in South Carolina. One k of the stations also on the air is not too far away, in Fredonia, NY. k We understand that accidents happen, but with six stations sharing the k frequency, it is unlikely that you could not have copied any of them, k especially since I copied you perfectly. k Attached is a screen capture of the incident. Your signal is centered on the k diamond and if you look hard you can see the PSK63 signal you covered up. k We will be testing the NarrowBand Emergency Messaging System around this k frequency in the coming days, so the frequency will often be occupied. k You write on your web page that the hamming bug has bitten you. Since you k already work Pactor, maybe you would like to participate in the test of the k NBEMS. If so to to http://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMShttp://www.w1khj/NBEMS for information and a link to k download the software. k We are looking forward to your helping us understand how this collision k happened. k 73, Skip KH6TY -- Best regards, Nick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 11:57 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Encomm error loading CD
Did you verify the MD5SUM on the .iso file? I would expect a bad download. It may be a pain, but I would suggest you download again if the MD5SUM does not compare. Best regards, Chuck Mayfield Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm. ~ Sir Winston Churchill At 03:22 PM 10/28/2007, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: Problem is, I can't get to the desktop. Mine never completes the boot process. Tnx anyway es 73 Dave KB3MOW Chuck - AA5J wrote: I did not run into that exact situation, but after installing, there were two icons on the desktop that had links that were broken. Operating on memory, one was fldigi and the other was help. The problem was reported as ... not found in /root. Both were in directories within /root. You can fix that by right clicking the icon in question and editing to the correct location. 73, Chuck - AA5JAt 11:49 AM 10/28/2007, Dave wrote: Has anyone else come across the following error when loading Encomm from the CD, or have any idea of a fix for it? I downloaded the .iso file twice and burned two separate CD's with the same results from each Error, cannot find Puppy on 'cd' boot media. PUPMODE=1 PDEV1= Exited to initial-ramdisk(initramfs)commandline... (the Linux-guru can now debug. 'e3' editor is available) /bin/sh: can't access tty; job control turned off #_ Tnx for any help Dave KB3MOW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 10/28/2007 1:58 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM
Re: [digitalradio] A tad off-topic - Excess coax
If it were my station, I would wrap it around a 3 to 4 inch form and lay it behind the operating table. That would further limit RF noise and would do no harm to SWR. Best regards, Chuck Mayfield Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius. ~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart At 11:45 AM 10/28/2007, Dave wrote: Just put up a coax-fed Windom antenna and have about 15-20 feet of excess coax. I'd prefer to keep the overall length of the coax, just not sure if coiling it or laying it out flat would be better. I know the older Windoms needed a tight coil of coax near the antenna, but the 1:1 balun in this one should negate that. Any ideas on which might be better? Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM
Re: [digitalradio] A tad off-topic - Excess coax
Very little. It is a fairly broadband 1:1 transformer at HF frequencies and it forces the currents in the center conductor and shield to be equal. The amount of power lost in such a choke balun is very small compared to the power delivered to the load. See The ARRL Antenna Book 21, 26-21 73, de AA5J At 06:02 PM 10/28/2007, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: Hi, Chuck. Since that is just about the exact dimension for a choke balun from the original Windom design, would it have any effect on the impedance? I suppose I could just wrap it up and see for myself, but thought I should at least be nice enoough to respond, since you took the time to answer my post. Tnx! Dave KB3MOW Chuck Mayfield wrote: If it were my station, I would wrap it around a 3 to 4 inch form and lay it behind the operating table. That would further limit RF noise and would do no harm to SWR. Best regards, Chuck Mayfield Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius. ~ Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart At 11:45 AM 10/28/2007, Dave wrote: Just put up a coax-fed Windom antenna and have about 15-20 feet of excess coax. I'd prefer to keep the overall length of the coax, just not sure if coiling it or laying it out flat would be better. I know the older Windoms needed a tight coil of coax near the antenna, but the 1:1 balun in this one should negate that. Any ideas on which might be better? Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 10/28/2007 1:58 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
I don't think 10% of each HF ham band is at all reasonable. Perhaps 10% of each data b and segment would be more reasonable. Your suggestion for automatic sub bands would take an unreasonably large part of most data sub bands. see my notes below in [brackets]] 73, Chuck Mayfield - AA5J But keep up working on it Bonnie... since Great works are performed, not by strength, but by perseverance. ~ Samuel Johnson At 10:57 PM 10/16/2007, expeditionradio wrote: //snip// A reasonable suggestion is that automatic sub bands be approximately 10% of each HF ham band. In other words, if an HF band is 350kHz wide, then at least 35kHz of it should be available as an automatic sub band for standard 3kHz bandwidth signals. //snip// Here are some suggested expanded frequency ranges for HF automatic band segments. 1805-1815 Worldwide 1990-2000 North America [20/200Khz = 10%] 3560-3610 North America 3590-3630 Worldwide [70/100Khz = 70%] 7100-7125kHz North America 7100-7110kHz Worldwide (in the new international band) 7035-7045kHz Worldwide [35/125 = 28% 10140-10150 Worldwide [10/50 = 20%] 14085-14125kHz Worldwide (n 14099.5-14100.5 IARU beacon net) [40/140 = 26.7%] 18100-18109.5kHz Worldwide [ 9.5/42 = 22.6%] 21090-21135kHz Worldwide [ 45/200 = 22.5%] 24920-24929.5kHz Worldwide [ 9.5/40 = 23.75%] 28100-28199.5kHz Worldwide[ 99.5/300 = 33.17%]
