[digitalradio] Re: Boot discs for emcomm/ham radio

[Dave Bernstein]

If you use an image backup product like Norton Ghost or StorageCraft 
ShadowProtect, you can construct such a CD or DVD yourself. You can make a 
snapshot with all of your applications installed and configured, allowing a 
rapid recovery in the event of a catastrophic failures.

I started with Ghost, creating image backups weekly and incrementals nightly, 
but found it to be fragile and user hostile. ShadowProtect isn't perfect, but 
its much better. I have fully recovered systems on several occasions in less 
than an hour.

While its true that rebuilding Windows from scratch eliminates some of the 
accumulated detritus on your hard drive and in the Windows Registry, having to 
then re-install and configure all of your applications makes this an expensive 
proposition. I find that periodically running the freeware Advanced SystemCare 
keeps things reasonably well-pruned; some DXLab users have reported a 
noticeable performance improvement after running it. Its available via



I wouldn't run any application that mucks about in the Windows Registry without 
having a backup, though creating a System Restore Point beforehand is probably 
sufficient.

I have no relationship with any of the companies mentioned above. 

 73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"  wrote:
>
> I had a PC problem last night and Windows would not load.  I was able to get 
> on the Internet and active in digital modes within a few short minutes by 
> booting a CD that contained Fldigi via Linux.  This simple way of getting on 
> the air when a HD crashes of Windows fails made me wonder if there is a 
> Windows CD somewhere that we can boot and it also contains a browser, digital 
> mode software, etc?
> 
> 
> The CD that Dave and Skip made available for FL-digi sure helped me.
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: HF and the Spotless Sun

[Dave Bernstein]

Bob NM7M's "Propagation 101, 201, 301" is another good introduction to this 
topic. I placed a copy in this group's Files area.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tony  wrote:
>
> All, 
> 
> Interesting read about solar output and HF propagation by Paul Harden, NA5N. 
> 
> Tony -K2MO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul wrote: 
> 
> 
> During the quiet sun, solar flux in the 60-100 range is typical. During the 
> active sun, 150-200 is typical. The higher the solar flux, the more ionizing 
> radiation that is striking our ionosphere, producing free electrons that 
> stratify into the D, E and F layers. The more free electrons in the E and F 
> layers, the more reflective they are to HF frequencies and the higher the 
> MUF. Right now, with solar flux in the 60-100 range, the E and F layers are 
> poorly ionized, yielding a lower MUF and not acting as a very good mirror for 
> bouncing HF signals back to earth. Very generally, when the solar flux is 
> around 100, 15M will be open; above 150 10M will be open. Below 100, 20M will 
> usually die shortly after sunset. IMPORTANT: The MUF seldoms drops below 
> 10MHz. 
> 
> Therefore, the solar flux has very little effect on 30, 40 and 80M 
> propagation. These bands are fairly immune from the solar flux and the 
> 11-year solar cycle. Magnetic disturbances on the sun produce sunspots 
> (cooler areas). Occassionally, the magnetic field lines of the disturbance(s) 
> grow to such an intensity that it produces a small hole in the solar surface, 
> allowing hot solar mass to escape. 
> 
> This is a SOLAR FLARE. While this hole is present (usually in the order of 
> minutes to tens of minutes), energetic electrons and ionozing radiation (that 
> is, x-rays and sometimes gamma rays) are allowed to escape. This, of course, 
> quickly increases the overall radiation output of the sun. The ionozing 
> radiation, when it strikes the earth 8 minutes later, will ionize the E and F 
> layers, making them more reflective to HF and raise the MUF, usually for the 
> rest of the day until local sundown. The radiation from especially strong 
> flares can penetrate into our ionosphere to the D-layer. When the D-layer is 
> highly ionized, it becomes very absorptive to HF signals, and in extreme 
> cases, can produce a temporary HF blackout. Most flares will not appreciably 
> increase the daily solar flux; therefore, the solar flux alone is not a good 
> indicator following a flare to increased E and F layer reflectivity (and 
> hence, good skip DX). As the number of sunspots increases, there is a higher 
> chance of solar flares, and the daily solar flux tends to increase. However, 
> there is *no* direct mathematical relationship between sunspot count and the 
> solar flux. They follow the same trend when plotted, but no one can say 10 
> sun spots equals xxx solar flux units. The solar flux will vary from a 
> minimum to maximum value over 28-days, related to the solar rotation. It also 
> varies from minimum to maximum over the 11-year solar cycle. Thus, it is a 
> slowly varying indicator that is used to show the general trend of the sun 
> for the current 28-day cycle, and for the current solar cycle. It is not used 
> for an hourly or daily predictor. Propagation programs use solar flux values 
> primarily for calculating the MUF and what bands will be open, or closed, at 
> different times of the day. When a solar flare occurs, it often produces a 
> shockwave carrying electrons and other solar mass away from the sun. This is 
> called a coronal mass ejection or CME. 
> 
> If the solar flare is located towards the center of the sun (as opposed to 
> the limbs or edges), the trajectory of the shockwave will intercept with the 
> earth, usually about 50-55 hours later. When this happens, the shockwave will 
> compress the Earth's geomagnetic field, triggering a GEOMAGNETIC STORM, 
> generating huge electric currents flowing along the Earth's magnetic field 
> lines, causing increased noise levels. IMPORTANT: This effect is more 
> pronounced on the lower frequencies, such that 30M, 40M, 80M are more 
> effected by the "noise storm" than is 20, 15 and 10M. The amount of 
> "wiggling" or disturbance to our magnetic field is the K-Index. It is 
> measured every 3 hours to show what the present state of our geomagnetic 
> field is. K=1 to 3 is fairly quiet to unsettled. Higher numbers (K>4) is a 
> geomagnetic storm. K>7 is a severe to extreme storm. 
> 
> The K-Indices throughout the day are averaged over the UTC day to form the 
> A-Index. It basically tells you what our geomagnetic field did YESTERDAY. It 
> is usually expressed as the "Ap," or planetary A-index, being averaged over 
> 24 hours and from all the reporting stations. 
> 
> THEREFORE, the SOLAR FLUX tells you the general radiation output of the sun. 
> But, don't expect it to make a sudden jump to open up 15 or 10M. That takes 
> years ... or an M or X-

[digitalradio] Re: Factual information on SCAMP

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W  wrote:

>snip<

The administrator at Winlink 2000 does not support busy frequency
detection of their existing system and has publicly stated this with the 
rationale that malicious operators would shut down their e-mail system. It does 
seem a bit difficult to believe that there are that many individuals spending 
their time interfering in this manner.

>>>Any operator who intentionally QRMs another signal is violating the 
>>>fundamental spirit of amateur radio, and likely the regulations governing 
>>>amateur radio in his or her country; there is simply no excuse for this kind 
>>>of behavior.

>>>Deploying a system of PMBOs that are guaranteed to QRM in-progress QSOs, and 
>>>then refusing to install busy frequency detectors to eliminate this 
>>>interference on the grounds that those angered by the QRM would retaliate is 
>>>ridiculous. It translates to "we're going to keep QRMing because if we stop, 
>>>we'll be QRM'd by those we offended". This approach guarantees that the 
>>>problem will not only continue, but get worse. Recent reports indicate that 
>>>that the ranks of radio amateurs worldwide are increasing; my guess is that 
>>>the ranks of digital mode operators are increasing disproportionately with 
>>>respect to more traditional modes. 

>>>Busy frequency detectors can and should be disabled during emergencies, so 
>>>even if there were some unfortunate anti-Winlink QRM after busy-detectors 
>>>were deployed, it would not interfere with WinLink's avowed primary mission.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?

[Dave Bernstein]

I understand, Jose. My question is whether the "inner tones" -- the ones 
between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones -- contribute to the bandwidth 
if their magnitudes are identical to those of the lowest and highest tones.

Asked another way, is the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 4-tone FSK greater than 
the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 2-tone FSK? (where the 1 khz is the frequency 
difference between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones). Based on the 
superposition approach suggested by an earlier poster, one would suspect that 
the inner tones make little contribution to bandwidth unless the tones are 
spaced quite closely.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador"  wrote:
>
> 
> Not exactly. You must add the upper and lower keying sidebands spacing 
> to the upper and lower tones to get an aproximate idea of the occupied 
> bandwidth. The sidebands lie at half the signalling speed around the 
> carriers, and the keying harmonics, whose level and width depends on the 
> modulation index, which is quite large with 1 kHz shift. The Carson Rule 
> gives an approximate answer. The exact answer could be found by Fourier 
> analysis. A simple way to get an answer may be using PSpice or LTSpice,
> for those willing to use a simulation package.
> 
> The simplistic answer is at least 1300 Hz: 150 + 1000 + 150, 
> disregarding higher order sidebands. With such a large shift to keying 
> rate, the occupied bandwidth will be larger than the simplistic, on the 
> fky answer.
> 
> Maybe some people won't bother with Fourier analysis, Bessel 
> coefficients, simulation software or even simple math and just mimic it 
> with MixW and a loopback to some PC based spectrum analyzer. I would use 
> Spectran. Spectrum Lab should be OK too. The carriers should be as high 
> as possible to avoid the lower sideband spectrum foldover.
> 
> For those that would like to give it a try with a radio, I would use a 
> SDR and not a transceiver with an IF crystal filter to find a true 
> answer. Beware of nonlinearities that might broaden the signal.
> 
> It would be interesting to read about some practical replies to that 
> question.
> 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---
> 
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 
> > In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum
> > magnitudes, then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be
> > identical that of binary (2-tone) FSK with a shift whose value is
> > difference in frequency between the highest and lowest tones in the
> > ensemble?
> 
> 
> VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y 
> Educación Energética
> 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones
> ...Por una cultura energética sustentable
> www.ciercuba.com
>

[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks Jim -- your result is within 10% of what's predicted by the formulae in 
the paper Bonnie cited, which considered a few more factors.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni"  wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > To repeat my first question, "What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose
> > shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud?
> > Feel free to parametize as necessary."
> > 
> Using the approximation I just posted, treat it as a pair of
> on-off keyed carriers 1 KHz apart.  For 300 baud the dot-cycle
> frequency is 150 Hz, the frequency of a square wave made up of
> 1010101010...  So you're going to have the first pair of
> sidebands at 150 Hz each side of the carrier, or a total width
> of 1300 Hz, with a big hole in the middle.  Then depending on
> signal shaping you'll have the higher-order sidebands in there,
> the third harmonic at 450 Hz each side of the carrier for a
> total width of 1900 Hz.  With random signals rather than the
> square wave the general shape of the spectrum will be filled in
> under the shape of the square wave signal.
> 
> Or you can answer the question experimentally by generating such a
> signal with your radio and looking at the waterfall or spectrum
> display.
> 
> Jim W6JVE
>

[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?

[Dave Bernstein]

In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum magnitudes, 
then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be identical that of binary 
(2-tone) FSK with a shift whose value is difference in frequency between the 
highest and lowest tones in the ensemble? 

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"  
wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
> 
> There is no simple universal relationship between 
> the "shift" and the transmitted "signal bandwidth", 
> because there are so many factors other than "shift" 
> that contribute to the bandwidth of an "FSK" signal:
> 
> 1. Symbol rate
> 2. Shape of waveform
> 3. Symbol transition point
> 4. Filtering
> 5. Number of tone frequencies
> 6. Transmitter chain
> 7. Other factors related to modulation process
> 8. Noise
> 9. Transmitter oscillator spectral purity 
> 10. Definition of bandwidth 
> 
> This is an especially complex calculation for 
> multiple frequency FSK signals, commonly 
> 4-ary FSK, 8-ary FSK, 16-ary FSK, 32-ary FSK etc. 
> where the number of shift frequencies is greater 
> than 2, or the number of carriers is greater than 1.
> 
> The FCC rule says "maximum frequency shift of 
> 1 kilohertz between mark and space." But, 
> that FCC rule was written in the old days when 
> common ham RTTY was Frequency Shift Keyed between 
> only 2 frequencies, technically described by 
> "mark and space". However, in modern multiple 
> tone frequency shift techniques, with binary 
> symbols there is no such thing as "mark and space".
> Thus, the rule became inapplicable to the new 
> multiple frequency shifting keying modes. 
> 
> When the FCC was asked to convert from "shift 
> limit" to "bandwidth limit", the FCC refused, 
> and at the same time, FCC said it had chosen not to 
> limit bandwidth because it is important for 
> ham radio to have the freedom to innovate and 
> develop new techniques. 
> 
> Thus, the mark and space shift limit became a 
> mere footnote in history that largely does not 
> affect most modern digital techniques used in 
> ham radio today.
> 
> If you wish to delve into the finer math points 
> of relationship between bandwidth and shift, may 
> I suggest reading Section 6 (starting on page 37) 
> of this fine document:
> "Necessary Bandwidth and Spectral Properties of 
> Digital Modulation" by David J. Cohen:
> http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/ntia-rpt/84-168/84-168.pdf
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> > Andy K3UK wrote
> > -Bonnie, can you explain to this bozo what the 
> > difference between a "shift" restriction and 
> > "bandwidth" restriction would be?  My brain 
> > viewed them to be the same, that is that a 
> > 170Hz shift would be roughly that amount 
> > of Hz wide at the usual ham speed. 
> >
>

[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks, Bonnie.

According to the formulae presented in table 2 on page 49 of the document you 
cite below, binary (2-tone) FSK with a maximum shift of 1 kHz and a maximum 
symbol rate of 300 baud would require a maximum bandwidth of 2011 hz. for any 
practical modulation index (i.e. less than 20).

§97.307(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."

While §97.307(f)(3) does not directly specify a maximum bandwidth, a maximum 
bandwidth for 2-tone FSK can be computed from the parameters that §97.307(f)(3) 
does specify: specifically, 2011 hz.

Thus the statement "There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction on HF for 
frequency-shift keying, though there could be debate about what mark and space 
mean for FSK modes with more than 2 tones" is in fact correct.

It would be logical to assume that for n-tone FSK, "mark" and "space" refer to 
the highest and lowest tones of the ensemble respectively, meaning that that 
maximum bandwidth for n-tone FSK with a maximum shift of 1 kHz and a maximum 
symbol rate of 300 baud would also be 2011 hz -- but this is speculative until 
ruled upon.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"  
wrote:
>
> > Dave AA6YQ wrote:  
> >  Please identify the significant factors...
>  
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Some of the answers you seek are in a previous 
> message:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/30581
> 
> I will leave the rest up to you to determine.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams

[Dave Bernstein]

This is not a productive interaction, Bruce. I disagreed with someone who 
insisted that others operate as he did, and you come back with "Same old stuff 
its digital or the highway", a complete non sequitur.

We're done.

73,


Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon  wrote:
>
> Your response above does not clarify your original post; if anything, it 
> increases the ambiguity
>  
> NO IT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION .
>  
> Same old stuff its digital or the highway .
>  
> Have a nice day 
>  
> Bruce
>

[digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon  wrote:

EVEN the arrl is calling us LEGACY modes .. the excuse is it is used in 
industry for anolog modes.
  
Now It seems to me that if they want to matain members and digital; want to win 
people over this is not going to help ..

>>>You still haven't answered my question; what are "Legacy mode users"?

>>>Your response above does not clarify your original post; if anything, it 
>>>increases the ambiguity. 

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



> --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Dave Bernstein  wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Dave Bernstein 
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 10:25 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
> 
> --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, bruce mallon  wrote:
> 
> > I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of "everyone should 
> > operate the way I do". While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we 
> > are free to ignore it.
>  
> Hummm 
>  
> Then you oppose using LEGACY mode users when talking about CW and SSB ham's ?
> 
> >>>I don't know what you mean by "LEGACY mode users", and even if I did, I 
> >>>still wouldn't understand your question. Please elaborate.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

[digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, bruce mallon  wrote:

> I strongly disagree. Your post is just another variant of "everyone should 
> operate the way I do". While you are free to espouse this philosophy, we are 
> free to ignore it.
  
Hummm 
 
Then you oppose using LEGACY mode users when talking about CW and SSB ham's ?

>>>I don't know what you mean by "LEGACY mode users", and even if I did, I 
>>>still wouldn't understand your question. Please elaborate.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W  wrote:

Considering that RTTY, the oldest digital mode (not counting morse code which 
goes back to spark), is still one of the most common modes, and PSK31 is the 
most common of the newer modes, it appears that there is only a small interest 
in any new digital technology.  

>>>It seems to me that the rapid uptake of PSK31 by the worldwide amateur 
>>>community represents a significant interest, not a small interest. 


When I ask other hams why they don't do digital, (which is most hams), some 
indicate they don't want to do anything with interfacing their computer or they 
don't type and have no interest in such things. As a promoter of digital modes 
at least I am on the schedule for our local ham club to do a digital 
presentation next November, so you can see it is not exactly high priority, HI. 

>>>I have given several presentation about digital modes to local radio clubs, 
>>>and there was quite a bit of interest expressed. But perhaps only those 
>>>interested in digital modes chose to attend.

 
The HF Digital Procol Survey done by Paul, W4RI, Chief Technology 
Officer Officer of ARRL, suggested that:
 
- few hams were interested in this information as the results were 
shockingly low ... only 83 of us responded between the Request for 
Information date of Feb 22, 2007 and July 2007. Very telling.
 
- many of the responses were non-technical comments, although supportive of 
ARRL's initiative to develop new non-proprietary HF protocols
 
- but he did indicate that some hams did not seem to support ARRL being 
involved in such an endeavor and instead use existing protocols

- there were were widely varying views on whether OFDM or single tone 
modems were the best choice.
 
- In other words there was not a lot of consensus that came out of the RFI from 
a technical perspective. There was consensus on any new 
developments being OS neutral and independent of having a specific 
hardware platform.
 
Bottom line was that is an interest in new non-proprietary modes, but no 
specific direction for the actual technical features. He felt that there was a 
small but growing interest in MIL-STD HF protocols including ALE, but 
realistically this does not seem to reflect the majority of digital interest on 
discussion groups or on the air.

One thing not mentioned was that MIL-STD-188-110(x) type modes primarily focus 
on single tone modems with high baud rates that are not legal here in the U.S. 
HF ham bands (at least not in the RTTY/Data portions), so 39 tone parallel 
modems would need to be used and some felt OFDM may not be the best choice. 

In the final analysis, it is fair to say that there was no groundswell of 
interest, no consensus of specific technology, that came out of the RFI so it 
may be a dead issue.

