[digitalradio] Re: Problems Keying With WIN DRM and Icom 746
Its my plan to enable Commander to provide for outgoing CW via a modem control signal on the same serial port used for CAT commands and RX-TX switching (aka PTT). Besides eliminating the need for a second serial port, this will exploit those transceivers with built- in ascii-to-CW capability. This is not imminent, however... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you use DTR for CW and PTT with RTS, how does an interface such as Rigblaster handle this with the COM ports? You must need to connect a COM port to each of them, right? If you have only one COM port available you can either key CW or key PTT, but not both. And if you need rig control, that would require yet another COM port. Most computers no longer have COM ports so I purchased one USB to COM port adapter. This goes to my homebrew COM port to CI-V port converter. The CI-V can control most of the radio functions, including PTT. Unfortunately, it can not control CW keying, nor FSK keying and that would require additional COM ports (or USB to COM port adapters) for each one. Since there are programs that support CI-V control, such as DX Commander which, in turn, supports Multipsk, and gives you just about every sound card mode and a few that are not available on any other software, I have not been very interested in trying to adapt to programs that do not have this capability. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: Are you using a Rigblaster pro, plus, or plug and play ? I found this reference, not sure if it helps. *RIGblaster plug play Operational Details:* *CW keying is done by setting DTR high on the emulated serial port. * *Standard PTT is done by setting RTS high on the emulated serial port. The Icom IC-746 and similar radios use pin 6 on the 7 pin DIN ACC (2) jack for PTT on the 2 meter band. Since the adapter only connects to the 8 pin DIN ACC(1) jack, the RIGblaster plug play cannot use standard PTT keying for the 2 meter band. One solution is to use CAT control for transmit and receive with the built-in CI-V interface* ** ** **
[digitalradio] Re: AEA232MBX
In RTTY mode, WinWarbler can run a soundcard RTTY engine (MMTTY) in parallel with an external RTTY modem like your AEA232MBX, a KAM, an MFJ RTTY modem, or an SCS multimode controller. This can be used in two useful ways: 1. to provide diversity decoding, which can improve your copy of RTTY DX in poor conditions 2. to simultaneously copy a RTTY DX station operating split and his or her pileup, accelerating detection of the DX station's QSX frequency 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AD5VJ Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have had an AEA 232MBX, in fact two of them, for quite some time now. I used to use them all the time for RTTY and packet, but I am wondering if these units no longer any good for Ham Radio, because of the advent of Computers, the Digital Software for RTTY and Telnet for spotting and the passing away of PACTOR I. I know I can get upgrades for them for soundcard, ect. But is there any use in doing that since I run soundcard applications from the computer. Are they of more advantage than the sound card on my computer or would I be wasting my time, money and effort? Can someone tell me if these are good for *anything* viable these days or is it true that they are just dinosaurs now? I cant understand how they are still being sold at such high prices new, if they are of no use, I just don't know what to use them for that would be useful. Thanks Bob AD5VJ
[digitalradio] Re: External hard drives?
By storing its settings in the Windows Registry's HKEY_CURRENT_USER section, an application provides each Windows user on the same PC with his or her own independent set of settings. When a user logs into Windows, HKEY_CURRENT_USER is automatically populated with that user's settings. Users are generally much more reticent to modify registry settings than the contents of a .ini file. An application that reads settings from a .ini file must be written to gracefully handle anything it encounters without crashing, hanging, or displaying a window saying Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. To facilitate component-based development, Windows provides dynamic link libraries (DLL files). For example, PSKCORE -- the engine used by many digital mode applications to modulate and demodulate PSK-31 and PSK63 -- is packaged as a DLL. In general, applications must register the DLLs they use with Windows, which modifies the Windows Registry. The benefits of component-based development are summarized in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_%28programming%29 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.This is a bit off topic, but I have often wondered why some windows programs require Windows Registries and some work completely without this. What causes a software author to cross the line that requires those registry entries and all the complications that go with it? 2. USB pens can be a lifesaver. A year ago we needed a particular software program to run for Field Day and although I had the program on my computer, we needed to put it on some other ones and of course no more floppy drives. USB pen to the rescue. Had never used one before. 3. Speaking of OS and USB pens, this may be one of those times to consider using one of the Linux distributions that has been specifically designed for this kind of media. The amateur radio software quantity and quality seems to finally be getting better on Linux although it still has a long way to catch up to MS OS software. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: Bob did not suggest a docking station, Sal, he suggested a second hard drive. I have used his recommended solution with my IBM T42P laptop, and it works extremely well; one can swap identities in the time required to terminate Windows and reboot; the physical drive swap takes a few seconds. With respect to your claim that The USB PEN drive will work on almost every computer provided that the programs were correctly installed, I suggest that you (carefully) open the Windows Registry editor and examine the Software sections of HKCU and HKLM -- you'll find that DX Atlas, DXLab, Ham Radio Deluxe, LotW, and QRZ all maintain settings there. Other popular digital mode applications may as well -- I don't have Digipan, MixW, or MultiPSK currently installed on this PC, and my examination was cursory. There is no way to properly install any of DX Atlas, DXLab, Ham Radio Deluxe, LotW, or the QRZ CDROM callbook in a way that makes them pen-drive portable. There are web pages that list pen-drive portable applications, e.g. http://pendriveapps.com/ and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/369/656 but I've found no mention of digital mode amateur radio applications so far. Establishing such a list would be helpful, but I suggest that an application only be added after 1. its author asserts that the application is pen-drive portable 2. someone actually tests the application in a pen-drive portable configuration It would also be useful to compare performance in a pen-drive configuration vs. a hard-drive configuration. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: External hard drives?