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need KAM Plus manual
At 02:13 PM 10/11/2007, n6vl wrote: I was successful after calling Kantronics. The tech support guy referred me to the mods.dk web site. I was able to get scanned PDFs for a small donation. 73, Steve N6VL Steve, I also have a KAM Plus with no manual. I would be eternally grateful if you would forward a copy of the PDF. Barring that, could you give me the URL to the mods.dk web site? 73, Chuck, AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers
Folks, [mounting soapbox] when I was young, say 45 years ago, my brothers and I would be arguing. One would say Dad, so and so is doing [whatever]. Dad would reply, Do you guys REALLY want me to come in there? Look. Government toleration of ham radio is good. Government regulation of ham radio is ok. Government over-regulation of ham radio is not so good. Do we REALLY want the Government to CONTROL ham radio? It is a HOBBY, after all. sigh Relax. Enjoy the hobby. [dismounting soap box] 73, Chuck - AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Ham radio today and its roots. 'Hobby' was not top dog in the listing
At 02:04 PM 9/23/2007, WD8ARZ Comcast wrote: Ham radio today is no doubt 'different' today than it was in the past. But the past is our history. Wasn't to many years ago that the purpose of ham radio had a listing in the FCC rules. Hobby wasn't the top one listed .. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ HEE HEE. Yes that is right, Bill. However, YMMV. According to http://www2.arrl.org/news/features/2006/04/28/1/, and I quote: Dave Bushong, KZ1O, believes that Amateur Radio is not just a single hobby or interest; it is comprised of many facets. Putting his beliefs where his Web is, Dave built the http://www.99hobbies.com/Ham Radio is 99 Hobbies Web site to show how diverse Amateur Radio is. The purpose of demonstrating ham radio's diversity is to encourage hams to try something new. 73, Chuck - AA6J [back to the radio room]
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
Bruce, You might want to post your rant to THE LEAGUE. You are preaching mostly to the choir here. HI HI Chuck AA5J At 11:16 PM 4/27/2007, bruce mallon wrote: OK RM-11306 is on the back burner for now what will the ARRL do next ? Here is what they SHOULD do ... ASK with a list of questions what MEMBERS want to do. //yada yada snipped// Bruce WA4GCH Life Member for 30 years on 6 since 1966
Re: [digitalradio] ADDITIONAL TIPS FOR USING JT65 IN WSJT VERSION 5.9.2
Try http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/Documentation.htm 73, Chuck, AA5J At 03:41 PM 4/6/2007, Jose A. Amador wrote: * TUTORIAL. Study the new tutorial at http://pulsar.princeton.edu/~joe/K1JT/Tutorial_590.txthttp://pulsar.princeton.edu/~joe/K1JT/Tutorial_590.txt Got a 404 error on this link. Can someone tell the right one if not already outdated ? 73, Jose, CO2JA __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cierhttp://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cuhttp://www.universidad2008.cu
[digitalradio] Politics be gone
OK! I have come up with a way to ignore all this spam about politics, including; ARRL and FCC. Rule: if header contains [digitalradio] And body contains (ARRL OR FCC) then delete_message. Hopefully, I will not miss those messages that actually pertain to digitalradio. 73, Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
OK this is starting to look like character assassination. Please excuse me while I still have my character 73, Chuck AA5J At 01:12 PM 3/18/2007, kv9u wrote: Bruce, You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules. It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules changed. But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that: If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz a 45 MHz limit up to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz. http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdfhttp://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S. 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa mailto:k8ocl%40hotmail.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 3/17/2007 12:33 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: What's with Boulder?
Aha! You said it. I looked up the WWV Time Codes at http://tf.nist.gov/stations/wwvtimecode.htm and it shows DST indicator #2 and DST indicator #1 as part of the code stream. When I used to build my own LED readout station clock that used WWVB time codes, those bits were not there. Hi Hi (That was in 1974, if I remember correctly). 73, Chuck/AA5J EOT At 09:43 PM 3/11/2007, jgorman01 wrote: My atomic clock changed right on time. I would have to look at the manual, but the clock itself may have the software for DST. However, WWV/B would have to put out a bit that says DST for the clock to have known to change. My clock does have time zone settings incorporated into the software. I had to set that up initially. Jim WA0LYK --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait! WWV and WWVB transmit UTC time codes. There is absolutely no way for either station to 'know' in which time zone your atomic clock is located. So How could they correct time for DST??? Enlighten me please 73, Chuck/AA5J At 09:00 PM 3/11/2007, Les Warriner wrote: Whoops. Yes, they do correct time for DST and standard time. My clocks, atomic clock controlled, changed at 1 AM EDT by gaining an hour. My UTC clock did not change - thankfully!!! At 04:45 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Hello There, WWV has always gone by UTC. UTC has no Daylight Savings Time period. They have leap seconds once in awhile. 73 Gary WB6BNE - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Walt DuBose To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.commailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's with Boulder? Andrew O'Brien wrote: Hmm, not really ham radio related but my atomic clock just leap forward an hour at 11.30PM Eastern Time (USA). Did WWV not have the patience to wait until the official date and time ? It changes at sometime after midnight UCT. Walt/K5YFW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM
Re: [digitalradio] What's with Boulder?