>>>Consensus as a prerequisite for innovation is silly. My impression is that 
>>>this "committee to design a protocol" was a canard aimed at calming the 
>>>roiled "automatic stations that don't listen before transmitting" waters. 
>>>I've followed up with Dave K1ZZ to see what he has to say about this 
>>>committee's results.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams

[Dave Bernstein]

The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations 
that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has 
nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular mode 
(Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as you say there's a 
lot of misinformation being propagated.

Its particularly disgusting when the defenders of "transmitting without 
listening" characterize any criticism of it as "anti-innovative". In point of 
fact, the application of 3-year old technology would largely mitigate the 
problem.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"  
wrote:
>
> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? 
>  
> Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity 
> and misinformation being spouted about various 
> digital modes and methods by those who profess 
> to be proponents of digital ham radio? 
>  
> Why is it necessary for a person who advocates 
> some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean 
> and nasty against another flavor? 
> 
> I ask these questions, because I've watched so many 
> positive people and technology innovators driven 
> away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham 
> radio forums. 
> 
> Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this.
> QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices 
> of some of the most positive and beneficial 
> individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a 
> rough place to begin with, but aren't the same 
> individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing  
> the same thing here on digitalradio? 
> 
> If we let the negative people control the level 
> of discourse in forums for discussion, where will 
> this lead the future of ham radio digital? What 
> have we already lost in digital technlogy? What 
> will we lose in the future?
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

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

Again, this would substantiate  Dave AA6YQ's statement a year or so ago, that 
almost all digital mode users on HF are PSK and RTTY active,  and that other 
digital are so under utilized that their presence illustrates a insignificant 
sub-group of hams (my words not Dave's). 

>>>If I recall correctly, the context for that still-true assertion was a 
>>>discussion of what it would take to create new digital modes as effective as 
>>>PSK31 with panoramic reception in gaining traction with the amateur 
>>>community. Clearly lots of experimentation is required; PSK31 didn't spring 
>>>up out of nowhere. While many modes being developed will clearly never gain 
>>>broad adoption, the effort may still be worthwhile for the experience, or to 
>>>satisfy a niche requirement.

>>>Awhile back, the ARRL announced an effort led by then CTO Paul W4RI to 
>>>develope a "new protocol". W4RI has subsequently retired. Does anyone know 
>>>whether this "new protocol" effort remains alive, and if so what progress it 
>>>is making?

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

 
73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

None of those 1500 QSOs were made with ALE, Skip. Most of them were made within 
a 2-week interval.

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty"  wrote:
>
> > I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
> > "expeditionradio"  wrote:
> 
> 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? 
> 
> Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about?
> 
> Wow! That is just unbelievable!
> 
> At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous 
> operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in 
> a week, or WAS in just a couple of days.
> 
> How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at...
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
>

[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

Please explain how "trying it" would reveal how many amateur QSOs are typically 
made each month.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ



I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
"expeditionradio"  wrote:
>
> > Dave, AA6YQ wrote: 
> > Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically 
> > initiated each month? 
> 
> Why not try it and see?
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

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

> Andy K3UK wrote: 
> Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! 
> Just rambling,  73 de Andy K3UK
  
Hi Andy,
 
As the defacto global standard for initiating and sustaining HF comms, ALE 
isn't affected by "ham radio digital flavor of the month" :)

>>>I wonder what fraction of amateur radio QSOs are initiated and sustained 
>>>with ALE. Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each 
>>>month? Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typicaly initiated with ALE 
>>>each month?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Soundcard Tuner for Programs - Wanted.

[Dave Bernstein]

QuickMix 

http://www.ptpart.co.uk/quickmix/

 73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey 
& Rochelle"  wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> 
> I believe I saw a small program out there that would allow you to 
set the different levels for a soundcard for different software 
packages.
> The problem I have is I am running HRD with DM-780, MMSSTV and 
MMTTY, and each of these have slightly different soundcard settings 
for RX and TX, but mainly the TX side.
> For one setting I get either too much or too little drive to the 
radio.
> I understand this program will let me set the different levels for 
each program.
> 
> Regards for your help
> 
> Kevin, ZL1KFM.
> 
>  
> Get Skype and call me for free.
>

[digitalradio] Re: SignalLink Help

[Dave Bernstein]

You don't say what software you are using, but perhaps you have the 
transmit data inverted with respect to the receive data.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond Lunsford" 
 wrote:
>
> What could be that I can transmit but the recieved data is not what
> was sent?Ray,K4YDI,Al.
> 
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Dave Bernstein  wrote:
> > Seems like an epidemic of Signalink "can't transmit" posts across 
the
> > net today. When you direct your digital mode software to transmit,
> > does the Signalink's PTT LED illuminate?
> >
> > From the "Common Problems" section of the SignaLink FAQ in
> > <http://www.tigertronics.com/slusbts.htm> :
> >
> >
> > 2. Radio won't transmit (SignaLink USB's PTT indicator is OFF) -
> >
> > - Verify that the SignaLink USB's PWR LED is ON. If it is not, 
then
> > make sure that the SignaLink USB's PWR switch is pressed in and 
the
> > USB cable is securely connected to the computer and the SignaLink.
> >
> >
> > - Verify that your communications program is configured to use the
> > SignaLink USB's built-in sound card. The program should have "USB
> > Audio CODEC" selected as the sound card for both Transmit and 
Receive.
> >
> >
> > - Verify that the PLAYBACK volume controls for the SignaLink USB 
are
> > set according to the "Setting The Audio Levels" procedure. If they
> > are too low, then the SignaLink USB will NOT transmit.  See
> > the "Windows Issues" section if you find that the Windows
> > software "Speaker" volume control is changing on its own.
> >
> >
> > - If the SignaLink is plugged into a USB hub, verify that the hub 
is
> > a powered hub.  Non-powered hubs may not supply enough power for 
the
> > SignaLink to operate properly (Receive will work, but Transmit may
> > not).  See our SignaLink FAQ for more details on this.
> >
> >
> > 3. Radio won't transmit (SignaLink USB's PTT indicator is ON) - If
> > the SignaLink USB's PTT LED turns ON but the radio doesn't switch 
to
> > transmit, then you have most likely installed the PTT jumper
> > incorrectly on JP-1 (go back and double-check ALL jumpers!).  If 
the
> > SignaLink is attached to your radio's Data or Accessory Port, then
> > another possible cause is that your radio isn't configured 
properly
> > to use that port. Some radios require the radio to be set to
> > a "digital" mode such as "Packet", "User-u", "Digital-USB", etc.
> > Consult your radio manual and verify that your radio is in the
> > correct mode.
> >
> >   73,
> >
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n4hra"  wrote:
> >>
> >> I received a Signalink for Xmas and haveing some problems
> >> Computer OS: Vista
> >> Rig" Kenwood TS-2000
> >> Software: Digipan, HAmScope, DM7800
> >> I have set the sound card for each of the programs to: USB Audio
> >> and have it was the default
> >>
> >> I have no problem with the receive, but when xmitting the relay
> > clicks
> >> on the right back off, also I am getting no power from the rig.
> >>
> >> THe jumpers are set corectly
> >>
> >> Any Idea?
> >>
> >> Thank you
> >> Lew
> >> N4HRA
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: SignalLink Help

[Dave Bernstein]

Seems like an epidemic of Signalink "can't transmit" posts across the 
net today. When you direct your digital mode software to transmit, 
does the Signalink's PTT LED illuminate?

>From the "Common Problems" section of the SignaLink FAQ in
 :


2. Radio won't transmit (SignaLink USB's PTT indicator is OFF) -

- Verify that the SignaLink USB's PWR LED is ON. If it is not, then 
make sure that the SignaLink USB's PWR switch is pressed in and the 
USB cable is securely connected to the computer and the SignaLink.


- Verify that your communications program is configured to use the 
SignaLink USB's built-in sound card. The program should have "USB 
Audio CODEC" selected as the sound card for both Transmit and Receive.


- Verify that the PLAYBACK volume controls for the SignaLink USB are 
set according to the "Setting The Audio Levels" procedure. If they 
are too low, then the SignaLink USB will NOT transmit.  See 
the "Windows Issues" section if you find that the Windows 
software "Speaker" volume control is changing on its own.


- If the SignaLink is plugged into a USB hub, verify that the hub is 
a powered hub.  Non-powered hubs may not supply enough power for the 
SignaLink to operate properly (Receive will work, but Transmit may 
not).  See our SignaLink FAQ for more details on this.


3. Radio won't transmit (SignaLink USB's PTT indicator is ON) - If 
the SignaLink USB's PTT LED turns ON but the radio doesn't switch to 
transmit, then you have most likely installed the PTT jumper 
incorrectly on JP-1 (go back and double-check ALL jumpers!).  If the 
SignaLink is attached to your radio's Data or Accessory Port, then 
another possible cause is that your radio isn't configured properly 
to use that port. Some radios require the radio to be set to 
a "digital" mode such as "Packet", "User-u", "Digital-USB", etc.  
Consult your radio manual and verify that your radio is in the 
correct mode. 

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n4hra"  wrote:
>
> I received a Signalink for Xmas and haveing some problems
> Computer OS: Vista 
> Rig" Kenwood TS-2000
> Software: Digipan, HAmScope, DM7800
> I have set the sound card for each of the programs to: USB Audio
> and have it was the default
> 
> I have no problem with the receive, but when xmitting the relay 
clicks 
> on the right back off, also I am getting no power from the rig.
> 
> THe jumpers are set corectly
> 
> Any Idea?
> 
> Thank you
> Lew
> N4HRA
>

[digitalradio] Updated online help for MMTTY version 1.66F is now available

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks to Joe W4TV and Al VE4ABU, updated online help is now available 
and included in the release. Its also available independently via 



MMTTY 1.66F is available via 



73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Fldigi-DXKeeper gateway

[Dave Bernstein]

There are similar bridges to DXLab from MixW, MMTTY, MMVARI, and 
MMSSTV.

Rick N2AMG and Oba-san JA7UDE have been very active in knitting 
things together.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rick W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The ability to save logging to DXKeeper was important to me as I 
was 
> trying to only use one unified log from various digital programs 
and the 
> N2AMG Gateway provides that exact function! Thanks Rick.
> 
> Using Windows XP with fldigi and DXKeeper and the new Gateway seems 
to 
> work very well.
> 
> This allows me to use Multipsk, HRD/DM780, or fldigi and still 
maintain 
> the same master log.
> 
> Again, thanks so much for making this possible by working together 
with 
> other hams in a spirit of cooperation.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Ellison wrote:
> >
> > I have just uploaded the the gateway I wrote that will allow you 
to 
> > log contacts in Fldigi and have your contacts saved into DXKeeper 
of 
> > the DXLab suite.
> >
> >  
> >
> > It may be downloaded here: 
> > http://www.n2amg.com/files/Fldigi-DXKeeperGateway.zip
> >
> >  
> >
> > To use this Load Fldigi and DXKeeper and then load the gateway.
> >
> > For the correct frequency to be saved in DXKeeper the gateway 
expects 
> > Fldigi to have rig control.
> >
> > This will change in a future version of the gateway and 
connection to 
> > Commander and Fldigi will be possible.
> >
> > I will be writing this for Logger32 users also. But not until I 
can 
> > send frequency information to Fldigi (coming soon).
> >
> >  
> >
> > 73's Rick N2AMG
> >
> > Yahoo:n2amg
> >
> > Aim:n2amg
> >
> >  
> >
> > 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1624 - Release Date: 
8/20/2008 7:11 PM
> >
>

[digitalradio] MMTTY version 1.66F is available...

[Dave Bernstein]

MMTTY version 1.66F release note
2008-08-17


1. Changes to the "MMTTY Setup" window
==

A. "TX" tab

- renamed the "PTT" panel to "PTT & FSK" (tnx to Joe W4TV)

- added com8 through com16 to the "PTT & FSK" panel's "Port" selector

- clicking a button in the "Input Button" panel from a non-Japanese 
locale displays a window entitled "Edit Button" (tnx to Joe W


B. "Misc" tab

- the new "Device Identifiers" panel enables independent selection of 
soundcard devices for reception ("RX") and transmission ("TX"); any 
of 16 input and output soundcard devices can be selected (tnx to Gil 
W0MN and Joe W4TV)

- selecting an "RX" or "TX" device identifier in the "Device 
Identifiers" panel updates the respective "Reception" 
or "Transmission" panels shown on the new "Soundcard" tab


C. "Soundcard" tab (new)

- the "Reception" panel shows all installed soundcard input devices; 
selecting an input device updates the "RX" selector in the "Misc" 
tab's "Device Identifiers" panel

- the "Transmission" panel shows all installed soundcard output 
devices; selecting an output device updates the "TX" selector in 
the "Misc" tab's "Device Identifiers" panel



2. Changes to the "Radio Command" window


- added com8 through com16 to the "Port" selector

- added 38400 and 57600 to the "Baud" selector (tnx to Joe W4TV)

- named the selector in the lower-left corner "Group"

- modified the contents of the "Group" selector:

*** renamed the previous "Yaesu HF? (FT-1000MP,...)" entry to "Yaesu 
FT 1000D, 1000MP, 920"
 
*** renamed the previous "Yaesu VU? (FT-736,FT-847)" entry to "Yaesu 
FT 736, 817, 847, 857, 897"

*** added a "Yaesu FT 9000, 2000, 950, 450" entry (tnx to Joe W4TV 
and Art W2NRA)

*** renamed the previous "Kenwood" entry to "Kenwood, Elecraft" (tnx 
to Joe W4TV)

- renamed the "Commands" panel's "VFO Polling" selector to "Model", 
and added entries for the Yaesu FT 9000, 2000, 950, and 450 (tnx to 
Joe W4TV)



3. Other notes
==

A. As before, changes made to settings shown in the "Radio Command" 
and "MMTTY Setup" windows do not take effect until the window is 
closed by clicking its "OK" button.

B. To run MMTTY on Vista, either

- install it in a folder other than one in the "c:\program files" 
hierarchy

or

- log into the account named Administrator before installing or 
running MMTTY

C. 1.66F is a software-only upgrade, meaning that you must already 
have MMTTY installed. Updated online documentation is in progress; I 
will develop an installer for use with PCs that don't yet have MMTTY 
installed. If you want to install 1.66F on a PC that doesn't yet have 
MMTTY installed, first install version 1.65D, and then upgrade as 
described below.

D. To upgrade an existing MMTTY installation to 1.66F, download the 
zip archive from

http://www.dxlabsuite.com/MMTTY/mmtty166F.zip

The archive mmtty166F.zip contains two files:

mmtty.exe

and

1.66F.txt

Place mmtty.exe in your MMTTY folder, replacing the existing file, 
and then run it. 

The file 1.66F contains a copy of this release note.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "WD8ARZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As usual Rick you take comments and twist them to take off on a 
tangent and make personal put downs. 

>>>I didn't recall anything like this in Rick's recent posts, so I 
went back and reviewed them -- and didn't find any. 


Worse yet you make associations that were not made and not intended.

>>>What could possibly be wrong with proposing new ideas?


>snip<


As one of the testers of Scamp, its amazing you are still pushing in 
directions that are not being continued by the originators.

>>>What could possibly be wrong with pushing in directions not being 
continued by SCAMP's originators?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Frequencies for digital modes

[Dave Bernstein]

Bonnie suggested two URLs:

1. http://bandplans.com/

2. http://hflink.com/bandplans/

The first starts out by saying

"this site is not intended as any kind of recommendations for the 
band usage. It merely records the users of the amateur HF bands & 6 
meters. Some band usage is controversial. Our job is not to make 
judgement either ways... if there are multiple users for certain 
frequencies, we will happily record both of them. Our rule of thumb 
is: if you can hear QSOs on those frequencies, we will happily accept 
an entry."

While this site contains information that is useful in the band 
planning process, its not a bandplan.

Bonnie's second URL provides links to many band plans. One of those 
links is to the IARU region 2 bandplan:

http://www.hflink.com/bandplans/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008
.pdf

This is dated 2008-01-01, as states "It is suggested that Member 
Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in 
their regulations and promote it widely with their radio amateur 
communities." 

However, this URL's link to the "ARRL new proposal..." is to a 
bandplan proposal that the ARRL has withdrawn:

http://hflink.com/bandplans/ARRLBandwidthBasedProposalCharts.pdf


The current ARRL bandplan is available via

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

73,

Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kc4cop996" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alan:
> 
> I've been attempting to establish a list of a suggested frequencies 
> to be used with the various digital modes in Region-Two for quite 
> some time.  I found bits and pieces of several of the HF bands have 
> been set aside for RTTY and PSK 31.  It appears that everyone 
accepts 
> to 14.0700 MHz as the frequency for PSK 31.. further action in 
> developing digital band plans seems to stop at this point.  I have 
> seen several lists that appear to be well thought out.  The problem 
> seems to be that after the lists are compiled nothing is done with 
> them.
> 
> A post to you from Bonnie, VR2/KQ6XA,  contains what I think is a 
> very comprehensive plan.  I would love to say "I vote f will move 
or 
> this", "amen", "put it into action".  I do not feel that assignment 
> of the digital sub bands needs approval of any type of committee or 
> radio official. If this afternoon we say, Bonnie's suggested plan 
is 
> approved, and each of us immediately put the plan into action 
through 
> our operations on the bands, by spreading the concept by word-of-
> mouth, and publication of the band plan on amateur radio oriented 
> websites and we would have a working digital band plan by the end 
of 
> August. 
> Can I get any amen's for this? If so-let her rip.Alan:
> Dick Zseltvay, KC4COP
> 
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan NV8A  wrote:
> >
> > Is there a list of generally accepted HF frequencies for digital 
> modes 
> > in Region 2 somewhere?
> > 
> > 73
> > 
> > Alan NV8A
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Dave Bernstein]

One use of split frequency operation is to spread a DX station's 
callers out over a range of frequencies that does not include the DX 
station's frequency. This enables the DX station to more rapidly work 
callers (because they don't overlap each other as much, and because 
the DX station's transmissions are clearly heard by all callers).

The width of the split depends on the bandwidth of the mode and the 
size of the pileup. A typical CW split might be "up 1 to 2" (KHz); 
whereas a typical RTTY split might be "up 3 to 6". Some DX stations 
allow their pileups to become too wide, risking QRM to ongoing QSOs; 
this is poor operating practic.

I have only participated in a few intentionally split PSK QSOs; as I 
recall, the split was a few hundred Hz. Some PSK QSOs are 
unintentionally split, meaning that the two stations are transmitting 
and receiving on frequencies offset by a few hertz. This can be 
caused by soundcard problems, or by incorrect use of AFC and Net when 
establishing the QSO; most PSK applications enable you to compensate 
for the former.