Its unfortunately a little more complicated than that, Larry. An IDE or ATA 66/100 controller can indeed be connected to two hard drives -- a master and a slave -- with an appropriate cable. However, each drive can be jumpered as always master, always slave, or cable select; the later means that each drive is set to master or slave by the cable connectors. To keep things interesting, not all IDE cables are wired to perform cable select. The penalty for an incorrect IDE configuration is system that won't boot Windows. I've not yet managed to lose data, but I would never play this game without first making and verifying backups for all of the data on the all of the drives involved. If you're building or buying a new computer, consider Serial ATA (SATA) drives; their data is moved serially, so the cables are narrower and thus block less airflow, and they are point-to-point rather than daisy-chained like IDE. In general, you can purchase larger and faster drives with SATA interfaces, but they also cost more. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, larry allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A computer, intelligent, friend of mine has been educating me of swapping hard drives... For example, drive C..is usually marked at 'master' and the others are marked as slaves The marking is a jumper .. On the bank of your hard drive are three recepticles... The first one is a long plug, of which the data flows... The second plug / receptical contain 4 rather heavy wires.. marked yellow, black, black and red.. they contain the D.C. wiring.. I assume by the colours The third plug has no opposite polarity receptical but contains jumper(s)... This is the jumper which determnes whether or not the hard drive is a slave or master drive... On one side of your hard drive, you should notice some printing which tells you how to make the drive a master or slave... You follow the instructions to make that drive a master or slave This will allow you to put another drive onto your existing computer including removing them should you desire I had three computers.. I took the oldest computer's hard drive out and put them into my newer computer... making the older computer's drive C my newer computer's drive D, or which ever letter was available Now I do realise I have probably drifted somewhat off topic but I hope the information was of some value... Larry ve3fxq - Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:33 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: External hard drives? Isn't somebody selling a thumb drive that is all configured so everything runs out of it and doesn't touch the computer hard drive? Seems like I was reading about a product like this that was to make it safe to use a public computer for your private work.
[digitalradio] Re: External hard drives?
Bob did not suggest a docking station, Sal, he suggested a second hard drive. I have used his recommended solution with my IBM T42P laptop, and it works extremely well; one can swap identities in the time required to terminate Windows and reboot; the physical drive swap takes a few seconds. With respect to your claim that The USB PEN drive will work on almost every computer provided that the programs were correctly installed, I suggest that you (carefully) open the Windows Registry editor and examine the Software sections of HKCU and HKLM -- you'll find that DX Atlas, DXLab, Ham Radio Deluxe, LotW, and QRZ all maintain settings there. Other popular digital mode applications may as well -- I don't have Digipan, MixW, or MultiPSK currently installed on this PC, and my examination was cursory. There is no way to properly install any of DX Atlas, DXLab, Ham Radio Deluxe, LotW, or the QRZ CDROM callbook in a way that makes them pen-drive portable. There are web pages that list pen-drive portable applications, e.g. http://pendriveapps.com/ and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/369/656 but I've found no mention of digital mode amateur radio applications so far. Establishing such a list would be helpful, but I suggest that an application only be added after 1. its author asserts that the application is pen-drive portable 2. someone actually tests the application in a pen-drive portable configuration It would also be useful to compare performance in a pen-drive configuration vs. a hard-drive configuration. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Salomao Fresco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I believe your solution is way more complicated to perform. Besides, what use will have the docking station if the laptop gets replaced for instace for another brand? The USB PEN drive will work on almost every computer provided that the programs were correctly installed. And there is enough space on a 2Gb pen drive to install a version of the SO of your choice and make it bootable. I know what I'm talking, because I've allready done it. The docking station is waaay more expensive than the 20 bucks of a pen drive. Give it a try, if it doesn't work, the worst that can happen is getting stuck with a usb pen drive that can carrie a lot of files. Think of it. Regards On 12/30/06, Robert Chudek - KØRC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well in christ's name (your terminology), your solution doesn't solve Andy's problem of putting personal software on a company computer. You missed the part that the registry is going to get updated (if it is even accessible). Read on. Credible IT departments tie down the operating system very tight in order to reduce the probability of employees hauling worms, viruses, and other crap into the office and spreading it across the Enterprise. I know, I ran a corporate IT department for 8 years. From a pure IT perspective, laptops are the most dangerous PC's on the Enterprise. It's much easier to control and manage desktop machines. The solution I would propose is to purchase a new drive and caddy for the laptop. Typically there is one screw that holds the HDD into the laptop and that screw is accessible from the outside of the