Wait! WWV and WWVB transmit UTC time codes. There is absolutely no way for either station to 'know' in which time zone your atomic clock is located. So How could they correct time for DST??? Enlighten me please 73, Chuck/AA5J At 09:00 PM 3/11/2007, Les Warriner wrote: Whoops. Yes, they do correct time for DST and standard time. My clocks, atomic clock controlled, changed at 1 AM EDT by gaining an hour. My UTC clock did not change - thankfully!!! At 04:45 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Hello There, WWV has always gone by UTC. UTC has no Daylight Savings Time period. They have leap seconds once in awhile. 73 Gary WB6BNE - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Walt DuBose To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's with Boulder? Andrew O'Brien wrote: Hmm, not really ham radio related but my atomic clock just leap forward an hour at 11.30PM Eastern Time (USA). Did WWV not have the patience to wait until the official date and time ? It changes at sometime after midnight UCT. Walt/K5YFW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Bad PSK signals ?
Suggestion: Don't wait for an OO. Look up his call at QRZ.com, get his phone number, give him a call and talk to him about the problem. The op probably does not know that he is over-driving his audio. Chuck AA5J At 08:00 AM 3/10/2007, Andrew O'Brien wrote: I was watching a bad PSK31 signal on 40M this morning, an IMD of -6 and harmonic waterfall 'trails all over my 3 Khz wide display. Do official observers ever get involved in these cases ? Seems that friendly pink slips might be useful here . -- Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I don't know that you have seen this link, so just in case you might be able to get an idea http://www.winlink.org/Presentations/SCAMPspec.pdf I KNOW that I could not develop anything based on it, but perhaps you or someone else on this reflector can. Chuck AA5J At 02:43 PM 3/9/2007, Rein Couperus wrote: What a terrible waste of intellectual resources! Sigh Rein EA/PA0R/P -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 09.03.07 18:28:28 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info The only known implementation was on Windows, Rein, and it was closed source. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I agree with Joe on this point. Amateur radio has always been self policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not even know whether the operator is even a ham. Regards, Chuck AA5J At 03:41 PM 3/8/2007, Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
A list moderator graciously corrected me. Therefore, I retract the following erroneous statement: It appears that SCS modems can copy WL2k ARQ transmissions even though the listener is not an addressee.. I stand corrected. 73, Chuck AA5J At 04:49 PM 3/8/2007, Chuck Mayfield wrote: Amateur radio has always been self policing. How can we self police the Pactor operators, automatic or manually controlled, when even if we spend the big bucks to acquire a pactor modem, we can not monitor their transmissions? We can not even know whether the operator is even a ham.
Re: [Bulk] [digitalradio] Re: Detecting Digital Modes [Was: Newbie to DigitalRadio - Couple of Questions]
Doc, Try Google. *HOKA* Electronic - The Netherlands - HF Data Decoder and Analyzer http://www.hoka.com/ *HOKA* Electronic, HF Data Communications Consultant, Data Analyzer and Decoder. www.*hoka*.com/ - 8kCached http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:yHpNNBnayzIJ:www.hoka.com/+hokahl=enct=clnkcd=1gl=usclient=firefox-a - Similar pages http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialhs=90wq=related:www.hoka.com/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FNpsk
At 03:27 AM 1/30/2007, Rein Couperus wrote: Everybody with an HF trx and a laptop that has a CD drive and a soundcard can set up a server and connect it to the internet, provided the trx has reasonable fequency stability . We are planning to include HF forwarding capability in both client and server. The user interface of the client is Evolution (like Outlook (C)Microsoft Company). You write the messages in a normal mail client, and then press the send button. Can you tell me what FNpsk capability is lacking in pskmail at present? (Just for our long term planning...) 73, Rein EA/PA0R/P Windows. :-} 73, Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FNpsk
At 01:25 PM 1/30/2007, Rein Couperus wrote: M$ gives you windows, Linux gives you as many desktops as you like :)) Rein Rein, I am certainly not a fan of M$ or Windows, but M$ Windows is used by a VERY large percentage of ham radio operators who use computers. FNPsk runs directly under windows. That does not make it good, but that makes it accessible to a very large percentage of ham radio operators. Best Regards, Chuck, AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23
If I remember correctly, it is a CB 10 code for What is the time of day? Being the sarcastic old bum that I am, I sometimes responded I would think that anyone who could afford a CB radio could also afford a timepiece. The time is 8:45 and you are late. Chuck AA5J At 11:22 PM 1/19/2007, John Champa wrote: Chuck, Guess I am no longer fully qualified as a Ham (HI). What is a 10-36? Tnx, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: Chuck Mayfield mailto:clmayfield%40verizon.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:30:22 -0600 At 05:07 PM 1/19/2007, Radioguy wrote: Codeless Amateur Radio Testing Regime Appears Set to Begin February 23 Yahoo, Good Buddy. Can I get a 10-36? Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 1/18/2007 6:47 PM
Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23
At 01:47 PM 1/20/2007, larry allen wrote: Hi Danny.. The problem we are having is that most of our new hams don't seem to get on the air... We have more hams now than ever before yet our bands are quieter than they have ever been, since the 60's at least Larry ve3fxq Look at the competition. cell phones, text messaging, video phones, instant messaging, e-mail, skype, etc. and a lot of it world-wide, and some of it free. 73 Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] LinLink - LinLink List
At 11:28 AM 1/19/2007, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: You can subscribe to the LinLink E-Mail list at: http://www.wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink/http://www.wetnet.net/mailman/listinfo/linlink/ That's good Walt. I thought I was subscribed to that linkink list, but the last message I received was 10/30/2006. That is also the last message I can find in the archives. Is the list still active? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail
At 12:13 PM 1/12/2007, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: For some reason I can't get the latest information on PSKMail...actually I think the pskmail.org URL and some others are being blocked. The last I info I have is from Rein is dated Aug 2005. Am I correct in that PSKMail is now using PSK125 and FLDigi? I would appreciate direct E-Mail of specs attachments on PSK125 and FLDigi sent to mailto:k5yfw%40arrl.net[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well as mailto:walt.dubose%40randolph.af.mil[EMAIL PROTECTED] Txn 73, Walt/K5YFW It opens for me. Here is what I see, along with two links. This is the pskmail.org start page. See the links menu on the left for further options. The pskmail.org site has been set up to support the pskmail mode by offering centralized services to mobile users and server operators. Use the Userlogin page to change your data record in the pskmail database. When your data is in the user database you can -theoretically- use any pskmail server to get your mail, as the server will collect the data from the database via the internet if it does not have a local record. You need a password to log in; you can get it by sending a mail to thinkcow at pskmail.org. Use of these services for ham operators is free, but you are supposed to buy PA0R a beer when appropriate. here are urls to the two links: http://pskmail.org/userlogin.html http://pskmail.wikispaces.org/ 73, Chuck AA5J
[digitalradio] Wassup?