For a good introduction to PSK, Google

introduction to PSK

This will provide hyperlinks to several tutorials, including 
some "here's how" videos on You Tube.

You'll find that PSK operators will warmly welcome you to their 
ranks; while in QSO, don't hesitate to ask questions.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill Lovell wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 
operators have 
> > ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more 
reason 
> > that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for 
serious 
> > DX work.
> > 
> > 73,
> > Bill
> > 
> 
> I have never tried PSK31. I have no equipment yet but I am very 
> interested in learning. What is the reason for split operation and 
how 
> wide is the split?
> 
> Alan
> 
> -- 
> W8OAJ - Chaplain (CPT) O. Alan Jones, USAR - Fort Bliss, TX
> http://exwn8jef.googlepages.com/home
> http://w8oaj.blogspot.com
>

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Dave Bernstein]

Most PSK operators are interested in rag-chewing rather than DXing, 
which does make it difficult for a DX station to achieve a reasonable 
rate in PSK. When operating from a DX location, I operate PSK to take a 
break between CW and RTTY pileups.

The ability to decode many independent transmissions within one's 
transceiver passband makes PSK in theory more effective for DXing than 
any other mode we now have; its more effective than split frequency 
operation because decoding multiple callers simultaneously assures that 
you always have a station to call -- so your rate is continuous. But 
its rare for there to be enough DXers QRV to sustain this rate for any 
significant length of time.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators 
have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more 
reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for 
serious DX work.
> 
> 73,
> Bill
>

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
"expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Dave, AA6YQ wrote,
>> The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 
>> once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped 
>> PCs became available.
  
>> When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake 
>> to blame the dogs... 
 
A more accurate "ham radio dogfood" analogy would go like this:
"I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me 
along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies 
were eaten by the wolves."

>>>Most innovative new ideas are vigorously attacked, Bonnie -- 
unless they are so obviously flawed or irrelevant that they are just 
ignored. In the domain of engineering, these attacks are an essential 
part of the process by initial concepts become pragmatic solutions. 
The successful innovator not only tolerates such criticism, he or she 
actively solicits it. In today's web 2.0 speak, this is "the wisdom 
of crowds"; 50 years ago, it was "if you can't stand the heat, get 
out of the kitchen".

 
Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid
20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same 
keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature 
like your example of "panoramic reception" software to spice up an 
old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of 
operation... still RTTY :)

>>>This paragraph exposes a passel of personal prejudices, Bonnie. It 
also contains a solid helping of guilt by association, reminiscent of 
Professor Howard Hill's warning against the game of Pool "which 
starts with P which rhymes with T which stands for Trouble". Just 
because PSK31 offers real-time keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs doesn't mean 
that its users are stuck in the 1950s any more than the use of 
cellphones for real-time voice communication means that most of the 
world's population is stuck in the 1920s. 

>>>Your dismisal of panoramic reception as "cute" misses a critical 
point. Peter G3PLX's initial PSK31 implementations -- the first of 
which required special purpose hardware, and the second of which ran 
on a PC but was difficult to use -- achieved little in the way of 
adoption. It was the addition of panoramic reception that pushed 
PSK31 past the tipping point of broadscale adoption. Would the 
addition of panoramic reception to RTTY have pushed RTTY into broad 
scale usage? Probably not (we can discuss this on another thread, if 
there's interest). The non-linear positive results generated from an 
effective implementation of just the right ideas are sought after in 
many domains; the Douglas DC3 aircraft is a oft-cited example of the 
same effect in aeronautics. Anyone interested in the acceptance of 
innovative new ideas for broad acceptance by the amateur radio 
community would be well served to understand this effect, rather than 
write off an essential ingredient as "cute".


But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing 
the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we 
operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or 
how existing hams are using modes. 
 
The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been
considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public
attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. 

>>>You mistake criticism of new ideas for bad attitude. The rapid 
adoption of PSK31 by the amateur community proves that it presents no 
impenetrable obstacles to the uptake of good ideas and useful 
technologies when implemented in a useable manner. However, bad ideas 
and flaws in good ideas will be mercilessly exposed, -- as they must 
be if the process of innovation is to succeed.


A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. 
If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first 
generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of 
web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to 
keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. 

>>>Yes, wistfullness can be a problem. Normally this dies off with 
each generation of users, but licensing requirements can prolong the 
agony by an extra generation. It means that new innovations must be 
incrementally more useful and valuable to overcome generational 
friction. PSK met this challenge, and SDR appears to be well on its 
way. Hand-wringing over the fact that it isn't as easy as it ought to 
be is a distraction from the work at hand.


After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and 
allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went 
the next wave of youngsters. 

>>>WinLink was and is attacked on solid technical grounds: its 
unattended stations transmit on frequencies already in use, 
interfering with ongoing QSOs. The defense of WinLink has been a 
perfect example of anti-innovative behavior -- rather than 
acknowl

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Dave Bernstein]

The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic 
reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available.

Given this rapid transition, it seems unlikley that the amateur 
community then shifted gears en amsse and refused to consider all  
subsequent advances in digital mode technology.

The more likely explanation is that, from the community's 
perspective, none of the subsequent advances in digital mode 
technolgy have to this point offered sufficient new appeal/value to 
motivate a broad transition from PSK31.

When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the 
dogs...

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ 



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
"expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When was the last time you talked to a teenage ham on HF digital? 
> 
> If you are a ham in a Western country, more than 35 or 40 years old,
> it is likely that you are last of the generations of active hams in
> your country. 
> 
> Look around, there are very few new young hams. 
> 
> Right now, I'm seeing a rapid increase in active hams in China...
> possibly the only country in the world where this is happening...
> mostly due to the recent relaxing of chinese Amateur Radio 
regulations
> and the huge number of people in high tech professions. Because most
> hams in China are not influenced by the english-speaking world of 
ham
> nay-sayers, the new wave of young Chinese hams have a vibrant
> experimental attitude, a good grasp of new technology, and they are
> active on the air.
> 
> If hams in The West are to attract new young ham operators (or even
> maintain the existing hams younger than 30 years old), we need to
> start by changing the public attitude a lot of the older hams have
> toward those who are adopting new digital technologies. 
> 
> Will we graduate beyond PSK31 and keyboarding before this generation
> dies off? Or will we stagnate, to the point of oblivion, a footnote 
in
> history?
> 
> Will Amateur Radio lose its spectrum simply by default, due to
> inevitable inactivity after this generation is gone? I'm already
> seeing it happening... the ham bands are being taken over by non-
hams
> in many parts of the world. The "pirates" or "government stations"
> simply get on and use the band without any concern... there are more
> and more of them every day. We have broadcasters and jammers on 20
> meters now (real high power AM shortwave broadcasters). 
> 
> All of 40 meters (including 7000-7100 kHz) and 80 meters has been
> taken over in most of Asia, Africa, and South America. They wouldn't
> be there if hams were actively occupying the frequencies already. 
> 
> Yet, regular activity on the ham bands is on the decrease. I've
> watched this happening over the 40 years I've been a ham. Sure, we
> have a few flurries of contest activity on the weekends (when the HF
> pirates are inactive). But, the sustained activity we once had, even
> 10 or 15 years ago is gone. And, it is not just due to the solar
> minimum :)
> 
> Young people simply do not stick around places where they see the
> status quo putting down creativity, innovation, and actively
> discouraging new technology.
> 
> QRZ.com and eham.net are flagship examples of this bad ham attitude 
on
> the web. Many young people get their first impressions of ham radio
> via the web, yes... even groups such as digitalradio and other
> yahoogroups... and hams posting videos on youtube. Stop and think 
for
> a second: What have you done on the web recently to encourage new
> operators?
> 
> Recently, ARRL started an outreach program via a Blog on the web, to
> encourage young people interested in ham radio. It is called "We Do
> That" and it has the right attitude. It enthusiastically covers a 
lot
> of new technology and creative innovation. 
> Click here: 
> http://wedothatradio.wordpress.com/page/2/
>  
> 
> 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
> 
> .
>

[digitalradio] Re: Some thoughts about PSK reporter and Winwarbler

[Dave Bernstein]

WOTA seemed equally promissing at the outset. If PSK Reporter 
demonstrates that it has legs and users ask me to support it, I will 
do so.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown \(Laptop\)" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Expect more reporting in the PSK Reporter over the next months, 
this is just 
> Philip's first bash. I myself did very little other than added a 
DLL. Philip 
> is a *very* professional developer, it's good to add someone to the 
fold.
> 
> Dave AA6YQ: It really is just a few hours work for a developer to 
add 
> support for the PSK Reporter, also it's not restricted to PSK.
> 
> Simon HB9DRV / GD4ELI
> 
> --
> From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > DX View's default map can be filtered to show stations heard from
> > specific continents whereas PSK Reporter cannot.
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Some thoughts about PSK reporter and Winwarbler

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Winwarbler's Stations Heard list is more "live" than PSK Reporter , it
displays the callsign heard almost instantly whereas PSK Reporter
takes 5 minutes.  Winwarbler's DX View can plot the Stations Heard in
PSK on to default world map within DX View, in some ways this is
easier and less RAM/CPU intensive that PSK Repoter. 
 
The Winwarbler/DXView/Spot Collector combination does not plot
stations OTHER people heard unless they posted the information to a DX
Cluster.  PSK Reporter in combination with Ham Radio Deluxe and DM780
will post information that other PSK stations are hearing, if they too
are using  PSK Reporter in combination with Ham Radio Deluxe and 
DM780.

>>>For this to work, ops must leave their transceiver sitting on one 
frequency monitoring a PSK band. I'll do this with WinWarbler's 
broadband decoder enabled so I can see who's QRV or so I can track a 
needed DX station that is QSYing between QSOs, but otherwise I am 
tuning around looking for interesting band openings.


DXView uses it's default map but also gives an option of using Google
maps. 

>>>DXView will also plot information on DXAtlas and MapQuest.


Winwarbler has many useful configuration possibilities for
Google Maps whereas PSK Reporter does not appear to have the same
options.  I'm not sure why the DX View default map plots the call
signs of received PSK31 signals but in Googlemaps it appears to plot
only one callsign at a time.  Maybe I have this wrong.

>>>You have it right, Andy. The purpose of plotting on a Google or 
MapQuest map is to provide more information about your current QSO 
partner -- an overhead satellite view of their town, or a street view 
showing their antenna, or driving directions. DXView's native world 
map and the DXAtlas maps are more appropriate for displaying and 
interacting with large numbers of plotted station locations. 

Winwarbler's Stations Heard feature lists signal quality and signal
strength.  DM780 gives you some of this information but it does not
get displayed on PSK Reporter's Google maps 
 
I think PSK Reporter plots the location based on  grid square
extracted from an ongoing QSO, I think.  DXView appears to plot it's
map based on the administrative capital of the call area.

>>>The location information used by DXView comes from many different 
sources, using the following hierarchy:

1. previously-logged QSOs

2. location information extracted from cluster spot notes or provided 
by cluster nodes (if enabled)

3. the USAP database, which provides zipcode-granular location for 
all amateurs in the US and its posessions

4. a CD callbook (QRZ, HamCall, RAC) or QRZ.com

5. callsign analysis

 
Winwarbler displays the spot of a PSK station on the map along with
the VFO frequency PLUS the AF frequency, PSK Reporter appears to use
VFO frequency only.  

DXview is capable of dispaying "path lines" between two stations on
the default map.  PSK Reporter does not do this yet although I suspect
that it is possible.  

DX View's default map can be filtered to show stations heard from
specific continents whereas PSK Reporter cannot.

>>>You can also plotted spots by Band and Mode. The tabular spot 
database can be independently filtered by DXCX entity, Frequency, 
Band, Mode, and Origin. The Band filter lets you specify starting and 
ending times for each band; starting and ending times can be 
referenced to today's sunrise and sunset times (e.g. don't show me 
160m spots more than 30 minutes after my sunrise). The Band filter 
also lets you specify a maximum distance between the spotting station 
and your QTH on each band (e.g. don't show me 6m spots generated by 
stations in Florida).
 
73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?

[Dave Bernstein]

Its more likely that they know exactly what they are missing -- but 
don't believe its worth the extra cost to obtain it.

Furthermore, there are still quite a few KAMs and PK232s around; the  
incremental cost to their owners of running Pactor 1 would be very 
low -- and yet this mode is not frequently heard.

Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a telecommunications network 
is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system. I 
suspect that it also applies to digital modes. 

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Ok I'll jump in on this one just once.
> 
> I feel if such ARQ modes as Amtor or Pactor 1, 2 or 3 
> could be done via sound card.  Most modes would be dead
> by noon tomorrow.
> 
> But since they can't no need to go on.
> 
> Some will never know what they are missing.
> 
> 
> John, W0JAB
> Louisiana, Missouri
> EM48LK
>

[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I don't know if that would lead to a displacement of PSK31 so
much as it would an accomodation of other activities that PSK31
doesn't do well.  I mean, the lack of error detection/correction
and inability to convey files doesn't seem to bother the kind of
people who make up the majority of PSK31 users now.

>>>The absence of panoramic reception and AFC didn't bother the ops 
who were running RTTY before PSK31 became available either. But when 
PSK31 did become available, it provided these new features with no 
loss of previous (RTTY) functionality -- so ops began using it.

>>>A new protocol with all of PSK31's current virtues augmented by 
error correction and the ability to convey modest-sized files in real-
time would initiate a similar transition, I suspect. Given the broad 
availablility of inexpensive digital point-and-shoot cameras emitting 
already-compressed jpg files, exchanging pictures of one's shack 
and/or antennas would be pretty popular -- and a lot more interesting 
than most of today's brag tapes.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>snip<

2.  Log keeping, I don't want to have 10 different log files, I want 
to have one.  I use DXKeeper and WinWarbler and MultiPSK will 
interface to it, but I also run HRD/DM780, NBEMS, MixW, and several 
others that don't.

>>>DM780 and MixW both interface with DXLab; in particular, both can 
log directly to DXKeeper. 

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

  

[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?

[Dave Bernstein]

I don't believe that PSK31, PSK63, or RTTY are the best that can be 
done on HF-- but no protocol attractive enough to displace them has 
yet been developed. 

This remains an open challenge, not a closed book. Skip KH6TY's 
latest work seems promising...

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew 
O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe it is because I am getting irritated because of the pinched
> nerve in my neck, I'm thinking maybe I have just had enough of the
> plethora of digital modes.  Yes, it is K3UK saying that...the bloke
> that is always trying varying modes.
> 
> I tried calling CQ numerous times in the TARA Skirming using various
> "exotic" modes, but ZERO respondents.  No one answered Olivia CQ's, 
no
> one answered DominoEX CQ's, no Hell, and even no MFSK16 !
> 
> The only three modes that produced a response were PSK31, PSK63 and 
RTTY.
> 
> 
> Several months ago, I saw Dave AA6YQ make some comment about 
Winwabler
> not adding additional modes because (paraphrasing) RTTY and PSK31/63
> are effective and the others too under utilized to warrant 
inclusion.
> While I have really enjoyed many experimental modes and had  lots of
> fun testing, I think if I added up the time I have spent endlessly
> trawling the digital bands without results, I could have built a few
> more antennae, or added a few thousand more QSO via other modes. 
> Heck, my CW could be even more practiced.
> 
> 
> So, for the next few months I am going to detox,  and consolidate
> around the following modes.
> 
> PSK31/63 (125/250 on VHF/UHF)
> RTTY
> MEPT-WSPR (passive operations)
> Narrow SSTV/Digital SSTV
> HF JT65A
> ALE 400
> 
> 
> Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM,
> DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box.  They can join their
> counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and
> cassettes.  All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore.
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: Vista

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n7zxp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I have been sitting here reading all this things about Vista. Now 
lets go back to when XP was new. Everyone said and wrote all this 
stuff about XP. 

>>>That's not true, Lane. At birth, Windows XP was broadly praised 
for its stable kernel (inherited form NT), strong device support, and 
freedom from the architectural "resource exhaustion" defect in the 
Windows 9X family.

Before that it was Win98 and so on. I am heavy into 
the computer industry and a programmer. Most all of the people that 
write all this neg about Vista have no idea about what they are 
talking about.

>>>I spent days tracking down the runtime defect that results in the 
Vista File Manager completely corrupting the screen if an application 
updates its title bar with any frequency (e.g. to present the current 
UTC time). Fortunately, I'd recently met with the manager  
responsible for these runtimes and sent him a minimal faulting 
program; as a result, Microsoft issued a hotfix and (I hope) included 
the correction in SP1. The fact that his dad was a ham helped a 
little... 

>>>The change in the sound APIs that limits the use of PSKCORE and 
MMTTY is similarly cut-and-dried and indefensible violation of upward 
compatibility.


Vista is a good program and is superior to XP. 

>>>None of the "pillars of Longhorn" -- the key sources of end user 
value -- made it out the door in Vista. All that's left is Aero's eye 
candy and the immensely intrusive User Account Control (UAC). If 
Vista offered any significant advantages, enterprise adoption 
wouldn't be well below 5%, and Microsoft wouldn't be dropping the 
price a year after launch.


If people take the time to update drivers and software that is 
normaly free they would have no problems. But they would rather grip. 
I run MANY Ham related programs and have updated and no problems. The 
one's that are not updated yet are being worked on by the software 
makers.

>>>The technical and financial litmus test for an operating system is 
not "some programs work". Its *all* programs work.


The amount of work involved in a new OS is behond the comprihention 
of most all people. If you think this is wrong sit down right now and 
write a program that will play a simple card game. Now imagine what 
goes into a program as complex as Vista or XP.

>>>As an operating system, Vista is conceptually trivial; it 
implements nothing that wasn't well understood 30 years ago. Its 
complexity arises from the absence of a resilient architecture, long-
term accretion without refactoring, and a poor software software 
development process. All of these were and are avoidable. Microsoft 
finally appears to be addressing some of this with MinWin (see for 
example http://www.crn.com/software/202404947 ).


As far as he goverment  goes they are happy with Vista as they are he 
one's who requested to have all the security features in the Vista.

>>>Everyone wanted Microsoft to produce a more secure implementation 
of Windows. But UAC is so annoying that most users disable it. That's 
hardly progress.


Do you really think Bill Gates makes a new OS and does not talk to 
them as for as what they want. Think people... 

>>>Then how would you explain the extraordinarly low adoption rate of 
Vista by companies -- around 3% when last I checked. The primary 
driver for Vista adoption has been PC manufacturers bundling it with 
new models, much to their user's unhappiness. Microsoft has already 
extended the "XP is no longer available on new PCs" date by 6 months, 
and has dropped the price of Vista to encourage sales. If there were 
anything of compelling value in Vista, none of that would be 
necessary -- even with all of Vista's defects.