Did I get bounced or something? I received my last [digitalradio] message at 6:12pm 1/4 . Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] Re: LOTW Olivia, not a lot !
mulveyraa2 wrote: -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield - AA5J You're not reading the error message it gave you. It says that Call sign, DXCC Entity and QSO date range don't match up. Note the and. Your submission indicates that you've held AA5J continuously from 1945-11-01 to the present day. Your QRZ info indicates that you were born in 1941, and previously held the call WD5FBQ. So unless you were licenced as WD5FBQ before you were 4 years old, of course it's going to reject your submission. You can't just pick random dates. Callsigns get re-used over time, and if you're just picking dates out of a hat, you'll interfere with someone who legitimately held that call at some other time. If you enter your data as asked, LOTW is trivial to sign up for and use. - Rich You may be right, Rich, but my callsign is good at QRZ. The address their matches the one at FCC, I have been an ARRL member continuously since I was first licensed. Are you licensed? Why don't you use your call sign in your signature? Since you seem to know all about LOTW, perhaps you can tell me why there is a default start date of 1945 11 01 on that form? Also, why are there not instructions on that form? Chuck AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] New to PSK31 - advice please ??
Adrian, I googled optoisolators Ireland and Radionics Ireland has them in stock. 73, Chuck, AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !
Andrew O'Brien wrote: I'm surprised that of all the Olivia QSOs I have logged there are only 5 verified via LOTW I think I can understand why. Why does it have to be so complicated to get a cert with lotw? Chuck, aa5j PS I am debating whether or not it is more trouble than it is worth, since I do not chase dx.
Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !
Doc, I don't agree with your last. CW DATA AND RTTY are allowed by Extra Class licensees 7000-7125 and by General and Advanced Class licensees 7025-7125. Chuck, AA5J
Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot !
You are probably right, Danny. However, I neither know nor care what DXCC Entity I am in and I got the following back from the request: Processing file 'AA5J.tq5' 2007-01-03 03:15:49 Started processing your New Certificate Request. 2007-01-03 03:15:49 For call sign: AA5J 2007-01-03 03:15:49 For DXCC Entity: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291) 2007-01-03 03:15:49 For QSOs not before: 1945-11-01 00:00:00 2007-01-03 03:15:49For QSOs not after: none 2007-01-03 03:15:50 Call sign, DXCC Entity and QSO date range don't match up 2007-01-03 03:15:50 **Your certificate request contains error(s); please correct and resubmit. 2007-01-03 03:15:50 See http://www.arrl.org/lotw/faq.html for more information. I suppose next I will be bounced for the 1945 start date ... 73, AA5J Danny Douglas wrote: You must consider the other ops who DO use LOTW. It is so much easier than buying/making, filling out, mailing QSL cards. Chuck it isnt rocket science, and once a member, very easy to update to insure you still live in the same place, and have the same call, every couple of years. Doesnt matter if its DX or not. WAS is also using LOTW and VUCC is just around the corner. One of these days, Worked ALL Counties will probably be there too, and Collin county would be important in that one also. You do NOT even have to be an ARRL member to upload (just to use valuations for your own use). Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:digital_modes%40yahoogroups.com moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: Chuck Mayfield - AA5J [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:clmayfield%40verizon.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] LOTW Olivia, not a lot ! Andrew O'Brien wrote: I'm surprised that of all the Olivia QSOs I have logged there are only 5 verified via LOTW I think I can understand why. Why does it have to be so complicated to get a cert with lotw? Chuck, aa5j PS I am debating whether or not it is more trouble than it is worth, since I do not chase dx. Suggested Calling/Beaconing Frequencies: 17M: 18103.4 20M: Primary:14.078.4 Secondary: 14.076.4 Digital Voice: 14236 30M Primary:10.142 Secondary 10.144 40M Region 2: 7073 Region 1/3: 7039 80M Primary : 3583 Secondary: 3584.5 Announce your presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car
Robert Chudek - KØRC wrote: Chuck, I will venture a guess you are using a trial version of the software because that is what I am hearing the voice say in the file you posted. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Mayfield - AA5J mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:48 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car I recently downloaded and installed MixW2.17. The problem I am having is an USB audio burst that appears periodically in (apparently) both the received and transmitted audio approximately once each four seconds. I disconnected from the sound card and from the radio and recorded a sample into a wav file. Can anyone help me with this problem? I attached the sample, but am not sure it will accompany this message. 73, Chuck AA5J No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 12:23 PM Thanks, Bob. You are exactly correct! I thought I could at least *try* the trial version legally, but I guess I sprung a booby trap! Drats! The web page said I should try the trial version before I buy the full version. Do I really want to buy Mixw 73, Chuck
Re: [digitalradio] SSB mixed with Mixw output?