No matter who makes a new program knows it will have bugs.

>>>That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're a programmer and you 
think that way, then your work is practically guaranteed to  contain 
defects. 


They turn it lose on the public becouse instead of having just the 
Microsoft crew give reports they have the world. When people give 
reports on the OS they mke changes. Thats what a update is. If they 
did not do it this way we would all be using DOS. Would that not be 
fun. 

>>>That is not true. Had Microsoft used modern software engineering 
practice to build Windows, its engineers would be spending a far 
greater fraction of their time introducing useful new functionality 
onto a framework designed to accomodate it rather than chasing down 
thousands of defects after the fact, regression testing their fixes, 
and issuing patch releases week after week.  The cost of poor to the 
organization that produces and maintains it is enormous.

>>>You can't test quality into the kinds of applications we build 
today; the only way to build quality software at this scale is to 
establish high-performance teams, create a high-quality architecture, 
and use modern software engineering 

[digitalradio] Re: Logging for MultiPSK and DM780

[Dave Bernstein]

Re UDP servers, we established the "Amateur Radio Software 
Development" group a year ago to work out the details of this and 
other shared mechanisms, but it died from lack of interest. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arswd/

Remember?

I'll stick with DDE interfaces for now; they aren't elegant, but they 
work well enough to support an ecosystem of ~20 interoperating 
applications.

If a serious effort to define a common protocol for interoperation 
arises, I will certainly participate.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Maybe use DXKeeper from Dave AA6YQ? I know there are interfaces in 
DM780, 
> sure-ish that they exist in MultiPSK.
> 
> One idea I have thought about is for programs such as DXKeeper, 
DM780 etc. 
> to run UDP servers which allow other programs to send new QSO's for 
logging.
> 
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dave Flack, W6DLF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> >I go between MultiPSK and DM780.  What is the best/easiest way to
> > create a combined/common log?
>

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Dave Bernstein]

There are bridges that allow direct logging from MixW and DM780 to 
DXKeeper. MultiPSK interoperates directly with DXLab without the need 
for a bridge application, and works with SpotCollector as well as 
with DXKeeper and Commander.

   73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
> 
> The reason that many of us use Multipsk is because it really is the 
only 
> available program of its kind. No other program has all those modes 
> available in one program at any price. In addition, some of the 
modes 
> are specific to Multipsk and not available anywhere else. So if you 
want 
> to use these modes, you must use Multipsk even if there might be 
other 
> things about the program that you dislike. This is particularly 
true of 
> the FAE modes, the RSID system, and the constant development by 
Patrick. 
> No other developer has invented so many modes or tweaked existing 
modes.
> 
> Otherwise, it really is a Fords vs Chevy thing (as we might say 
here in 
> the U.S.:)  But even there, the answer is very easy as Chevy's are 
> almost always better:)
> 
> As time goes on, there will be more choices. The Ham Radio Deluxe 
> Program, which used to be limited to a PSK31 module, now has a full 
> blown digital add on (Digital Master 780) which is superior from an 
> interface and operational standpoint even when compared to programs 
that 
> cost money. It does seem to require some substantial computer power.
> 
> The flDigi (Linux) and VBDigi (Windows) programs along with flarq 
to 
> make up the NBEMS system has seen the addition of many of the most 
> commonly used modes and I can recommend this package.
> 
> If you are a DXer or contester, you may want to stay with one 
program 
> and really become proficient with its use. The issue of logging is 
also 
> a concern since having many different programs and combining logs 
is not 
> that easy. Multipsk has another feature that provides 
interoperability 
> with DXLab DX Keeper logging module, via the DXLab Commander 
module. For 
> those who use the ARRL LoTW this is likely important as I am not 
sure 
> how many other digital programs can do this.
> 
>  From a personal perspective, my long term goal is to move at least 
some 
> of my computing to Linux, not so much because I like Linux, but 
because 
> MS has made so many bad decisions with their current OS and the 
> explosive situation that is going to continue happening in 
developing 
> countries and other countires outside the U.S. with Linux adoption.
> 
> While I have not really considered reloading the Vista OS again 
using 
> the vLite program, (Vista is the easiest OS I have ever reloaded), 
I am 
> impressed that some of the top programming people at Microsoft have 
> admitted that Vista is bloated and Windows 7 is planned to have a 
very 
> big change in drastically slimming down. It appears that they will 
ask, 
> or are already asking programmers to think differently and use a 
> stripped down version of the new OS. However, this new OS is not 
planned 
> until 2010 so that likely really means 2015 or beyond.
> 
> Because the world is moving toward free and open software, 
including the 
> OS, Linux or something evolving from it is very likely in the long 
term. 
> That means that if you move some of your applications to the new 
OS, and 
> the programs you now use can not follow as native mode 
applications, you 
> must move to new ones. That is why almost all the programs my wife 
and I 
> use have moved or are moving toward open source/cross platform as 
much 
> as we can. We are probably too old really to be overly concerned, 
but 
> may we have another 10 or 20 years, you never know.
> 
> The two stumbling blocks for me
> 
> - the much better visual rendering that Vista does on my equipment, 
> which is slightly better than XP and much better than Linux at this 
time.
> 
> - the access to ham radio programs that are only available on MS 
Windows 
> at this time.
> 
> So for now I am going to primarily use the programs that have the 
modes 
> I want to use, or can legally use. If they become available on 
Linux as 
> a native mode someday, then that could change.
> 
> At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes 
in one 
> program and that is only available on MS Windows.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> Tooner wrote:
> >
> > I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's 
excellent
> > post of "Here's a rundown...".  What I haven't seen a reply that
> > answers the original question of "Any big fans of MULTIPSK that 
might
> > like offer why they use it?".  If it's the unique modes it offers,
> > what modes have you  successfully used?  If it's the layout, what 
do
> > you like about it compared to others?
> >
> > Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys.  We all have our 
tastes.  I
> > was trying to find out what others like.
> >
> > I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity.  It 

[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving 
the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really 
think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the 
problem". 

No I don't Dave.
But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from 
just what they have read and not seeing what it really is.

>>>My experience is that those ops who express a distaste for Pactor 
do so because they've been QRM'd by a Pactor signal. They incorrectly 
blame the protocol rather than the operator. Incorrect as this may 
be, the more Pactor is misused, the more it will be criticized. 


You as a programmer  has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad 
I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software 
around I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as 
digital. But I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the 
picture.

>>>WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, John, as well as Amtor, 
Pactor, RTTY, and CW via a modem -- not that this is relevant to the 
topic at hand.

But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and 
"anti-wide" thing going.

>>>No, there is not. You frequently make this statement, but without 
justification or evidence. The only "anti thing" going on is "anti-
QRM".

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving 
the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really 
think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the 
problem". 

No I don't Dave.

>>>Good! 

But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from 
just what they have read and not seeing what it really is.

>>>As we've discussed several times, this hatred is misplaced. It 
arises from the misuse of Pactor by those who employ it in unattend 
stations without busy frequency detectors becaue ops are QRM'd by 
those stations -- and its a Pactor signal doing the QRMing. As long 
as this abhorrent practice continues, the mode will be maligned -- 
unfairly, but that's just human nature. 

You as a programmer  has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad 
I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software 
around. I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as 
digital.  

>>>You are misinformed, John. WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, 
generates CW, and will work with most modems to provide run RTTY, 
Amtor, and the Pactor family. I have used it to monitor WinLink PMBOs 
with my SCS modem. WinWarbler can run soundcard RTTY and a RTTY modem 
(KAM, PK232, SCS, etc.) simultaneously, prividing point-and-click 
tuning with the ability to decode two RTTY QSOs simultaneously, or a 
RTTY DX station and his or her pileup, or one RTTY QSO twice 
(diversity decoding).


But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and 
"anti-wide" thing going.

>>>No, there is no "non-PSK " and  "anti-wide" thing going. You 
frequently say this, but without evidence or justification. The 
only "anti thing" going on is "anti-QRM from unattended stations 
without busy detectors". I don't know why you choose to frame this 
as "anti-wide"; that position has about as much basis in reality 
as "DXLab doesn't support RTTY".

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Dave Bernstein]

My attempt at installation failed with

NOTE: Now spawning the main Setup program 'Setup1.exe'

*** ERROR: Cannot start main setup program!  (CreateProcess() 
returned error code 0x0005H)

Did you customize Setup1?

Suggestions?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Should be http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. The k and h were transposed.
> 
> Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck Mayfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:38 PM
> Subject: 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/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/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
>

[digitalradio] Re: Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests

[Dave Bernstein]

15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half with European 
stations, all on 20m. There was an MFSK-16 station QRV that 
threatened my sanity; it wasn't the QRM, it was listening to 2 hours 
of that moronic "music" that made me feel like Red Buttons in "the 
Longest Day". MFSK-16 definitely deserves its own band segment, 
preferably with padded soundproof walls. Too bad Pactor III doesn't 
sound like that; Winlink would have had their own private band 
segment years ago. 

Patrick, the newest version of DXKeeper provides a sub-mode field; 
it'd be nice if MultiPSK would log things like the Olivia tone 
constellation there: APP_DXKEEPER_SUBMODE. Perhaps Simon and I can 
convince the ADIF development community to make this a standard field.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be.
> 
> The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions
> 
> Both Olivia and JT65A contests  were considered "tough".  Activity 
was
> , according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
> 
> Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up "  (There
> are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
> signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
> 
> Some folks mistook their local time for UTC time.
> 
> Several ZL's, VKs, and JA's on the JT65A contest
> 
> 
> 
> As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
> The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
> 
>  JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for 
conventional
> contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
> with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
> 
> Olivia should have been easier, I did see 4 QSO's taking place in
> Olivia 500/8 at the  same time on 40M, some die-hards stuck with 
500/4
> !
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my 
>focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter 
>what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that 
>banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it 
>in PMBOs would be like banning automobiles because some people drive 
>drunk. 

Dear Dave

Please let me know in which way do the PROPNET, ALE, HF packet BBSes,
HF APRS DIGIS, W1AW Broadcasts and the rest of the unattended systems
operating on the HF bands understand that there is a voice, cw,
digital QSO taking place on the frequency and if they stop their
transmission? As far as I know they all understand ONLY if there is
another station operating in the mode they USE and NO OTHER MODE.
 
So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR
AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM.

>>>Nowhere have I said that Pactor 3 is the only protocol being used 
in unattended stations without busy detectors, Demetre. I have said 
the exact converse, that such stations are unacceptable no matter 
what protocol they are using. The point of the paragraphy you quoted 
above is that we should NOT single out Pactor 3. The protocol is not 
the issue, its unattended stations without busy detectors IN ANY MODE.

There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming 
about.

>>>That's not true. Rich KN6KB -- a member of the WinLink team -- 
developed a very effective soundcard-based busy detector as part of 
the SCAMP project. This was a first attempt, and yet it exceeded 
everyone's expectations. Were the WinLink team interested in 
seriously reducing the QRM their PMBOs generate, they could add a 
soundcard to each PMBO and integrate Rick's busy detector; 
technically, this would be a very straightforward task and the cost 
of a soundcard these days is minimal. Winlink has had this busy 
detector in their possession for several years, and yet they have 
done nothing.
 
Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you
write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for
free to the Radio Amateur community?

>>>I would gladly do that, except

1. Internally, the SCS modem is a closed and undocumented system. 
There is no way for anyone but an employee of SCS to replace its 
embedded software with an extended implementation that includes busy 
detection.

2. The SCS modem is purpose built for its advertised functionality. 
It may not have sufficient CPU horsepower or available program and 
data memory to support busy frequency detection.

3. If I were to somehow overcome #1 and #2, the Winlink organization 
would likely refuse to deploy the modified modem. If they were 
serious about reducing QRM, they could easily have deployed KN6KB's 
busy detector years ago. Why spend precious time working on something 
that would be ignored?

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Fw: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks for your comments... We do make substantial use of 30 meters on 
a regular basis... However, within Eastern area we also rely heavily on 
80 and 40 hence my comments By the way NTS has been around for over 
50 years. Are your suggesting that we discontinue operations, 
especially during a contest?

>>>Not at all. I'm only suggesting that during congested conditions, it 
will take longer to deliver messages over the amateur bands. This is a 
desirable property of these bands, as Peter G3PLX so nicely pointed out.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Dave Bernstein]

I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:
> Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be 
able 
> >to know who or what QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
> >stations identify in CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
> >activity would eliminate this problem.
> 
> Dave I'm not to sure about this.
> My pactor station  *WILL*  ID in either CW or P1 my call
> no matter what pactor mode I'm running at the time.
> 
> John, W0JAB
>

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Dave Bernstein]

If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my 
focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter 
what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that 
banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it 
in PMBOs would be like banning automobiles because some people drive 
drunk. See

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Oh, 
> I nearly forgot to ask you Dave, what's the matter with you and
> PACTOR-3? Has uncle Steve been bad to you recently? I can help you 
know!!!
> 
> 73 de Demetre de SV1UY
> 
> P.S. Please smile, this is only a hobby OM. MERRY CHRISTMAS and a
> HAPPY NEW YEAR to all.
>

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

IMNSHO malicious interference, interference that prevents or 
interrupts a QSO on a frequency from any source is ILLEGAL by the 
existing rules. The fact that this rule is not being enforced should 
generate information to the FCC  on these interferences and requests 
to the same agency to clean it up. If I were operating on a frequency 
and one of these stations climbed on MY frequency (yes, I own it 
while operating on it legally) a report would go to the FCC the same 
day with time, frequency, and any identifying information on the 
interfering station. The squeaky wheel concept.

>>>Unless you're willing to purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be able 
to know who or what QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
stations identify in CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
activity would eliminate this problem.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles 
tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information!

>snip<

>What about this Skip? Is this justified?

Of course it is not justified!
 
>>>Demetre completely misrepresented the content of my post, Skip. 
Check the original and see for yourself:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25230

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Fw: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Dave Bernstein]

I'm glad to hear that you are using a busy frequency detector, Dave. 
The detectors in PK232 and SCS modems are certainly better than 
nothing, but are quite limited. Neither detects PSK31 transmissions, 
for example. As part of the SCAMP project, Rick KN6KB (a member of 
the Winlink team) developed a soundcard-based busy detector that was 
reported here to be very effective at detecting most modes found on 
the ham bands today. I have repeatedly suggested that Rick's detector 
be incorporated in WinLink PMBOs -- a straightforward and inexpensive 
process -- but there has inexpicably been no progress on this front 
for several years.

Our HF amateur bands are a shared resource; no one can stake a claim 
of ownership of any frequency or set of frequencies unless an 
emergency has been declared. If contests draw more amateurs to the HF 
bands -- as intended! -- then yes, there will be more congestion and 
it will be harder to find a clear frequency on which to exchange 
messages. Using HF amateur bands to offer a message passing service 
with guaranteed quick delivery times is simply incompatible with the 
defined usage model for these bands. There are techniques you could 
use to optimize performance -- like QSYing to the WARC bands during 
contests -- but nothing short of exclusively-assigned frequencies 
would enable you to achieve a guaranteed Quality-Of-Service. I 
personally don't think the assignment of exclusive frequencies to 
specific sub-groups is consistent with amateur radio -- except during 
a declared emergency.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: David Struebel 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital 
Radio Technology?
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I've been following this debate for the past several days and 
finally have to add my two cents.
> 
> I'm part of NTSD, that's the National Traffic System Digital...We 
mostly use the old version of Winlink (before Winlink 2000) also 
reffered to as "Winlink Classic" running
> Pactor I II and sometimes III... We used to use AMTOR and Clover 
but have all changed over to Pactor... Many of us are still using PK-
232MBX's for Pactor I, others are using SCS TNC's All our connects 
occur in the automatic band segments... Winlink Classic has a very 
good "busy detector" in it... I've seen it work on not only Pactor, 
AMTOR, and Clover signals but other including RTTY, dead carriers 
etc...
> Winlink classic when it hears another signal, postpones the connect 
and then tries 15 minutes later for a total of three attempts at a 
clear frequency.
> I can tell you that with an active busy detector, our systems are 
almost helpless against RTTY signals that come into the automatic 
band segments especially during contests... Traffic thru put declines 
severely during these contests.
> 
> We're happy with staying within the automatic band segments with 
our 500 Hz Pactor I and Pactor II signals... It would be nice if 
others realized that the automatic segments do contain stations 
with "busy detector" armed and ready and please refrain from casual 
operation there, especially during a contest.
> 
> I know I'm going to get a lot of flack from those of you that don't 
like automatic stations, but like I said Winlink 2000 is  not the 
only Pactor operation around running automatically... We prefer to 
stay in the automatic band segments... Please have the common 
courtesy to respect our operations.
> 
> Dave WB2FTX
> Eastern Area Digital Coordinator- NTS Digital
> Section Traffic Manager- Northern NJ
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Rick 
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>   Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:10 PM
>   Subject: Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital 
Radio Technology?
> 
> 
>   Packet?
> 
>   This does not have much to do with the subject though.
> 
>   John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>   > Rick you of all people should know that one of the older systems
>   > had a " auto-detect " or " busy detection " that worked very 
good.
>   >
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
--
> 
> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>   Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 
12/27/2007 1:34 PM
>

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Dave Bernstein]

+++ more AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of 
amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are 
willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating 
QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot 
of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*".

You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that
detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility
of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism
and the PMBOs would be rendered useless. 
 
This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and
hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just
admitted yourself. 

+++Demetre, an anti-radiation missile is a weapon typically used to 
destroy air-defense radars by locking onto their transmitter 
frequency. "Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on 
a lot of Christmas lists" was a humorous way of pointing out that 
PMBO QRM has generated widespread and massive frustration. Nowhere in 
this message -- or any other message I have posted -- do I advocate 
QRMing PMBOs. This sort of action would be as irreponsible as using 
or operating a PMBO, and I have made that point here on several 
occasions.

+++I have heard the argument that WinLink can't now apply busy-
frequency detectors because the amateur radio community is so angry 
at them for years of QRM that operators would camp on PMBO 
frequencies just to prevent them functioning. This argument is 
completely bogus - just another rationalization for continuing to 
generate QRM. While a few operators might QRM a few PMBOs for a few 
days, the effect would be minimal. Even the most perverse human 
operator won't sit at a station continuously just to QRM an automated 
station. He or she will get bored and go bother someone more likely 
to provide a reaction.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

  

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

+++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the 
USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you 
have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in Canada or 
the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time 
you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about 
that?