Robert Chudek - KØRC wrote: Chuck, Well even with the new email header, the voice is still saying Trial... Trial... ;-) 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Mayfield - AA5J mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] SSB mixed with Mixw output? Sorry all. I should have changed the subject line on my last. I recently downloaded and installed MixW2.17. The problem I am having is an USB audio burst that appears periodically in (apparently) both the received and transmitted audio approximately once each four seconds. I disconnected from the sound card and from the radio and recorded a sample into a wav file. Can anyone help me with this problem? I attached the sample, but am not sure it will accompany this message. 73, Chuck AA5J HEE hee I thought it was say ing trash trash trash...
Re: [digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car
Brett Owen Rees VK2TMG wrote: Hi Chuck, The attachment worked ok here for me. The sound seems to be saying 'trial' in a female voice. It sounds like a piece of applications software or your driver is doing this. Have you tried killing off processes using task manager to see if you can isolate what is causing it? 73, Brett -- === Brett Rees VK2TMG http://lisp.homeunix.net http://lisp.homeunix.net Brett, I think it must be encoded in the Trial software somewhere. I hope it will not say Full every four seconds if I buy the Full version. Hmm? What software does everyone use for digital? 73, Chuck AA5J
[digitalradio] 10 Khz signal
What is the signal that occupies 3990 to 4000?
Re: [digitalradio] 10 Khz signal
Robert McGwier wrote: Is it heard at night? Then I am going to guess that it is digital radio mondial broadcast. Bob N4HY Chuck Mayfield - AA5J wrote: What is the signal that occupies 3990 to 4000? -- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoffer No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 3:54 PM Yes. it is ther now as we speak...
Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies
It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan should at least be consulted as part of the subject process.. See http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html. 73 de AA5J Danny Douglas wrote: As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about operating digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and there is NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary. Now - subbands ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks changes in separating modes. The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur Bands shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key, says of 160: CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE The only note of distinction in this whole band comments that amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no protection from radiolocation operators Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the first 10 kc. I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart the ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same thing. That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else. As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs. Give a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is really irritating to a CW op. Most all of the PSK I have worked (128 countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the 14.069-14.073 bandwidth. The other digital modes have all been around 14.065 - 14.070. This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of PSK rather than just above it. I havent called CQ on the other modes, above the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below it. Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals at all on 20. I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so dont know how those separate out. Also have not been digitally active on 80 or 40 all that much either. Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford me new ones very often. The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I figure that new ones should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but so far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops. I just dont think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital modes. Your last comment: Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we operated voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band? would appear to be exactly what we should be doing. It would keep the voice part out of the lower piece of the band and place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally legal according to the charts. I was hoping that would be what we would see on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:digital_modes%40yahoogroups.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 3:54 PM
RE: [digitalradio] digital modes and THE RADIO
At 06:41 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote: Rick, Please explain group delays. I am unfamilar with that term in reference to transmitting equipment. Walt/K5YFW I am not Rick, but you can find the definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_delay Regards, Chuck AA5J Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
So what is techincal about this thread at this point. Dave, you are wasting bandwidth here. Can we get back on topic, please? Chuck, AA5J At 11:22 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote: Amateur radio began with the randomness of chance QSOs -- you remember CQ, don't you? Its not exactly honest to claim that amateur radio is devolving from the style with which it began, has used during all of its existence, and remains dominant to this day. No one is saying you can't use ALE if you want to Bonnie, but don't imply that anyone who doesn't is a dope. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
And I suppose that nit-picking every statement made by others on the reflector is to be considered responsible behavior? GIVE ME A BREAK! 73, Chuck At 01:19 PM 8/26/2006, you wrote: Bonnie claimed that amateur radio had devolved to random QSOs. Since amateur radio began with random QSOs and random QSOs remain a significant component of amateur communications today, that claim is false. If the original post was on topic, then correcting its factual errors must also be on topic. The premises and context on which we make technical decisions are critical. Leaving errors and misrepresentations unchallenged would be irresponsible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what is techincal about this thread at this point. Dave, you are wasting bandwidth here. Can we get back on topic, please? Chuck, AA5J At 11:22 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote: Amateur radio began with the randomness of chance QSOs -- you remember CQ, don't you? Its not exactly honest to claim that amateur radio is devolving from the style with which it began, has used during all of its existence, and remains dominant to this day. No one is saying you can't use ALE if you want to Bonnie, but don't imply that anyone who doesn't is a dope. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In mailto:digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.commailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfieldhttp://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Best Mode for QRP?