I have done this only a few times just for a test, to see what can be
done in an emergency. I know it is a bad idea to do it regularly, so I
do it for test purposes and only when I want to convince someone
(including myself) how good PACTOR 3 can be in an emergency. 

>>>So you acknowledge that its a bad idea to remotely activate a 
PMBO. You clearly accept the fact that PMBOs QRM other hams, but yet 
you still use WinLink. That can only mean that you consider your use 
of WinLink to be so important that its okay to QRM other hams. This 
is the pinnacle of arrogance, and about as far from the spirit of 
amateur radio as one can get.


When the communications infrastructure of a whole country has gone
down, this is the only way to pass digital traffic accurately and
effectively. There is no other accurate way OM. If you only had a
PACTOR 3 MODEM and an open mind you would understand what am I 
talking about.

>>>I have a Pactor 3 modem (PTC-IIe), a very open mind, and fully 
understand that you will do or say anything to rationalize your 
continued use of a system that QRMs your fellow amateurs. 

And if you ever get a little interference from another station, if 
there is no other way for the traffic to be passed, please be patient.

>>>Unless an emergency is in progress, there is always another way 
for the traffic to be passed that doesn't involve QRMing others.

The transfer will soon finish because it is a fast mode, it will not
last all day just like many ragchew QSOs do. After all what is going
to happen to you? 
 
Is the PACTOR QRM going to spoil your toys?

>>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of 
amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are 
willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating 
QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot 
of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*".

>>>By the way, your posts are greatly appreciated. They make it very 
easy to expose the truth behind WinLink. Can we go have this 
conversation on the QRZ reflector too?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

+++additional AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether 
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to 
detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other 
mode.
 
You said that, but the clients always listen OM. 

+++In your earlier post, Demetre, you said "Sometimes through the 
night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not 
have a decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or 
USA on 30 or 40 meters. How about that?"

+++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the 
USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you 
have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in Canada or 
the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time 
you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about 
that?

After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little 
QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. 
You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, 
if it makes you happy!!!

+++The client is indeed behaving arrogantly and irresponsibly, but it 
is not the client that is generating the QRM. Its the PMBO.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That is not what other PACTOR operators have stated as recently as 
> today in this thread. PACTOR stations listen for other PACTOR 
> stations but not stations operating in other modes.
 
They have stated this many times but you were not listening. You were
listening to what you wanted to hear.
 
>>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether 
or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect 
Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] let's not throw out babies with the bathwater

[Dave Bernstein]

I strongly oppose the operation of unattended stations that transmit 
without first verifying that the frequency is locally clear. The 
problem isn't simply that these stations are unattended, its that 
they are both unattended and deaf to the presence of other signals. 
The fact that such stations are "activated" by a remote operator is 
of no help, since that remote operator cannot reliably ensure that 
the frequency is clear at the unattended station's location.

The protocol/mode employed by such "deaf robots" is irrelevant; they 
are as unacceptable in CW as as they are in Pactor III. Banning a 
particular mode because some irresponsible operators happen to employ 
that mode in their deaf robots would be like banning cars because 
some people drive drunk. The proper solution is to keep the drunks 
off the road, not prevent everyone else from driving. 

For the same reason, we ought not ban unattended operation; only 
incompetent/rude automatic operation should be prohibited (e.g. 
unattended stations without busy frequency detectors).

Modes like Pactor III that can dynamically expand their bandwidth do 
impose a responsibility on their users to ensure that the full range 
of frequencies they might use remains clear throughout the QSO. So if 
you're using Pactor III in keyboard-to-keyboard mode, make sure that 
all 3 Khz is clear before you call CQ, and if your modem starts at a 
lower bandwidth and then expands, listen to make sure that the 
expansion won't QRM a neighbor. If you consider this requirement to 
be inconvenient, then configure your modem to remain in a narrower 
sub-mode.

Banning modes because their current implementation is expensive would 
be a very bad idea. Peter G3PLX originally developed PSK31 to run on 
dedicated out-board hardware because at the time, PCs and soundcards 
did not yet provide the needed horsepower and development 
environment. I'm sure that the hardware he used cost more than most 
hams would have been willing to spend at the time. Should Peter have 
been prevented from putting this equipment on the air? Preventing 
this sort of development on the assumption that anything worth doing 
can be done now with a PC and soundcard would be extremely short-
sighted. If a company chooses to implement an advanced protocol with 
an expensive hardware device, then the market should decide whether 
or not their approach is sensible; they should not be subject to some 
arbitrary and hard-to-change price ceiling established by government 
regulation.

In order for amateur radio operators to police themselves, however, 
all protocols must be openly defined and unencrypted. Compression is 
fine, so long as anyone can decompress and decode to plain text. If 
Pactor III does not currently comply with these requirements, then 
its use should be curtailed until compliance is achieved.

I also believe that its wrong-headed to ban email or any other form 
of message transfer. While I'm not the least bit interested in 
sending email mesages or images over HF, my personal preferences 
should not be imposed on other operators -- and neither should yours! 
As long as the content remains consistent with local restrictions on 
commercial and indecent content, there's no reason to legislate 
content.

It's a testament to the arrogance of those who operate, use, and 
defend deaf robots that they have managed to stir up so broad an 
upwelling of negative emotion in the amateur community. But making 
policy decisions while you're angry is never a good idea. By focusing 
on the real issue -- unattended stations without busy frequency 
detectors -- we can preserve our shared spectrum without imposing 
unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions.

I plan to read the proposed RM in detail and file a comment 
consistent with the above position. In the mean time, I have a 
release to get out the door...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Dave Bernstein]

You were having a Pactor QSO and someone called CQ nearby in another 
mode. You were able to identify the CQing operator. From your after-
the-fact email conversation with this person, its clear that he heard 
your signal. If he assumed that your Pactor signal was coming from 
a "robot" and that it was therefore ok to CQ nearby or worse, then he 
behaved badly; I hope you set him straight.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Dave I agree with you  but how about a new twist to this.
> Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to 
> keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4
> Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ
> on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if 
> he did hear the pactor signal and his reply was a "yes". 
> He also said  "well it was one of them robots" WRONG...
> 
> So it not just the Pactor station. This happens a number of
> times. There are a lot of KB2KB pactor QSO out there no
> matter what Roger says.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> 
> At 02:40 PM 12/25/2007, you wrote:
> >We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get 
it", you just won't admit it. 
> > 
> >The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital 
mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended 
stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the 
frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do 
this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no 
excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same 
unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the 
fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and 
occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-
speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians 
in its path.
> > 
> >   73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
>

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
of networking on HF. 

>>>Wrong. My "problem" is with unattended stations that transmit 
without first listening to see that the frequency is clear. I have no 
objection to networking or email over HF. My objection is to 
incompetent implementations of any protocol that result in QRM to 
other amateurs. A WinLink PMBO that transmits on a frequency that is 
already in use is no different than a tranmitter with key clicks or 
an amplifier that splatters -- its defective equipment that should be 
taken off the air until its unacceptable behavior has been corrected. 
WinLink PMBOs can be corrected by adding busy frequency detectors; 
were that accomplished, I would have no objection to WinLink 
whatsoever. The absence of local regulations or enforcement is no 
excuse for amateurs to abandon good hygiene.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

   

[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:

Can you admit that there are people with different points of view
Dave? I'm afraid you can't.

>>>I absolutely can, Demetre. I freely admit that there are hams who 
are perfectly happy to use systems that they know will QRM other 
operators. 

 
We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is
acceptable in the hobby OM.

>>>Really? So it'd be okay if someone established a world-wide network 
of automated stations that continuously monitor PMBO frequencies and 
QRM all WinLink messages? Everything is acceptable, right?

>>>I suspect that what you really mean is "Anything I want to do is 
acceptable in the hobby OM". But of course anything that interferes 
with what you want to do is unacceptable -- like requiring unattended 
stations to listen before they transmit.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] an interesting new platform for digital mode development

[Dave Bernstein]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/01/first-pics-of-bug-labs-open-source-
hardware/

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>snip<

Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio 
amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they 
turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP?

>>>This occurred in the fall of 2004. I held direct discussions with 
Steve K4CJX and Vic W5SMM. Despite early signs of receptiveness, they 
made it clear that they would not use anything we developed.

>>>SCAMP was already under development, though without a busy 
frequency detector. There were concerns about the choice of RDFT.

>>>Later, I was able to engage with Rick KN6KB and encourage him to 
include a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. I was not alone in this 
activity. If I made a contribution, it was in helping to convince 
Rick that while "good" would be a great first step, waiting 
for "perfect" could yield failure.


Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail 
type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 
2000?

>>>If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our 
goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better 
transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of 
hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments bloew

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >  You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because
> >  its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the
> >  Winlink team and remains in their possession.
 
Where? No, once again, dont put ýour phrasing in my words. I did not.

>>>Here are your words, Jose:

"It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the
real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but
actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed,
and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air..."

>>>The above quote was cut and pasted from

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/23961

>>>I added the quotes in either end.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

*** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing 
QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then 
what was your intention?

I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything as you so 
quickly imagined.

If you own one PTC, you could have told that before I did, instead of 
making people believe, by omission, that PMBO's  operate with no 
activity detection at all.


>>> My oft-stated position is that Winlink PMBOs rely on the remote 
initiator to verify that that the frequency is clear -- an approach 
that is unreliable due to the hidden transmitter effect. The fact 
that PMBOs can detect Pactor signals indeed means that keyboard-to-
keyboard Pactor QSOs are protected from PMBO QRM. Keyboard-to-
keyboard Pactor QSOs represent a very small percentage of overall 
keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs, so the fact that PMBOs don't QRM them is 
of no consequence to anyone except that small minority using Pactor 
for their keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs.


> 

*** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the 
assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the 
frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. 

Yes, the same assumption made for the previously existent RTTY 
mailboxes, APLINK, etc.

People once assumed the world was flat. Does that mean its okay to 
design navigation systems based on that assumption?

 
This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter 
effect.

This is the one you cooked up, seemingly, in a late reduction to 
absurd scheme. You have been very convincing, indeed.

>>> The truth is usually pretty convincing once you clean off all the 
spin people hang on it. If you disagree, then please explain how the 
assumption can be true given that there is a hidden transmitter 
effect.


Very capable persons indeed. Why then did your quest for the poor 
guys access to improved digital communications vanish so easily?

>>> Why do you assume it vanished "so easily"? Were you there?


Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

So far, as all can see, after a lot of words, the situation remains 
exactly the same, and I foresee no real solutions this way. It is a 
pity that the increasingly contorted exchange has just been a loss of 
time.

>>> You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated 
none of them. You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon 
which my opposition to system designs like Winlink's has rested for 
years. You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because 
its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the 
Winlink team and remains in their possession.

>>> The only conclusion I can reach is that you personally like using 
Winlink, and will say anything to rationalize your continued use of a 
system that QRMs other amateur radio operators.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

*** more AA6YQ comments

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that 
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard 
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running 
Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that 
all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect 
themselves from Winlink QRM?
 
It did not start as a sound card mode. It dates back to the age of 
boxed controllers, around 1999.

*** Pactor II and III didn't start as sound card modes and still 
aren't sound card modes, at least on a Windows PC.


The basic cost of a PTC, nowadays, brand new, is around 600 euro. Of 
course it is not reasonable to ask it. And I HAVE NOT asked for it.

*** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing 
QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then 
what was your intention?


Dave, how much actual operating do you do on the air? I have only 
heard you once on PSK31, around 14071. 

*** You'll find my digital mode stats in 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/23572

*** I've never heard you at all, Jose. By your logic, you must never 
operate.


How many times a PMBO has actually stepped on you?

*** I have been QRM'd by what looked like Pactor II or Pactor III 
signals quite a few times on 40m and a couple of times on 30m. Only 
in the past couple of years have I been able to know for certain that 
these events were PMBOs by firing up the PTC-IIe that SCS sent me.

*** I have also used Winlink, for whatever that's worth.


### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now 
that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 
years ago may now be practical.
 
That is on a PC. I meant available technology in multimode 
controllers. Have the PTCs made by SCS evolved likewise? I think they 
haven't, in a similar amount. The PTC's so far only detect activity 
from modes alike to the mode it is set to. And so far, also, Pactor 
has proved to be a better protocol than SCAMP, and alive, with 
relatively frequent firmware updates.

*** It is not necessary to implement the multimode busy frequency 
detector within the SCS box. Remember, its only PMBOs that need busy 
frequency detectors. One could run the SCAMP busy frequency detection 
software as process on the PMBO host (using a soundcard to monitor 
the RX output). The PMBO station management software would be 
modified to take the output of the SCAMP busy detector into account. 
Some time ago, I described the basic state flow for this approach in 
a thread here; it would likely be less than a day's work to 
implement, followed by some serious testing.


### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be 
deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant 
factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this 
improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not.
 
How many years ago? The SCAMP Protocol Specification Draft Rev Q is 
dated 2/1/2005.

*** 10/15/2007 - 2/1/2005 looks like 2 years, 8 months, and 2 weeks 
ago to me.
 


### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why 
did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an 
excuse for PMBO-generated QRM.

I mentioned it because it is a physical fact.

*** Its a physical fact that I fully acknowledge, and yet you accuse 
me of distorting physical facts.


*** You even told that Steve Waterman said there is no hidden effect. 
And I told you he might have had his reasons, which I don't know, and 
are not my reasons.

### Yes -- my point was that you were accusing the wrong person of 
denying the hidden transmitter effect. The denial of this effect is 
implicit in the design of Winlink.


I do not need to hide the existence of the hidden station effect. I 
believe on that, as a fact of life.
 
I am not seeking excuses for the Winlink design. I just have been a 
user, and a grateful one, indeed.
 
But if I understand reality is being twisted and confusion created, I 
feel it hard to remain silent.

*** That's a serious accusation, Jose. Exactly where have I twisted 
reality or created confusion?


 
### The only evidence of "hidden transmitter effect denial" is in the 
system design of Winlink.

I have not seen that statement with my own eyes.

*** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the 
assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the 
frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. This assumption can only 
be true if there is no hidden transmitter effect.

*** Said another way, were Winlink's designers to acknowledge the 
existence of the hidden transmitter effect, they would also have to 
acknowledge that their PMBOs will occasionally QRM ongoing QSOs - 
which they have steadfastly refused to do.

 
OK. I understand you will not come for

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which 
PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM.

In other words, since PMBOs are only capable of detecting pre-
existing QSOs in Pactor, everyone should simply switch to Pactor for 
all QSOs. PMBO QRM problem solved.

This reminds me of a suggestion I made when Data General was trying 
to design its first minicomputer-based supermarket scanner. The guys 
were having a terrible time recovering UPC data with their laser and 
spinning octagonal mirror. I suggested that client stores be directed 
to package all food items in units costing $1. Then the laser/mirror 
kludge could be replaced with an optical counter; no change drawers 
required, either. Problem solved

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Why would they have to have to purchase a TNC?
> 
> My question is why would some one running HELL
> last week keep calling CQ when I know damn well 
> they *knew* there was a pactor QSO already on the 
> frequency for a half hour.
> 
> Answer:
> Their thinking it was a robot.
> 
> 
> At 11:00 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> >There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting 
> >Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its 
> >reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to 
> >have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves 
from 
> >Winlink QRM.
> >
> >   73,
> >
> >  Dave, AA6YQ
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

I don't think there's any confusion or misinformation in referring to 
the busy detector incorporated in SCAMP as the "SCAMP busy detector". 
Its not like its ever appeared anywhere else...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of 
software and
> capability.
> 
> SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it 
for file
> transfer and ARQ.
> 
> Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with 
SCAMP. 
> 
> Just trying to keep the confusion and subsequent misinformation to a
> minimum.
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 
> 
> It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that 
> USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its 
> busy detector.
>

[digitalradio] The top five reasons why PMBO QRM is your fault

[Dave Bernstein]

1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on 
your waterfall to be QRM

2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor

3. You're operating on a frequency exclusively owned by Winlink

4. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of keyboard-to-keyboard 
QSOs stays these PMBOs from the swift delivery of their appointed 
messages

5. You didn't support the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, so 
we didn't get more frequencies for our PMBOs, so we're not runnin' no 
stinkin' busy frequency detectors

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting 
Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its 
reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to 
have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from 
Winlink QRM.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> He is right. Any pactor will know if another pactor station is on 
frequency.
> 
> But in fact I have 2, count em one, two  - SCS TNC's.
> 
> 
> John, W0JAB
> in the center of fly over country
> 
> At 09:58 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> >You've taken this out of context, John.
> >
> >Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a 
> >Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect 
ourselves 
> >from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire 
up 
> >whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using 
PSK, 
> >RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in 
> >Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence.
> >
> >You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for 
you. 
> >But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid 
being 
> >QRM'd would be outrageous.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >Dave, AA6YQ
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

Sorry, the second sentence of my post below was intended to be

"Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit if there's a
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves
from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up
whenever we were QRM'd."

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> You've taken this out of context, John.
> 
> Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a 
> Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect 
ourselves 
> from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire 
up 
> whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, 
> RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in 
> Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence.
> 
> You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for 
you. 
> But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being 
> QRM'd would be outrageous.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  
> wrote:
> >
> > At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given 
that 
> > >PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard 
> > >software on a Windows PC. 
> > 
> > 
> > Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do 
> either.
> > Is that an "unreasonable requirement" also. Or how the washer to 
do 
> what
> > the dryer will do...
> > 
> > If you want to play pactor 2 or 3 you need the right tools.
> > The sound card does have it's limits.
> > 
> > 
> > John, W0JAB
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

You've taken this out of context, John.

Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a 
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves 
from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up 
whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, 
RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in 
Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence.

You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for you. 
But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being 
QRM'd would be outrageous.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that 
> >PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard 
> >software on a Windows PC. 
> 
> 
> Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do 
either.
> Is that an "unreasonable requirement" also. Or how the washer to do 
what
> the dryer will do...
> 
> If you want to play pactor 2 or 3 you need the right tools.
> The sound card does have it's limits.
> 
> 
> John, W0JAB
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

### more AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that 
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard 
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running 
Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that 
all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect 
themselves from Winlink QRM?


It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. 

### If you can't design an unattended system that won't QRM other 
stations, then that system should never be deployed in the first 
place. The fact that bad things were done in the past is no excuse 
for continuing to do them.


The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that 
USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its 
busy detector.

### Busy frequency detection is a band-aid for a bad system design. 
Rick KN6KB developed the busy frequency detector in SCAMP with 
encouragement from me and many others to address the fundamental flaw 
in Winlink. The SCAMP beta test demonstrated far better performance 
than implied in your use of the word "possibility" above, Jose. But 
as I've pointed out here in earlier threads, a busy frequency 
detector need not be perfect to be helpful. A busy frequency detector 
that only prevents QRM 80% of the time would reduce the incidence of 
QRM by a factor of 5. In actual practice, SCAMP performed even better 
than that.


It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the 
real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, 
but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self 
distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin 
air...

### That's completely untrue, Jose. The SCAMP design and 
implementation remain in the hands of the Winlink Development team, 
with nothing stopping them from deploying it. The "community" does 
not need access to the SCAMP busy frequency detector; its Winlink 
that needs access, and its had that access for years.


SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of "could be but 
did not get to be"...

### As pointed out above, this is simply untrue.


>snip<

Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ?

### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now 
that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 
years ago may now be practical.


I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is 
available: the same stuff.

### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be 
deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant 
factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this 
improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not.


Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network. 
Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not.

### My objective is the minimization of QRM from unattended systems 
like Winlink, not the termination of these systems. I really don't 
care how they solve this problem, though I've made several 
constructive attempts to help them. If the Winlink organization would 
rather monitor each PMBO 24x7 to ensure no transmission on busy 
frequencies, that's fine with me. In my technical opinion, busy 
frequency detectors are the most practical solution, but its not my 
decision to make.


Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there 
are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has 
changed.

### Not true. The SCAMP busy frequency detector is available to the 
Winlink Development team. Its been available for years. Public access 
to the design is not required for Winlink to incorporate the SCAMP 
busy frequency detector into its PMBOs. 


+++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden 
transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM 
generated by PMBOs?
 
No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact 
(hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable 
technology (SCAMP).

### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why 
did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an 
excuse for PMBO-generated QRM.

### Second, I am insisting on nothing contrary to any physical fact. 
Existence of the hidden transmitter effect is unquestionable. The 
only evidence of "hidden transmitter effect denial" is in the system 
design of Winlink.

### Third, you continuously refer to SCAMP as "unavailable 
technology" despite the fact that it lies in the hands of the Winlink 
Development team.

 
So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is 
merely daydreaming.

### The Winlink development team has possessed a tangible solution -- 
SCAMP -- for years.


>snip<

>>> Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PM

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

The overlap is the reality, Demetre. You may not like it, but you 
must respect it and operate accordingly. 

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
wrote:
> >
> > You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
> > 
> > "In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap".
> > 
> 
> You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my 
friend!
> 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>

[digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection

[Dave Bernstein]

First, Demetre, my focus has been on unattended stations that rely on 
remote initiators to determine whether or not the frequency is clear. 
This has nothing to do with the bandwidth of the protocol employed. 
It would be just as unacceptable in CW as it is in PSK, RTTY, or 
Pactor.

Second, none of the sub-bands in which unattended operation is 
permitted are reserved for the exclusive use of unattended stations. 
We are expected to share these frequencies, just as we share other 
frequencies among multiple modes and styles of operation. Holding a 
keyboard-to-keyboard Olivia QSO within a sub-band that permits 
unattend operation is not the same has holding an SSB QSO within a 
sub-band exclusively reserved for CW. The latter is a violation of 
rules; the former is not.

Third, the sub-bands in which unattended operation is permitted vary 
from region to region -- so someone might be operating on a frequency 
outside the sub-band that permits unattended operation in their own  
region and yet be QRM'd by an unattended station operating in another 
region where unattended operation is permitted on that frequency.

I certainly agree that operators should look first for an appropriate 
clear space outside the unattended sub-bands, but this doesn't 
prevent collisions for the reasons described above. 

In summary, unattended stations cannot presume to exclusively own 
their frequencies. They are never justified in transmitting without 
first checking to see that the frequency is clear.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


   

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
wrote:
> >
> > Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of 
course 
> > not, Demetre; that would be a violation of the rules governing 
> > amateur radio operation here.
> > 
> > How does your question relate to the discussion?
> 
> Then why you should transmit any other mode in the wide digital
> subbands and complain that you have been QRMed by wide digital 
modes?
> 
> > 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>

[digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection

[Dave Bernstein]

Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of course 
not, Demetre; that would be a violation of the rules governing 
amateur radio operation here.

How does your question relate to the discussion?

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
wrote:
> [snip]
> > Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be 
> > interpreted one way: "our traffic is more important than your 
> > traffic; if we QRM you, too bad". Or to paraphrase Demetre, "stay 
off 
> > our highway".
> > 
> 
> Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL  subbands Dave? I'd 
love
> to see you doing that!
> 
> >73,
> > 
> >Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:

"In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap".

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  wrote:
> >
> > Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude.
> > 
> 
> I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a
> hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a
> lot since then.
> 
> >73,
> > 
> >   Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

+++more AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>>> Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
>>> then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a
>>> remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme
>>> clearly fails in a hidden station scenario?

If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier 
detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO.

+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that 
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard 
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running 
Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that 
all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect 
themselves from Winlink QRM?

 
What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors.
That is something else.

+++I am demanding that PMBOs not transmit on a busy frequency. 
Winlink's system design is flawed -- it ignores the hidden 
transmitter effect. They should either correct the design, or QRT. A 
multi-mode busy frequency detector is one solution -- and one the 
Winlink team itself has developed and demonstrated. 

I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with
APLINK or Winlink Classic.

+++The fact that someone got away with poor engineering in the past 
is no excuse for poor engineering in the present. Soundcard software 
has dramatically expanded the number of digital mode users on the 
bands, so the impact of poorly engineered station management software 
is much greater.


>>> Your argument seems to be "because there can be hidden
>>> stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them".

No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth.

+++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden 
transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM 
generated by PMBOs?
 

>>> Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate
>>> operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible.

I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K 
evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never 
disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were 
used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode.

+++I'm not familiar with this "previous techology" Jose, but if it 
involved an unattended station relying on a remote initiator to 
ensure a clear frequency, then its design was flawed. I'm guessing 
that the timeframe preceded the explosion of digital mode usage 
stimulated by soundcard software, which would mean that there were 
far fewer operators around to be QRM'd. 
 

The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick 
Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his 
work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even 
more attacks. It is really sad.

>>>Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that 
QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem, 
but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad.


>>> There are no such obvious markers on frequencies in which
>>> unattended operation is permitted, the frequencies available for
>>> unattended operation vary from region to region, and these
>>> frequencies are not exclusively allocated to unattended
>>> operation. No unattended station can QRM a pre-existing QSO on
>>> the grounds that it "owns the right-of-way".

There is a window opening in 2009, with new ham bands limits. It 
seems that there is more harmonizing work to be done by IARU.

+++That's great, Jose. So Winlink should either QRT until we have 
these harmonized worldwide "unattended only" band segments, or it 
should correct its design so that other amateurs aren't QRM'd.


>>> There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector;
>>> Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well 
>>> it worked.

Rick has proved to be really brilliant.

Is then such a source or algorithm already in the public domain ?
If it is so, why isn't it already known and widely available?
Can you elaborate on this? Can you provide a link to it?

+++The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose. Rick is a 
member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing stopping the 
Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs.


>>> Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team;
>>> he could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to 
>>> include the SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink
>>> organization interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost
>>> would be an additional soundcard for each PMBO.

You are here again demanding them to please you. 

+++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing 
amateur radio


>>> There has been not one report of failure by any develope

[digitalradio] Re: Only using wide digital modes

[Dave Bernstein]

It is important to distinguish between mode and operating style. 
There is no reason to restrict the use of Pactor (or any other 
digital mode) to a sub-band.

Unattended stations that rely on remote initiators to ensure a clear 
frequency are the problem -- whether the protocol they use is Pactor, 
RTTY, PSK, or CW.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> >  Demetre,
> >
> >  What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of 
all
> >  hams.
> >
> >  Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide 
and in
> >  between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything 
that
> >  is not the voice/image sub bands.
> 
> People have been suggesting for years that a small area be 
designated 
> for automated digital (Pactor, in other words).  The Pactor guys 
have 
> refused.  THEY are the ones who insist that wherever digital can 
go, 
> Pactor can go.  The only solution is to do what I do--if a Pactor 
signal 
> comes on freq, up the power until he has to stop.  It works.  (New 
> linear coming soon solely for this purpose).
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

[digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection

[Dave Bernstein]

To this I would add that the Winlink organization aggressively 
advocated (some would say "developed") the ARRL's "regulation by 
bandwidth" proposal, which greatly expanded the range of frequencies 
available for unattended operation. In their filings supporting the 
proposal, Winlink team members explicitly cited the SCAMP busy 
detector as demonstrating a practical solution to the hidden 
transmitter problem. 

Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be 
interpreted one way: "our traffic is more important than your 
traffic; if we QRM you, too bad". Or to paraphrase Demetre, "stay off 
our highway".

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is important to make two things clear on the busy frequency 
detection 
> vis a vis, Winlink 2000:
> 
> 1) The current main Winlink 2000 developer successfully wrote the 
busy 
> dectection program several years ago. I seriously doubt if any 
> reasonable ham would have found it to be inadequate in preventing 
> unintentional transmission by an station operating automatically.
> 
> 2) Long after it was tested, the Winlink 2000 administrator openly 
> announced that they would not be willing to use such detection 
because 
> the frequencies were so busy that the automatic station would often 
not 
> be able to have a clear frequency in which to transmit and would be 
> standing by for long periods of time.
> 
> That is when some of us, who I think fall into the more reasonable 
camp, 
> started to withdraw support for these kinds of automatic 
operations. In 
> the past, the claim was made that it was not possible to even make 
such 
> a detection program that would be able to handle all kinds of 
emissions. 
> Then after it was made, they no longer supported it.
> 
> Something else that seems to be ignored is that automatic stations 
that 
> are responding to a human operator on the other end of the circuit 
and 
> are no wider than 500 Hz, can operate at any place within the text 
> digital portions of the bands. There is no requirement that they 
must be 
> in an automatic subband here in the U.S.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >
> > There has been not one report of failure by any developer 
> >   
> > attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in 
unattended 
> > stations. The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency 
> > detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not 
been 
> > deployed.
> >
> >
> >   
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"  
wrote:
> 
> 
> > >>>In the land of HF, the hiking paths and highways overlap. 
Thus,  
> > your "simple and logical solution" simply doesn't work. We need 
> > polite drivers.
> 
> OK go and take a hike at the highway then and hope for the best. I
> wouldn't!
> 
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> 
> 73 de SV1UY
>

[digitalradio] Re: how is JT65 counted for DXCC awards?

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks, Mike.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mike Blazek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure it counts as Digital. LoTW has a provision for JT65 
> contacts.
> 
> Mike, N5UKZ
> 
> Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards? I checked 
the
> > ARRL DXCC and Challenge web pages, but didn't see anything.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> > __._,_
>

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>  There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything
>  else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in
>  their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands.

 Correction,
 
Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the wide digital
subbands. The wide modes don't usually have a problem. This way your
narrow QSOs will be in their own subbabd and you will not be crying
when a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you. Just like you never take a hike
in the highway because the fast cars will run over you.

>>>That's progress, Demetre. You acknowledge that the "remote 
initiator ensures the frequency is clear" scheme is unreliable, and 
that the result can be "a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you".

>>>The operators of wide digital modes are no less disgusted when 
stepped on by an unattended station than are operators of narrower 
modes. And as I mentioned in my response to Jose, the sub-bands in 
which unattended operation is permitted vary between regions. Thus an 
operator using a frequency on which unattended operation is not 
permitted in her region could be stepped on by a PMBO operating in a 
region where that frequency lies in an unattended sub-band.

>>>In the land of HF, the hiking paths and highways overlap. Thus,  
your "simple and logical solution" simply doesn't work. We need 
polite drivers.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>snip<
 
There are physical mechanisms in radio propagation that creates 
hidden stations. So do losses, distance, natural obstacles, and 
finite propagation paths. I even had thought it was a well known and 
accepted fact by knowledgeable people. But seems it isn't, at least, 
yet.

>>>If you check this reflector's archives, you'll find messages from 
Steve K4CJX, a member of the Winlink team, claiming that there is no 
hidden transmitter effect.

>>>Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why then 
would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a remote 
initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme clearly fails 
in a hidden station scenario?

>>>Your argument seems to be "because there can be hidden stations, 
its okay for unattended stations to QRM them".

>snip<

Radio has been proved not to be an ethernet backbone on which 
everybody hears everybody all around the world.

>>>Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate 
operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible.


Automatic stations do have a place in the bandplans, so, if automatic 
stations stay in those segments, I don't see reason, exception made of
emergencies, if any, to go there where the automatic stations are,
in any other mode and sit there. At least, in the well connected and
informed developed world. Nobody in his right mind sits between the 
railroad tracks. Doing otherwise is sort of cheap irrational old west 
bragging. In such a case, if the train overruns you, you have no 
right to cry.

>>>Railroad tracks are an indisputably obvious marker, and their 
right-of-way is owned by the railroad; if you camp on railroad tracks 
and are struck by a train, its your own fault. There are no such 
obvious markers on frequencies in which unattended operation is 
permitted, the frequencies available for unattended operation vary 
from region to region, and these frequencies are not exclusively 
allocated to unattended operation. No unattended station can QRM a 
pre-existing QSO on the grounds that it "owns the right-of-way".


Even when an activity detector such as what SCAMP has tested, and has 
been documented to work fairly well, as far as I know the code is not 
in the public domain and noone has either convinced the author to 
publish it or stepped forward to write out of scrap and openly 
publish a viable substitute for all possible cases.

>>>There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector; 
Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well it 
worked. 

>>>Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team; he 
could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to include the 
SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink organization 
interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost would be an 
additional soundcard for each PMBO.


Also, there is reasonably founded suspicion by the Winlink team that 
if they used such a thing, there are people willing to create a sort 
of zombie network to cause intentional QRM to grind the Winlink 
network to halt. Such an attitude against pactor and Winlink DOES 
exist. Things could have been some other way if such a threat had not 
been created.

>>>"We need to keep QRMing fellow operators because our QRM has made 
them angry so if we stop they'll retaliate" is a recipe for 
continuous escalation. A "zombie network" such as the one you 
describe above would be either blatant and effective, or stealthy and 
ineffective. In the first case, track it down and then shut it down; 
in the second, ignore it and it will go away.

>snip<


What all of this should be is about getting someone capable enough to 
come forward with a working solution available to all. So far, all 
the previous preaching has proven unable to achieve so.

>>>There has been not one report of failure by any developer 
attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in unattended 
stations. The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency 
detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not been 
deployed.


Haven't we had enough of it already?

>>> I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be 
made -- or when someone demonstrates that they aren't fallacious.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I don't see the point of you mentioning it then.

>>>You brought it up, Demetre. You said you didn't understand. I 
simply offered an explanation.


Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you
keep coming back at it over and over. 

>>>I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be 
made.


Any interference caused in Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is 
not the PMBO's fault but the initiator's fault who is responsible for 
any QRM because he has to listen for a while before he transmits, and 
he should also keep listening when in session with the PMBO. 

>>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the 
initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing 
QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds 
clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station 
in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator 
cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her 
station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to 
the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] how is JT65 counted for DXCC awards?

[Dave Bernstein]

Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards? I checked the 
ARRL DXCC and Challenge web pages, but didn't see anything.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

I don't understand why all this bashing about illegal and commercial
about Winlink2000. I wonder is it jealousy? Looks like it. Also I
don't understand why a radio ham should not get/send e-mail via his
radio! Is it illegal too? How can you expect anyone to participate in
an emergency situation if he doesn't know how to operate his rig? He
is not going to be enlightened by the holy spirit when the need
arises. He needs to operate every day, more or less, in order to be
proficient at it.

>>>There are some who claim that email messages should not be 
conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical 
operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe 
there's any merit to this claim.

>>>The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, 
is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying 
that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of 
97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or 
maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio 
communication or signal." A PMBO's transmission is not malicious, but 
its definitely willful.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: PSK63 in TARA

[Dave Bernstein]

How many unique callsigns did you work in PSK63, Andy?

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> PSK63 worked very well in today's TARA Rumble, too bad I thought it
> started tomorrow!   I got a very late start but PSK63 is MUCH better
> than 31 in a contest...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>

[digitalradio] Re: On PSK31 versus other modes

[Dave Bernstein]

Considering the subset of protocols on Rick's list (below) for which 
soundcard-based applications are available, PSK31 comes out on top. 
For keyboard-to-keyboard operations, however, I don't believe that 
absolute spectrum efficiency explains PSK31's stickiness. I suggest  
that the follow three factors are what's responsible for its 
stickiness:

1. the number of QSOs that fit within 3 KHz 

A typical 3 KHz transceiver bandpass enables panoramic soundcard 
software to simultaneously display up to 50 QSOs or calls (though 25 
is a more practical capacity). This is large enough that operators 
often park their transceiver on a single frequency (e.g. 14070) and 
use their software to find ragchew partner, needed DX station, or 
friend with whom a sked has been arranged. As discussed in an earlier 
thread, most soundcard software can then QSY the transceiver to place 
the desired signal at an audio offset optimal for the transmitter's 
bandpass and receiver's filters.

2. speed

At 40 WPM, PSK31 is "fast enough" for most hams.

3. resiliency

Though far from perfect, PSK31 does a reasonable job under adverse 
band conditions. While many DXers still prefer RTTY, more and more 
RTTY DXers maintain a PSK31 capability to work DX stations active in 
this mode (PSK QSOs "count" as RTTY in ARRL DXCC awards). The 
successful use of PSK31 on topband and 80m is another indicator; 
these bands are always blessed with QRM and/or QRN.

You might think that the younger generation of touch-typing hams 
would find PSK31 "too slow". PSK63 provides double the speed, but

a. many keyboard-to-keyboard ops who tried PSK63 reported discomfort 
with their abiity to keep up when transmitting (other than when 
sending and receiving long brag tapes)

b. PSK63 would have cut the 3 KHz "capacity" from 25 to 12 QSOs

Years ago, several of us ably led by Skip KH6TY tried to establish 
PSK63 as an upgrade from PSK31 and a replacement for RTTY. No sale -- 
there just wasn't enough incremental value to trigger a migration. 
Several folks on the DXLab reflector have asked for PSK125 support, 
saying that this mode is on the upswing in Europe. MultiPSK, which 
interoperates well with DXLab, supports PSK125; it will be 
interesting to see how the "much faster, but less robust and fewer 
QSOs in 3 KHz" tradeoff works out.