At 08:59 AM 7/25/2006, you wrote: Anyway where did that word [robustness] come from and when was it frist to used? Robust Insensitivity of a process output to the variation of the process inputs. Robust Process A robust process is one that is operating at 6 sigma and is therefore resistant to defects. Robust processes exhibit very good short-term process capability (high short-term Z values) and a small Z shift value. Robustness The characteristic of the process output or response to be insensitive to the variation of the inputs. Setting the process targets using the process interactions increases the likelyhood of the process exhibiting robustness. 73, Chuck AA5J Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Army MARS Implementing Winlink
At 07:07 AM 3/4/2006, Rein wrote: The only thing you have to do to allow PSKmail access is to open WINLINK for POP3. By the way, PSKmail works also with your own ISP, so it actually does not need WINLINK. You could use any Gmail account for that, provided it is properly spam filtered. I am not aware WINLINK folks are working on PSKmail access; they have not contacted me. 73, EA/PA0R/P - via pskmail server SM0RWO at 10.148 MHz - Oh. Maybe I was mistaken about it being PSKmail access. (That has been more than 20 minutes ago :-)). It was some sort of soundcard access. WINLINK already has POP3 access. I bought a KAM PLUS radio modem and logged in to WINLINK 2000, using PACTOR 1. Once I did that, I was issued a WINLINK address. I no longer have that access, as for some reason, I can not get the modem to initialize any more. However, my email address (if I remember correctly) was [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't remember if I could send mail from that address via POP3, but I could certainly receive mail. Thanks for the reply. Regards, ChuckM - AA5J Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing Winlink 2000 with Airmail Network
At 12:47 PM 3/3/2006, Tim wrote: N6CRR, I agree with you. tim ab0wr On Thursday 02 March 2006 23:15, N6CRR wrote: //snip// Actually, I think is is a rather good development. //snip// I agree with you and Tim. I also think WINLINK and WINLINK 2000 are good for amateur radio. Maybe not for me, right now, because I can not afford to buy an expensive proprietary modem, but the WINLINK 2000 folks are reported to be working on PSKMAIL client access to WINLINK 2000, which would open up use of the system to anyone with a radio and computer. I can not visualize a better network to handle limited amounts of EMCOMM at reasonable speeds that can be accessed by anyone anywhere worldwide with a transceiver and computer with sound card. Can anyone else? If so, why has it not been at least mentioned on this reflector? Regards, ChuckM - AA5J mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 160M DIGI OPS.....do as we say, not what we do
He who tries to inflict political statements on amateur radio is a DAMN FOOL. 73, Chuck, AA5J At 02:26 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote: Its because the ARRL has gone nuts, like Bush. 73 de WB4M Buddy Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital
Greetings, As one who has been inactive in amateur radio emergency communications for several years, I heartily endorse the use of the Winlink system for EMCOMM. The reasons are as follows: Winlink 2000 tries to have 24/7 availability. And mostly succeeds, through the use of Automatic / Semi-Automatic (call it what you will) responders, we are able to connect to the world from anywhere at any time, if we have the capability to connect to the Winlink 2000 network. They have stations that monitor most (all ?) bands that will let us get through under almost all conditions. From my viewpoint, the important thing is communications. If necessary, we can send messages to the control operators theirselves with instructions to connect a particular telephone number, etc. and I AM SURE they will carry out the task to get the emergency message through. I have been inactive in NTS for several years, however in the several emergency situations I have been through, I would have been very happy to have a system equivalent to the Winlink 2000. NTS was typically manned by hams like me, I worked full time. I was not available 247 most of the time. In response to the tornado that ripped through Wichita Falls, Texas, my employer saw fit to let me off for one day to support emergency communications, but for the most part, I was only available for the evening NTS nets. I started the DFW Traffic Net on 146.88 and the Texas Slow speed CW net. Served as one of the DFW representatives to the Texas Traffic net, RN5 Liaison and CAN Liasion. We handled almost exclusively personal message, some 3rd party and some ham to others, except during emergencies. But, when the chips were down, we had the capability to pass message traffic that mattered. Whether we use HF, VHF, UHF, Satellite, or magic, the key ingredient to emergency capabilities is training. Untrained hams are part of the problem. Trained hams are part of the solution. Regards, ChuckM aa5j mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital TV (off topic)
As a former user of a BUD (big ugly dish) of 10' diameter and analog TV signals, I can say for sure that there is absolutely no comparison with respect to video quality between the broadcast quality (eg., 34 dB SNR) video signal as received by the BUD and those transmitted by typical digital satellite providers such as Dish and DirectTV. The analog signal wins hand over heels. Now that almost all TV is sent digitally, the difference no longer stands out like it did back when. The HDTV signals, however, are much better on either type of display than were the analog broadcast band quality pictures. Except when the signal breaks up, for whatever reason into those gross digital blocks. I have never been a fan of analog cable due to the p-poor quality control. The SNR of most analog signals barely meets minimums at the user's TV set. My 2 cents. 73, Chuck, AA5J At 12:25 PM 1/28/2006, you wrote: I'm with Alan. When I went from analog cable to digital satellite, the difference has remarkable , even to old eyes. The difference between digital satellite and HD satellite is not as great... still some but not as obvious. HD satellite approaches the quality of a good DVD player. . - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Alan NV8A To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital TV (off topic) On 01/28/06 10:35 am kd4e wrote: I like the idea of a widescreen TV and have begun looking around for one. For the life of me, I don't see the $5000 plasma screen pictures (in stores) as a whole lot better than the picture I currently get from my satellite provider (standard definition). I looked carefully at a 42 inch DTV and a 42 HDTV , Why not buy a decent refurbished video projector for a fraction of the price? with a $3000 price diference, I could see NO difference. The salemans said he saw a big difference, maybe I am digitalblind. Andy K3UK The saleman is, of course, seeing the display through his commission eyes. I am not in the market for a big-screen TV, but I can even see the difference between Standard-Definition analog and High-Definition (1080i) digital programming on our 26 CRT TV. Alan NV8A -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/06 