For keyboard-to-keyboard operations, speed beyond 50 wpm is of 
questionable value and error-free transmission is not an absolute 
requirement because "manual ARQ" is available ("sri OM missed ur name 
pse rpt ur name"). In contrast, message-passing systems require error-
free transmission. For them, higher speed means increased message 
capacity, and panoramic reception is of little value, so wider 
bandwidths do not impede adoption. In other words, they are an 
entirely different kettle of fish -- both in terms of the 
characteristics valued by their users, and the modulation and 
protocol techniques appropriate to their implementation. Comparing 
keyboard-to-keyboard and message-passing protocols on the same axes 
makes no sense.

The point of this post is not "PSK31 is the best keyboard-to-keyboard 
protocol; let's stop trying to invent something better". Rather, its 
to identify the characteristics that have enabled PSK31 to remain so 
dominant despite the subsequent 7-year explosion of new soundcard 
modes triggered by its appearance. The protocol designer looking to 
develop a more attractive alternative to PSK31 for keyboard-to-
keyboard operations should consider focusing on significantly 
increasing QSO capacity within a 3 KHz transceiver bandspread without 
seriously compromising either speed or resiliency. PSK31 first 
appeared at the rather stunted peak of the last sunspot cycle; since 
then, its adoption curve has looked like the inverse of the solar 
flux curve. As we enter the next solar cycle and propagation 
improves, 25 QSOs per band will likely prove insufficient; thus a 
more dense keyboard-to-keyboard mode could displace PSK31 if its 
other important characteristics aren't degraded.

As for the other kettle of fish, I will leave their future to those 
interested in message passing systems. After all the discourse here, 
I trust that they will see the light and provide means to ensure that 
such systems never transmit on busy frequencies.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Consider that voice SSB requires over 2000 Hz for reasonable 
quality and 
> 2700 Hz would be better. Speaking on the air may be about 120 wpm. 
That 
> figures out to around ~ 20 Hz per wpm, give or take some. For 
passing 
> traffic it would be much slower though with more Hz per wpm.
> 
> PSK31 is about the narrowest mode available to communicate at that 
> speed. Even CW may be around the same bandwidth (~ 60 Hz). This 
allows 
> enormous numbers of hams to set their dial frequency at one point 
and 
> must move their cursor to read out or even contact or call o

[digitalradio] Re: ALE , J65, Pactor 1 thru ?, etc.

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>snip<

By your own admission, your operating experience with digital modes 
has not progressed beyond PSK31.  

>>>What arrogance. So the VE5MU figure of merit ranks PSK31 at the 
bottom? How then do you explain the complete lack of broadscale 
adoption of digital modes other than PSK31 or RTTY? Given the wide 
array of free soundcard software available, there is zero switching 
cost; hams are naturally inquisitive, and can easily download any of 
several free soundcard applications to run Olivia, Dominio, ALE, or 
whatever new flavor of the month that Patrick F6CTE has concocted. 
The development of new modulation techniques and protocols is useful 
and important, and may some day bear fruit. But so far, no one has 
developed a protocol sufficiently better than PSK or RTTY to 
instigate any significant migration. Might these new modes be better 
than PSK or RTTY in one or two interesting dimensions; sure, but then 
they're either too difficult to tune, or consume too much spectrum, 
or don't work unless the SNR is unrealisticly good. I and many others 
who have listened to MFSK, MT-63, Throb, and Hell QSOs found no 
reason to go further. Like anyone else, hams vote with their feet.


I challenge you to try some of these new modes, and I and others would
welcome your opinion of these new technologies. 

>>>I have, and just did.


At the same time would encourage you to put some of your considerable 
technical ability into developing  busy frequency software In 
cooperation with one of the authors, rather than simply complaining 
about it at every opportunity. 

>>>I have no interest in operating an automatic station, or 
connecting to an automated station to send messages. If others want 
to do this, that's fine as long as they follow the rule of common 
amateur courtesy and ensure that their equipment never transmits on 
already-occupied frequency. My "to do" list is full of wonderful 
suggestions from the DXLab community; that's where I'll be spending 
my time.
 
>>>When the "WinLink doesn't listen before transmitting" issue first 
exploded, I signed up Peter G3PLX and Bob N4HY to work with me on  
developing and implementing a new shared-channel message-passing HF 
protocol with busy frequency detection that WinLink could use instead 
of Pactor 3; Bob presented our thinking at a DCC a few years back, 
but the WinLink folks made it very clear that they would never move 
to anything not of their own design. Too bad, because Peter had some 
promising ideas for error detection/correction, and Bob was chomping 
at the bit to employ trellis coding. I then spent some time on the 
phone with Rick KN6KB, encouraging him to add busy detection to 
SCAMP. At the time, Rick feared that anything less than perfect 
performance would be unacceptable, but I helped persuade him that an 
80-20 solution would be an immense step forward. His first-cut 
implementation performed far better than either of us expected.

>>>My postings here are not complaints. They are rebuttals to bogus 
technical statements you and others continually make here in 
painfully transparent attempts to rationalize the use of unattended 
automated stations when such stations clearly violate a fundemental 
tenet of amateur radio: no one owns a frequency. These posts aren't 
targeted at you or your friends, John; that'd be a waste of time. 
They're aimed at newer hams who might not yet see your position for 
what it really is: a callous disregard for operators using modes that 
you consider unimportant.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: ALE , J65, Pactor 1 thru ?, etc.

[Dave Bernstein]

So you're an entrepreneur, Bonnie? What companies have you founded? 
What innovative products have you successfully brought to market, and 
what's been their impact?

I designed my first commercial product in 1972 -- Data General's Nova 
2 minicomputer, while a junior in college, and went on to design the 
Nova 3 and MP200 minicomputers. I also designed the microEclipse, one 
of the first commercially successful 16-bit microprocessors. I hold 
24 patents in CPU architecture and design, and contributed much of 
the early work on multiprocessor cache coherence -- still used in 
today's dual and quad-core designs. You'll find me in Tracy 
Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine", for which I served as technical 
advisor; it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1982.

I moved to Silicon Valley in 1981 to help start Rational Software, a 
venture-funded startup where my mentors included the legendary Arthur 
Rock and Bill Perry, who founded ESL and later served as Secretary of 
Defense. My teams developed Rational Rose, the Unified Modeling 
Language, and the Rational Unified Process. Rational's annual 
revenues reached $850m before it was acquired by IBM. I then set up 
the open source Eclipse Foundation, developing its then-unique 
governance model, defining a software development process that 
enables fierce competitors to collaborate for the common good, and 
lining up initial funding from Intel, SAP, HP, IBM, and Nokia. 
Eclipse is now the dominant open source software development 
environment, with an ecosystem populated by thousands of innovative
plug-ins.

As for arrows in the back, Bonnie, it's been my experience that most 
of the people in this business who resort to wielding a bow have weak 
arms and worse aim; their feeble projectiles are easily avoided.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John  VE5MU wrote:
> > What bothers me more is that the folks who make the most 
> > noise and offer the most criticism of the modes 
> > Are not those who are using them.  
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> It is human nature, that there will always be people 
> who resist advancements of civilization or technology. 
> 
> A small percentage of people, also get personal 
> satisfaction and attention by trying to tear down 
> new things that are built up or forged by the 
> progress of innovators.
> 
> We have a saying here, among the entrepreneurs of 
> Silicon Valley:
> 
> "It is easy to see who the pioneers are... 
> they are the ones with the arrows in their backs."
> 
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> .
>

[digitalradio] Re: Nearly Zero ALE QRM

[Dave Bernstein]

So your idea of "good intentions, tolerance, and friendship" is "The 
automatic band segments are a stupid place to park a slow keyboarding 
digi mode... like they say, If you can't stand the heat, stay out of 
the kitchen. :)" 

Do you have a receipt for those frequencies you seem to think you own?

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andy K3UK wrote:
> > However, what is the  REAL difference between sending 
> > your callsign a few times via ALE , versus picking up 
> > the Mic and asking "is this frequency in use" ?   
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> I agree Andy, a normal ALE sounding or linking burst is only 10 to 
20
> seconds duration, and consists of simply callsign ID. HFN pilot
> stations are using syncronized 10 second duration to minimize this. 
> 
> I, too, suggest that this can hardly be classified as significant
> interference in anyone's realistic evaluation... when compared to 
the
> commonplace (but disruptive) contesting, DX pileups, voice calling, 
or
> even spontaneous CQ calls on slow digi modes or slow CW. On the
> thermometer of "HF interference temperature", ALE is nearly 
freezing!
> 
> ALE sounding (station ID) occurs on only one frequency per ham 
band...
> in common ALE jargon: "the pilot channel". 90% of all ALE
> transmissions happen on that pilot channel frequency. ALE operators
> really have no need or desire to roam through various keyboarding
> frequencies on each band looking for contacts, CQing, or QRMing 
QSOs.
> If the link can't be made on one of the pilot channels, they either
> give up or wait a little while and try again on the channel. 
> 
> ALE pilot channel frequencies are in the automatic sub-bands (and
> widely published). ALE doesn't just pop up on keyboarding QSOs
> unexpectedly. The pilot channels are constantly active with ALE
> signals throughout the day, worldwide. For those who are not 
familiar
> with just how active they are, you can easily view "ALE Channel 
ZERO"
> site on the web, with a sample of the ALE activity happening right 
at
> this moment: 
> http://hflink.net/qso
> 
> The system of amateur radio developed ALE is as prime of an example 
of
> a ham-friendly 24-hour international HF calling and e-messaging 
system
> as anyone can point to. The ALE traffic on a pilot channel is
> time-multiplexed, with many stations sharing the same frequency 
slot.
> Sometimes you can see traffic interleaved with calling. This is 
quite
> a highly efficient use of the spectrum. 
> 
> It is likely that anyone who says they are getting their keyboarding
> QSO clobbered  by ALE is intentionally provoking trouble by 
purposely
> operating in the automatic sub-band, right on top of the active ALE
> pilot freq :)
> 
> The automatic sub-bands are the place on HF where time-division
> multiplexing and fast ARQ techniques are in active use. If one 
pauses
> for a minute, another station may use the frequency during the 
pause.
> It's not rude, and it is not QRM. It is normal. It is good
> time-efficiency in action. The automatic band segments are a stupid
> place to park a slow keyboarding digi mode... like they say, "If you
> can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." :) 
> 
> There are other non-ALE automatic stations sharing the same
> frequencies with ALE pilot channels. Many of these stations also are
> compatible with time-multiplex operation. Although this results in
> some QRM or waiting for QSOs, this is generally an acceptable
> compromise for our shared HF bands. It is part of the nature of
> operating on HF ham bands, that there are different methods of
> operation. Some are compatible with each other, some are not. If 
these
> concepts are kept in mind, with good intentions, tolerance and
> friendship, it is possible for harmony to exist among hams on the 
air.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM

[Dave Bernstein]

I believe that your analysis of part 97 is correct. 

  73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andy has some very good points,
> 
> If you are a human operator and listen on the frequency for a 
period of 
> time, ideally at least a few minutes if you do not use QRL or a 
voice 
> equivalent, and do not hear any other activity, you may be fairly 
safe 
> in assuming the frequency is not in use. It is not 100%, of course, 
> since the hidden station could be transmitting and you can not 
detect 
> that station.
> 
> Unlike voice or CW, the 12 seconds (or whatever you have the 
parameter 
> set to in the program), is quite a lengthy period of time. One 
partial 
> solution would be to have a shorter QRL type of mode. In fact, it 
could 
> even be QRL? in CW, since that is the only mode that can be used on 
all 
> frequencies that digital modes can be used in the voice/image and 
text 
> digital portions of the bands. Similarly, there would have to be 
some 
> way for other stations to respond immediately that the frequency is 
in 
> use and that would be very difficult to do without some major 
design 
> changes in our digital programs. But it could be done if it was 
mandated.
> 
> Incidentally, this is one of the benefits of ARQ operation between 
two 
> stations. A third station will hear one of the two sides of the 
> conversation so they know that the frequency is in use, even if 
they can 
> not monitor the content.
> 
> Unattended operation is considered illegal by the FCC here in the 
U.S. 
> and this seems to be glossed over by the proponents of these kinds 
of 
> automatic modes. As the FCC enforcement folks have said that all 
> stations must have a control operator even if they are not at the 
> control point. Mr. Hollingsworth has stated:
> 
>  "Furthermore, "automatic" control does not mean "unattended" 
> operation." and also "Unattended operation is not authorized under 
the 
> rules." And this is referring to repeater operation which many of 
us 
> think of as being basically unattended much of the time. What he 
seems 
> to really mean is that even if you are not directly controlling at 
the 
> control point, you are always held responsible for your station 
> activities because you are still the control operator.
> 
> But realistically, there are "unattended" operations. Even ARRL has 
uses 
> the word, even if the FCC does not. (There is no such thing as 
> unattended operation in Part 97.) Some may think of beacon 
operation as 
> being "unattended." But beacons are normally not legal under Part 
97, 
> below 28.0 MHz,  even though an increasing number of stations are 
> effectively operating as beacons if they are transmitting without a 
> human operator present and are doing it for such things as 
propagation 
> studies.
> 
> 97.3(a)(9)/ Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications 
for 
> the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other 
> related experimental activities.
> 
> This is exactly what PropNet and part of the time what ALE is 
doing, is 
> it not?
> 
> 97.203 (d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is 
> transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-
144.300 
> MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 
33 cm 
> and shorter wavelength bands.
> 
> There are no lower frequencies where automatically controlled 
beacons 
> are permitted by licensed radio amateurs in the U.S. If the control 
> operator is present, then it is not automatically controlled and 
could 
> be legal, as long as you listen before transmitting to insure the 
> frequency is not in use.
> 
> I have developed a number of questions that I will be forwarding to 
the 
> FCC for help in understanding how the rules are being applied (or 
not 
> being applied?). Before doing that, I have forwarded these 
questions to 
> ARRL Regulatory Branch as of this morning, for their help in 
> understanding why there seems to be a discrepancy between the rules 
and 
> what is actually happening on the ham bands as of late. Depending 
upon 
> their response, I will then contact FCC enforcement and find out 
their 
> understanding.
> 
> If a group member believes that I am not understanding Part 97 
> correctly, then please point out my error(s). I have asked this 
several 
> times, and except for private e-mails on the subject, no one seems 
to 
> want to deal with this issue.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> > PC-ALE , and I assume Multipsk ALE, is designed to work in 
attended 
> > mode for almost all applications other than two likely scenarios.
> >
> > 1.  Soundings:  This now referred to as "station ID" by the 
HFLINK web 
> > site ( http://hflink.net/qso/).  I think this is a fair 
description, 
> > since it simply sends the callsign "this is K3UK" for a 12 second 
> > period (approximately).  It is likely that the station's ID will 
be 
> > sent , once,

[digitalradio] Re: center of the waterfall question

[Dave Bernstein]

Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a 
panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning 
dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to 
place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset by 
appropriately QSYing your transceiver.

Though different names are used to describe this function, most 
digital mode applications have provided it for a long time.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "G. McFarlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> So which is better, park the dial and move the audio
> center frequency (ACF) “marker”, or park the marker and 
move
> the frequency dial? The former seems to be the standard method used 
for
> PSK31 (when using programs like Digipan and PSK31), but the latter 
seems
> to make more sense in the context of finding your peak output point 
in the
> bandpass and leave your marker there for best decoding. Is it 
partially
> dependant on the available filters and/or the age of the rig and its
> ability to handle digital modes?
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This latter concept seems to fly in the face of guidance
> (at least for modes like Olivia) provided on hflink.com and other 
tutorial
> sites where the ACF marker is supposed to be set in accordance with 
the
> tone pair/mode in use and the frequencies are voluntarily set based 
on the
> “sub-band” (.65 or .50, etc). This suggests that both 
the
> frequency and ACF should be fixed or channelized, regardless of rig 
or
> bandpass “sweet spots”.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From the context of making it easier to find signals and
> establish QSO’s, this guidance makes sense, assuring (to some
> degree) that if your dial is set to a specific frequency and your 
ACF
> marker is in the proper spot for the tone pair in use, any one who 
comes
> along can find you quickly. If everyone running Olivia between 
14104 and
> 14109 used “channels” on .50, a tone pair of 1000/32 
and a
> marker on 1000hz (at least to call CQ) QSOs would be much easier to 
locate
> and lock onto. Between 14072 and 14078, “channels” 
should be
> on .65, running 500/16 with an ACF of 750Hz. Easier, but is it at 
the
> expense of best decoding, power output, and QRM avoidance?
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Again, this is all by gentlemen’s agreement, but
> there seems to be little other established guidance in print or on 
the
> web. Was this originally suggested to assist in happily co-existing 
with
> other “channelized” modes frequently found in these sub-
bands,
> like Pactor? Wouldn’t the “park the marker, move the
> dial” method make it difficult to post and follow digital 
spots on
> sites like Andy’s (K3UK) if everyone’s dial showed a 
different
> frequency? (A minor concern, maybe, but certainly a huge help on 
these
> sparse bands!)
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, could this same question be applied
> equally to RTTY, where it depends on the software used, despite long
> established rules for mark/space frequencies? If I use MixW, I can 
keep my
> rig dial fixed and click on any of several signals in the passband,
> decoding them all equally (easy, certainly but not optimal). Is 
this just
> the wrong way to use this software? Should the ACF be locked 
centered
> between the standard RTTY M/S audio frequencies and the dial moved?
> Using MMTTY, the marker stays fixed and the dial is adjusted so
> it’s not a concern. Is one better than the other, personal
> preference, or rig dependent?
> 
> R/
> Glenn KD4ULB
> 
> > Bill Aycock wrote:
> 
> >> Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on
> this 
> >> subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency
> (usually 
> >> 14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different
> signals by moving 
> >> the "marker" that shows the
> offset from the base frequency on the 
> >> waterfall. The radio
> bandwidth is many times as wide as the signal 
> >> width (for
> PSK31), and many signals can be accommodated in the 
> >>
> passband. I have a tuneable Digital filter, and one of the most 
> >> educational tricks is to shift the upper and lower audio limits
> of 
> >> the filter, and watch the result on the waterfall One of
> the sources 
> >> of the confusion is the ambiguity in the
> meaning of "best". I think 
> >> that it is highly
> improbable that we can get a clear definition. Good 
> >> luck-
> Bill-W4BSG 
> >> 
> > 
> > In my opinion there are
> two "classes" of radios for digital use, and 
> > which
> type you have dictates how you handle the center frequency 
> >
> question. Older "legacy" radios do not allow use of narrow
> crystal 
> > filters (originally intended for CW) in the digital
> modes. The 
> > designers of these radios either ignored the digital
> modes altogether 
> > (requiring, for example, interfacing the radio
> through the mic 
> > connector) or simply didn't care much (my
> FT-900, an otherwise good 
> > radio, falls into this category).
> These radios can be used for digital, 
> > but lack the most
> i

[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>snip<

However, what is the  REAL difference between sending your callsign a 
few times via ALE , versus picking up the Mic and asking "is this 
frequency in use" ?

>>>There are two such differences:

1. We never pick up the Mic and ask "is this frequency in use?" if we 
can hear that its already in use.

2. If the frequency seems clear and we pick up the Mic and ask "is 
this frequency in use?" and hear a positive response, we QSY.

>>>I wonder if ALE soundings consisted of "QRL?  QRL ? de K3UK  K3UK 
K3UK K "  and then stopped , would we object? 

>>>Yes, unless the ALE station were capable of decoding and 
respecting a positive response.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

[digitalradio] Re: center of the waterfall question

[Dave Bernstein]

There are two considerations:

1. the signal being decoded should fall within the receive filter(s) 
you're using. Some ops activate RTTY or CW filters during PSK QSOs; 
their choise of offset is thus limited by the positioning of these 
filters within their receiver's bandpass.

2. the second harmonic of your transmit audio tone should fall 
outside your transmitter's bandpass (to minimize QRM)

So if your transmitter's bandpass extends to 2.7 kHz, an audio offset 
of 1600 or 1700 is ideal -- assuming a signal at that offset will 
pass the filter you use during reception. 

Many digital mode applications -- including MixW -- have the 
capability to QSY your transceiver to achieve a pre-specified audio 
offset. This lets you select a signal in the waterfall with one 
action, decide you're interested, and then QSY your transceiver with 
a second action before making your call using the optimal audio 
offset.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Aycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on this 
> subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency (usually 
> 14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different signals by 
moving 
> the "marker" that shows the offset from the base frequency on the 
waterfall.
> The radio bandwidth is many times as wide as the signal width (for 
> PSK31), and many signals can be accommodated in the passband. I 
have 
> a tuneable Digital filter, and one of the most educational tricks 
is 
> to shift the upper and lower audio limits of the filter, and watch 
> the result on the waterfall
> One of the sources of the confusion is the ambiguity in the meaning 
> of "best". I think that it is highly improbable that we can get a 
> clear definition.
> Good luck- Bill-W4BSG
> 
> At 10:27 PM 9/4/2007, you wrote:
> >Hey group, this is Frank K2NCC,
> >
> >Just wanted to ask what is surely a noobie question or two.
> >
> >If my waterfall (using MixW) can receive a signal between 300KHz 
and
> >3000KHz on the spectrum, that's my bandwidth of the radio, right?
> >Seems to match what the manual says, 2700.
> >
> >I've read where PSK31 is best at 1000KHz on the audio marker in a 
QSO.
> >But, one could QSO pretty far on either side of that line if you
> >avoid the fringes.  Right?
> >
> >Oh, if it matters, the radio is TS-830S and a Signalink.
> >
> >Well, the halfway point on the waterfall for me is about 1650 on 
the
> >audio marker.
> >
> >I'm guessing that whatever frequency I'm on when I tune the signal 
to
> >that 1650 point, is the frequency they're transmitting on.  I asked
> >and have been very close, but can only hope that my rig is on the
> >mark.  Either way, it's not been off by more than 3Hz.  Since the 
rig
> >only has six digit display, I round it off anyway.
> >
> >Is that the best place to transmit and receive?  Dead center of the
> >frequency seems to be the ideal place if both sides are doing the 
same.
> >
> >73.  Frank K2NCC
> >
> >
> >
> >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> 
> We batter this Planet as if we had someplace else to go.
>

[digitalradio] Re: jt65a is an automatic mode

[Dave Bernstein]

You've missed the point entirely. From what several JT65 users 
reported, these automatic capabilities are there to assist an 
operator who sees the decoded receiver output and would not initiate 
transmission if the frequency were in use. The station is not running 
unattended.

Does writing "case closed" actually work for you? Most folks find it 
pretty offensive unless its coming from a judge.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bill N9DSJ wrote:
> > I would be hard pressed to 
> > fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-
automatic" 
> > or "automatic" operation. 
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> You proved my point that what we now consider just a normal feature 
of
> software or radio operation, is something that we once considered
> "automatic" before. 
> 
> JT65A may certainly be operated in an automated way.
> 
> The operator can program specific transmissions that happen by
> computer control, on a time schedule. 
> 
> The transmissions happen regardless of other traffic on the channel.
> 
> The transmissions may be in responses to specific calls or sequences
> of other stations. 
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>

[digitalradio] Re: jt65a

[Dave Bernstein]

WinWarbler's  macro is limited to a maximum of 25 repetitions 
with listening intervals of no more than 15 seconds between 
repetitions. It thus cannot be used for unattended beaconing.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly , Bill.  Winwarbler , Multipsk, and otehr software packages 
allow a
> user to program "beacons" of varying digital modes.  I can set my 
CQ message
> to repeat every 60 seconds.  This is not unattended modes that we 
are
> talking about when mentioning PACTOR.
> Andy K3UK
> 
> On 9/24/07, Bill McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   Yes,
> >
> > In a sense - it actually switches to the next *manually selected*
> > sequence when the time clicks; it is in no-way linked to 
any "over"
> > by another station (I know you know this Leigh, but just to 
clarify
> > for others).
> >
> > It is the same as sending any macro or otherwise pre-canned 
message
> > on about any mode I can think of; although I would be hard 
pressed to
> > fit JT modes into any definition of "unattended", "semi-automatic"
> > or "automatic" operation.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill N9DSJ
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." 
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > WSJT features an "auto" checkbox, which, when enabled,
> > automatically
> > > switches to the next message in sequence, after each over. The
> > transmit
> > > times for both stations are defined and are on odd/even minute
> > > boundaries.
> > >
> > > From the documentation at http://2yf444 (select the English PDF)
> > >
> > > Auto: toggles on or off an automatic sequence of transmit and
> > receive
> > > periods
> > >
> > > Since each over is one minute long, it's quite possible to get a
> > cup of
> > > coffee and not notice another station on the waterfall while 
WSJT
> > itself
> > > goes ahead and sends RRR or OOO or whatever you have programmed 
as
> > the
> > > next message in sequence.
> > >
> > > However given the short timeframe and the fact that your QSO is
> > already
> > > in progress, it isn't the same as a pactor semi-auto responding
> > > willy-nilly.
> > >
> > > In summary, I think Bonnie's point is that it is part of a 
sliding
> > > scale, and there are at least some unattended aspects of WSJT
> > operation
> > > possible without going all the way to beaconing or unattended
> > initiation
> > > of QSOs.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > > Leigh/WA5ZNU
> > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:27 am, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > > > Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion 
that
> > some
> > > > JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was 
incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > 73,
> > > >
> > > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > > >
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ,
> > David Michael Gaytko //
> > WD4KPD
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The same is true for
> > > >> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule
> > > >>
> > > >> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday. while not knowing
> > it
> > > > all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended
> > operations.
> > > > the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons 
run
> > by
> > > > the california group.
> > > >>
> > > >> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must 
have
> > an
> > > > operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this 
mode
> > with
> > > > anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for
> > some
> > > > portions of its program.
> > > >>
> > > >> david/wd4kpd
> > > >>
> > > >> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN"
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page 
at
> > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>

[digitalradio] Re: jt65a

[Dave Bernstein]

Thanks, David. I was just responding to Bonnie's assertion that some 
JT65 stations operate unattended. I guess her claim was incorrect.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  The same is true for 
> > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule
> 
> i have been on hf/jt65a since its birthday.  while not knowing it 
all, i have never heard of a jt65a beacon or unattended operations. 
the mode COULD be used for a beacon just like the cw beacons run by 
the california group. 
> 
> jt65a can't operate unattended, the message operation must have an 
operator present to switch messages. pse don't include this mode with 
anything like winlink which does USE unattended operations for some 
portions of its program.
> 
> david/wd4kpd
> 
> "NEVER TOO OLD TO LEARN"
>

[digitalradio] Re: ALE yes ... or no?

[Dave Bernstein]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to MultiPSK, where Patrick F6CTE 
and/or I might have been able to help.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> dunno. But darn near impossible to get a Kenwood running on 
PCALE. Have a TS480 
> 
> John
> VE5MU
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Dave Bernstein 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:46 AM
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE yes ... or no?
> 
> 
>   Why are non-Icom transceivers problematic?
> 
>   73,
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
> 
>   Recent Activity
> a..  13New Members
> b..  3New Photos
>   Visit Your Group 
>   HDTV Support
>   on Yahoo! Groups
> 
>   Help with Samsung
> 
>   HDTVs and devices
> 
>   Yahoo! Groups
>   Going Green
> 
>   Share your passion
> 
>   for the planet.
> 
>   Moderator Central
>   Get answers to
> 
>   your questions about
> 
>   running Y! Groups.
>   . 
>
> 
> 
> 
--
> 
> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>   Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 
9/23/2007 1:53 PM
>

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Dave Bernstein]

We can resolve matters among ourselves by including busy frequency 
detectors and some form of QRL detector in unattended stations. Then 
the remote operator could fulfil his or her responsibilities as 
control operator for the unattended station, and we could all spend 
more time operating, designing, and coding.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >  Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was
> >  saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care 
about
> >  the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the
> >  matters among ourselves ?
> 
> I sure hope that is not what he meant.  How are we supposed 
to "resolve 
> matters among ourselves?"  The Winlink people are violating the 
plain 
> letter of the law by transmitting without even pretending to listen 
> first.  They appear determined to keep doing it until someone 
enforces 
> the law to make them stop.  Not real complicated.
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Dave Bernstein]

Without question, Hollingsworth would prefer that we find a way to 
resolve the matter ourselves. 

On the other hand, there's no way to know whether he fully 
understands that unattended stations like WinLink PMBOs have no 
control operator. The proponents of unattended operation claim that 
the remote operator serves as control operator for the unattended 
station; without someone to point out the fallacy in this claim, it 
may be accepted. The WinLink folks are also fond of blaming the 
victim, suggesting that panoramic reception and wide receiver filter 
settings produce bogus claims of interference.

The ARRL's latest solution seems to be "let's design a new 
protocol!". Preliminary thoughts on this are being presented at the 
TAPR conference next Friday, which I unfortunately can't attend.

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was 
saying
> at Dayton.  Was he implying that they don't really care about the
> issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the matters
> among ourselves ?
> 
> On 9/23/07, Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's what §97.7 says:
> >
> >  "§97.7 Control operator required
> >
> >  When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control 
operator.
> >  The control operator must be a person:
> >
> >  (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant
> >  appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or
> >
> >  (b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this 
Part."
> >
> >  "Control Operator" is defined in §97.3.a (13):
> >
> >  "Control operator. An amateur operator designated by the 
licensee of
> >  a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that 
station
> >  to assure compliance with the FCC Rules."
> >
> >  In applications like WinLink where an unattended station
> >  is "activated" by an attended station, the attended station's
> >  operator cannot serve as control operator for the unattended 
station
> >  because this operator has no real-time access to the unattended
> >  station's receiver, and thus cannot assure that transmissions 
from
> >  the unattended station will not interfere with an ongoing QSO, 
as is
> >  required by §97.101.d:
> >
> >  "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere 
with or
> >  cause interference to any radio communication or signal."
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ALE yes ... or no?

[Dave Bernstein]

Why are non-Icom transceivers problematic?

   73,

   Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Rick;
> 
> please let me know where you and Sholto are using FAE ARQ, since I 
would like to come amd play,too.
> 
> On the subject of ALE;  in my humble opinion some operators have 
become too focused on ALE, forgeting that ALE is the means to 
establish which stations available, and the best frequency to 
communicate from A to B. Once these are established, then other modes 
can be used to effect the actual communications.
> 
> Patrick's 141A software allows both soundings and data movement 
through ARQ FAE, while PCALE seems to be highly overrated in it's 
ability to do anything
> other than pass 1 line AMD messages between stations, and it's 
sounding and scanning abilities. Unfortunately , it would appear that 
little progress has been made to make PCALE more effective, by 
expanding the number of radios with which the software will work 
(anything other than Icom can be a challenge) . MultiPSK has 
undergone some significant improvements in the same period.
> 
> Currently PCALE has the ability to pass single line messages to the 
internet email system, which is interesting , but relatively useless 
from a communications point of view. MultiPSK may be able to develop 
that capability as maybe RFSM2400 might , and that 
would be a great step forward as an alternate
> mail system to winlink.
> 
> The ideal mode would be something like Olivia, but self adjusting 
due to conditions, with high throughput when conditions are ideal, 
and the ability to do the ALE scanning and sounding functions to 
determine a ususable frequency.
> 
> John
> VE5MU
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
--
> 
> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>   Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1023 - Release Date: 
9/22/2007 1:27 PM
>

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

[Dave Bernstein]

Here's what §97.7 says:

"§97.7 Control operator required 

When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. 
The control operator must be a person: 

(a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant 
appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or

(b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this Part."


"Control Operator" is defined in §97.3.a (13):

"Control operator. An amateur operator designated by the licensee of 
a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that station 
to assure compliance with the FCC Rules."


In applications like WinLink where an unattended station 
is "activated" by an attended station, the attended station's 
operator cannot serve as control operator for the unattended station 
because this operator has no real-time access to the unattended 
station's receiver, and thus cannot assure that transmissions from 
the unattended station will not interfere with an ongoing QSO, as is 
required by §97.101.d:

"No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or 
cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

Unattended WinLink PMBOs thus have no control operator and are in 
flagrant violation of FCC regulations. The same is true for 
unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule, or any other 
unattended station where there's no control operator with real-time 
access to the station's receiver output.

No one here or anywhere else has ever refuted the above facts and 
logic. Dave K1ZZ, the ARRL's CEO, pointed out that you can sometimes 
transmit on a busy frequency without QRMing the users of that 
frequency -- which is true -- but when I asked whether that meant it 
was okay to always transmit without listening he had no response. 
Dave also implied that it was okay to bend the rules in order to 
nurture a promising new technology, but when I asked how he felt 
about the FCC doing that with BPL he again had no response.

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


 



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Consider the following statements attributed to Hollingworth and 
the FCC's
> Cross.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollingsworth offered good news and bad news. "The good news: 
Nothing is
> wrong with Amateur Radio," he allowed. "It is a good service that 
is showing
> its value to the public on a daily basis."
> 
> The bad news, he asserted, making a comparison to "road rage," 
is "that
> there is an element of Amateur Radio that too often reflects 
present society
> generally."
> 
> Hollingsworth urged all radio amateurs to cooperate more and depend 
less on
> the FCC to solve their operating issues.
> 
> "We live in a rude, discourteous, profane, hotheaded society that 
loves its
> rights, prefers not to hear about its responsibilities, and that 
spills over
> into the ham bands," he said.
> 
> Hollingsworth's bottom line: Be flexible in your frequency 
selection and
> make regular use of the "big knob" on the front of your transceiver 
to shift
> to any of the "thousands of frequencies and hundreds usable at any 
given
> time of day or year" as necessary to avoid problems. "The world is 
ugly
> enough -- don't add to it," Hollingsworth advised.
> 
> "We can enforce our rules, but we can't enforce kindness and 
courtesy or
> common sense," Hollingsworth concluded. "And a very wise person, 
who happens
> to be standing to my left [FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
staffer
> Bill Cross, W3TN *-- Ed*] once told me: 'You can't regulate 
stupid.' If we
> could, we'd be working for the United Nations instead of the FCC."
> 
> *Amateur Radio Licensees Responsible for Rule Compliance*
> 
> In his comments, Cross singled out the controversy that erupted 
recently
> over fears that automatically controlled digital stations would 
overwhelm
> the amateur bands, eclipsing most other modes. Cross cited §97.7 of 
the
> rules, which requires each amateur station to have a control 
operator and,
> in essence, to employ a "listen-before-transmit" protocol."
> 
> When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the 
transmission
> mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be at the 
control
> point, but must employ station control devices and procedures while
> transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC rules and does not 
cause
> harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations.
> 
> The operational rule, Cross said, is: "Your call sign, your 
responsibility."
> 
> -
> 
> Hollingworth's comments seem contradictory the those attributed to 
Cross in
> this article, I suspect the editing altered the context of Cross' 
words .  I
> think  Hollingsworth's  intent , applied to the ALE-busy detect 
issue we
> have been discussing,  would be that we use common sense 
and "cooperate
> more" rather than the hair-splitting that USA hams are famous 
for.I
> can't say for sure, but I susp

[digitalradio] Re: Here's some frequencies for unattended HF operations

[Dave Bernstein]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Most of the "automatic" or "unattended" sub-bands or band segments on
HF were formed many years ago before such operations become so widely
popular as they are now. Presently there are many thousands of hams
actively using these methods, and it is increasing daily. 

Thus, the segments devoted to it in the IARU Region bandplans and
various national assignments are woefully inadequate.

>>>Improve the technology and demonstrate that it can share spectrum 
with attended stations without QRMing existing QSOs; then propose the 
elimination of these constraints.

>snip<

But, automatic or unattended operation isn't just for messaging or
email anymore. Even the so-called "weak signal" digital modes are
using automatic or unattended methods now. JT65A is a typical example.
It is programmed by the operator to send repetitive transmissions on a
schedule. JT65A mode operators rarely listen by ear (because the
signals are often below the noise). If they are involved at all with
the process directly, it is most likely to occasionally view a
waterfall with a long time constant, with the main intention to spot
other JT65A signals with long duration carriers.

>>>It doesn't matter whether you're delivering messages, attempting 
weak signal communication, or chewing the rag with an old friend: 
transmitting on an already occupied frequency is unacceptable unless 
an emergency is in progress. Unattended JT65A stations operating 
without busy detectors are no more acceptable than WinLink PMBOs.

As HF digital technology moves forward, we are seeing the distinction
getting blurry between what is "manual" and what is "automatic" or
"unattended".

>>>There is no blurriness whatsoever between attended and unattended; 
either the station's transmitter is under the control of an operator 
who is in real time copying signals demodulated by the station's 
receiver, or it isn't.

>>>For US hams, "automatic" is defined in the FCC regulations.

It seems that the real distinctions that may sift out in the future
are the differences between frequency-division and time-division
methods of digital and analog HF operation. There are modes that may
blur the line between either one of these categories, but generally,
this is the direction it is headed. 

Automatic -vs- manual may have become a quaint term of reference that
might better be relegated to 20th century thinking.

>>>The issue on which this thread is focused is the elimination of 
conflicts between attended and unattended operations. Semantic games 
are not productive.

   73,

Dave, AA6YQ