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipolhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Ham+radiow1=Ham+radiow2=Craft+hobbyw3=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw4=Icom+ham+radiow5=Yaesu+ham+radioc=5s=101.sig=NStjWgsFtXmQaGrYd1LT5wHam radio http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Craft+hobbyw1=Ham+radiow2=Craft+hobbyw3=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw4=Icom+ham+radiow5=Yaesu+ham+radioc=5s=101.sig=RIfve-PXBTtOVJV48uzEVQCraft hobby http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw1=Ham+radiow2=Craft+hobbyw3=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw4=Icom+ham+radiow5=Yaesu+ham+radioc=5s=101.sig=Qz1juq9z5gSL9A5AR8aLNAHobby and craft supply http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Icom+ham+radiow1=Ham+radiow2=Craft+hobbyw3=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw4=Icom+ham+radiow5=Yaesu+ham+radioc=5s=101.sig=_InABMy_m6lCJHFiWobT2wIcom ham radio http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=msk=Yaesu+ham+radiow1=Ham+radiow2=Craft+hobbyw3=Hobby+and+craft+supplyw4=Icom+ham+radiow5=Yaesu+ham+radioc=5s=101.sig=9lSLfMHwXV-vjTYO4qyD8wYaesu ham radio -- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradiodigitalradio on the web. * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Terms of Service. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] need cluster testers
Could not open connection to the host on port 23: Connect failed Chuck - AA5J At 07:30 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote: If you have a chance to try connecting to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org I would appreciate it. I am not sure I fixed the problem but I have at least got outgoing things such as Echolink working whereas earlier it was not successfully port forwarded. Andy. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: need cluster testers
It works now. Chuck AA5J At 08:40 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote: Just changed settings again...fire away Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could not open connection to the host on port 23: Connect failed Chuck - AA5J At 07:30 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote: If you have a chance to try connecting to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org I would appreciate it. I am not sure I fixed the problem but I have at least got outgoing things such as Echolink working whereas earlier it was not successfully port forwarded. Andy. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to 66.24.209.78 Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] PCALE, Use of, With ca 1980 transceivers
I have been reading the mail here for some time. Can a station using equipment that is not computer controlled (e.g., Ten Tec Omni) use PCALE in any way? I have been inactive in ham radio since the early 90's and have fallen way behind the power curve. 73, Chuck AA5J -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/05 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] PCALE, Use of, With ca 1980 transceivers
Nope. It has no memory. It was made in the USA, ca 1980's. It does, however have a frequency dial, analog readout, of course. But it does still work, it ain't broke, and I am hesitant to replace it, what with my fixed retirement income and the price of new toys. Chuck, AA5J At 05:07 PM 11/30/05, you wrote: Can it scan channels in memory ? - Original Message - From: Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PCALE, Use of, With ca 1980 transceivers I have been reading the mail here for some time. Can a station using equipment that is not computer controlled (e.g., Ten Tec Omni) use PCALE in any way? I have been inactive in ham radio since the early 90's and have fallen way behind the power curve. 73, Chuck AA5J -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/05 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/05 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/05 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/ Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The skinny on software timebombs
Hey guys! We are downwind here. Please stop pissing. :-) Chuck, AA5J At 01:52 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I don't think any amount of signal bandwidth is going to allow telephone-quality voice connectivity between Boston and Sydney on the 10m band over the next couple of years. Ya don't huh Dave? How about the commercial HF DV communications that already do this? Well on 22 MHz, which isn't quite 10M. You made the outlandish claim that SDRs would enable HF communications in the absence of propagation. I cited a 10m path with no propagation as a counter-example. Your response that communication is possible on a path with propagation (your 22 Mhz example) is irrelevant to the discussion, and leaves your original assertion unsubstantiated. SDRs are great, but they're just an implementation strategy. They aren't magic, but they do open a world of new possibilities for amateur experimentation. Given our limited HF frequency allocations, I'd rather we focused our innovation on doing more within the current bandwidth limitations. Amateur experimentation? Where have you been? The commercial folks are falling all over themselves doing this. In fact, there is a U.S. Military Standard that says all new multi-band radios WILL BE SDR. You think that commercial firms and military suppliers have exhausted all possibilities with SDR, eliminating all opportunity for amateur experimentation? Seems unlikely, Walt. ...Given our limited HF frequency allocations, I'd rather we focused our innovation on doing more within the current bandwidth limitations. So what are our current bandwidth limitations...say for data? Part 97 says I can operate a data mode on 40M from 7.000 to 7.150 MHz and as longas the mode doesn't run over 300 baud per carrier/tone, I can use the whole 150 KHz available for the mode. Relative to 40m, §97.305(f)(3) says Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz. If I understand this correctly, you're right: a non-FSK signal whose symbol rate does not exceed 300 baud could consume 150 kHz of bandwidth. Taking up half of the 40m band for one high-reliability 300 baud link seems rather antisocial. As I said, we should be focusing on doing more with less -- not less with more. Look what Peter G3PLX did with 31 hz! So tell me, in your opinion what did G3PLX do? Peter developed a modulation scheme that is easily implemented on a PC and soundcard, that required no major changes to regulations or band plans, and that enables worldwide communications with modest transceivers, power levels, and antennas. Its uptake in the amateur community exceeeds that of any new scheme since SSB, and it has stimulated the development of many new soundcard-implementable modes. What kind of communications do you need for your 1) pleasure and 2) to support emergency and/or disaster relief communications? For me, CW is just fine to meet my personal needs or perhaps MFSK16 or MT63. But to support the disaster communications work I volunteer for, I need something 10-20 times faster than MT63 and just as robust. Only 10-20 times faster, Walt? Why not 1000-2000 times faster? Don't you need high-definition video with surround-sound audio? Its fine with me if you can convince the FCC to allocate some non- amateur HF spectrum for wide-bandwidth amateur experimentation. My point is that such signals are incompatible with the modest HF allocations we have today, and should not be permitted there, the apparent loophole in §97.305 notwithstanding. 73, Dave, AA6YQ The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/149 - Release Date: 10/25/2005 Regards, Chuck Mayfield -- http://wc.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/149 - Release Date: 10/25/2005 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ More info at http:///www.obriensweb.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use
RE: [digitalradio] Winlink Scanning
to both the user and the spectrum to eliminate scanning so the user can tell if a PMBO is available, or busy on an alternate scan frequency. In the case of no scanning, it is CERTAIN he is not busy on an alternate frequency, and if he is busy with a station you cannot detect, then when he transmits his bursts, if you cannot hear that either, then you are out of range, so you do not need to use up a frequency trying to connect when there is no hope of making a connection. This keeps the frequency free for for others to use, doesn't it? - Here is additional information from Steve: --- Quote (k4cjx @ April 14 2005,08:23) Regarding scanning. Most Winlink 2000 stations scan only two frequencies per band. About 40 percent use more than one radio, so that they scan only on the given band. Each scan takes approximately 2.4 to 3.0 seconds. The purpose for scanning is to provide the user with a clear frequency where possible. Airmail reads the frequencies scanned by each station and ONLY CALLS for 3 seconds per frequency. So, after calling for 3 seconds, and no connect what does Airmal do then? I still don't understand why there cannot be one station on each frequency listening on a single frequency and not scanning two or three. Please explain... Thanks... Skip KH6TY -- I'd like to clearly understand this issue, so if anyone can explain, please do so! Additional information can be found at http://winlink.org/status/ under CMBO traffic. 73, Skip KH6TY The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005 Regards, Chuck Mayfield -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Win Link
coverage along the route (or so I'm told). A number of members have problems hitting the net repeater in the weekly net. Radio procedures are often amateurish. 3. The WinLink concept is a noble effort but won't solve these problems. All of the justification of amateur radio communications is based on the premise that all normal communications will be wiped out. Granted, that occasionally happens (and makes the national news), but in the vast majority of incidents that occur, normal communications (phone, Internet) are much more effective. Yet, the emergency communication systems being paid for (gov't grants) and set up in our local cities are usually amateur radio-based, with little attention to supporting communications via the Internet (which will usually be available). 4. With few exceptions, many of the advances in amateur digital modes are proprietary. Proprietary hardware in the amateur community will never make it. I applaud those who write software and then release it free to the amateur community (ironically, most of the good stuff comes from amateurs overseas). However, almost all of those authors are missing the whole point of the open-source software movement, by refusing to release source code under the GPL. The software is usually released with the restriction that the software may only be used for amateur radio purposes. Not that I mind the restriction, but who in their right mind thinks that some commercial enterprise is going to steal some amateur's source code released under the GPL, and make it into a commercial product? Our local RACES group tried to get the source code to ARESpack to no avail. The source code for FNpack is also not available. It's not like there's much to a software package like ARESpack or FN pack; after all, FNpack was written in Visual BASIC, which NO professional programmer uses (and for good reason). If those who develop amateur radio software would release the source code under the GPL, we'd see a *lot* of improvement in many of these packages, and digital modes would be more widely used. -- Dean The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/2005 Regards, Chuck Mayfield -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink
of favorable propagation between Stations B and D. Station A does not hear station C or D, station C does not hear stations A or B, but station B hears station D. Station D needs a detector that detects activity in the bandwidth that will be occupied to prevent startup of the link, or station C needs to be able to listen to the receiver output of station D to determine if the channel is occupied. This is just one example. This concern was known to the FCC in 1995 when PR Docket 94-59 was released. The FCC stated: First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference. Second, we are designating subbands to which transmissions between tow automatically controlled stations are confined. So you can see from these statements there is no definition of semi-automatic operation. There are stations with a control operator, and stations that are automatically controlled. It is responsibility of the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station to prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference. Before the sound card mode explosion this was not as big of a problem. After the soundcard mode explosion, unattended stations using PACTOR did not keep up with the times and incorporate the tools necessary to allow the control operator that is connected to the automatically controlled station to comply with the FCC rules. The FCC also stated that we also are confident in the ability of the amateur service community to respond, as it has in the past to the challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands. You have to admit Steve, the WinLink community has been dragged kicking and screaming in to the 21st century realization that the bands and modes have changed, and no longer are FSK signals the only kids on the block. 73, Mark N5RFX At 05:40 AM 4/12/2005, you wrote: Please explain hidden transmit effect with an example. Please explain how it is impossible for this also to occur with control operator presence. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a contester. Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? Absolutely not. Please explain how band planning by bandwidth will mitigate QRM caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect. 73, Dave, AA6YQ The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005 Regards, Chuck Mayfield -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.7 - Release Date: 4/12/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] linux
At 12:25 PM 2/21/2005, you wrote: anyone have a link for download of the Knoppix live cd with the ham programs built in that is in English ? have the German version, but no fun to play with. david/wd4kpd Try starting it with knoppix lang=en Regards, Chuck - AA5J -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ a href=http://dxcluster.blogspot.com;img src=http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif; height=67 width=200 style=border:0 alt=Digital Spotter//a Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