case. Depending on the drive size you want, this can be less than a $100 investment. Get your own drive, format it up, load your OS, and install your personal applications. Swap the drives when you want to run your radio applications at home. But be aware if you bring your laptop into work with your personal drive installed, you'll get hauled in front of the CIO to explain why you are putting the company infrastructure in jeopardy. And the incident will be written up in your permanent record. If this sounds blunt and excessive... well you don't understand the nightmares IT departments face, trying to support large networks that wrap around the world. I don't know for whom Andy works, but if it's a large corporation with an IT staff, he may find the screw holding the disk caddy into his new laptop has been superglued into place. My engineers didn't go to that extreme, but if there was a laptop suspected of issues, it got a fresh format and a standard build of corporate licensed software installed. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN - Original Message - From: Salomao Fresco To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: External hard drives? Hi to all! I believe there is a big confusion! On the first post Andy states this: I just got a new company laptop. What the heck does he need to know about master, slave, falt cables and color of the power cables? He is talking about a laptop for Christ sake. He is asking you the time and you're telling him how the clocks work. He
[digitalradio] Re: lowercase to UPPERCASE translator with slashed zero
As do I. Aren't there some upper-case-only fonts around? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] The option to display in upper case is better than nothing, but readability is best optimized by letting the user choose - the font and its associated metrics (size, bold, italic) - the font color - the background color Which is what I do :-) Simon Brown, HB9DRV
[digitalradio] Re: lowercase to UPPERCASE translator with slashed zero
The option to display in upper case is better than nothing, but readability is best optimized by letting the user choose - the font and its associated metrics (size, bold, italic) - the font color - the background color 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon HB9DRVwrote: That's a fair point - maybe in my stuff I should add the option of always sending in lowercase, and displaying text to be sent in uppercase. Hi Simon, Perhaps when you set up that lowercase to uppercase translator option you could make any uppercase that is transmitted or received show on the screen as Bold uppercase. Example: Ham Radio = HAM RADIO At the same time, the 0 (zero) character could be shown as slashed zero. If the preceding character is bold then the slashed zero character would be bolded. 73---Bonnie BA7/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition
Continued failure to eliminate the preventable QRM from unattended digital stations reinforces the position that amateurs cannot be trusted with the maximum possible autonomy to determine the highest valued use of their spectrum. Actual evidence that the operators of such stations will prevent or limit interference among multiple spectrum uses without regulatory coercion might change some minds, including mine. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html to see what the FCC thinks. Their spectrum policy report states: As a general proposition, flexibility in spectrum regulation is critical to improving access to spectrum. In this context, flexibility means granting both licensed users and unlicensed device operators the maximum possible autonomy to determine the highest valued use of their spectrum, subject only to those rules that are necessary to afford reasonable opportunities for access by other spectrum users and to prevent or limit interference among multiple spectrum uses. Flexibility enables spectrum users to make fundamental choices about how they will use spectrum (including whether to use it or transfer their usage rights to others), taking into account market factors such as consumer demand, availability of technology, and competition. By leaving these choices to the spectrum user, this approach tends to lead to efficient and highly-valued spectrum uses. In most instances, a flexible use approach is preferable to the Commission's traditional command-and-control approach to spectrum regulation, in which allowable spectrum uses are limited based on regulatory judgments. I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other countries and say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP power limit and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more stringent regulations. 73, John KD6OZH Original Message Follows From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARRL Petition Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:04 -0500 So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless someone complains we don't care?
[digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
Your point was QRM is inevitable -- live with it. My point is QRM from unattended stations is preventable; stop making excuses and fix it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, sticking tongue in cheek This is a sane idea and a good operating practice...are we (hams) suppose to be sane and use good operating practices since we are sharing all these frequencies? /sticking tongue in cheek Thanks for making my point. What technology can't do, good manners and operating practices can. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? The scenario where neither A or B can hear C or D, but that C or D are QRM'd by transmissions from A or B is indeed possible, but is relatively infrequent. No one expects A or B -- whether they are attended or unattended -- to suspend transmission to avoid QRMing a station that neither can hear. The more common scenario is that A can't hear C or D, but B can hear C or D. A contacts B. If B is attended, he or she detects that the frequency is in use, and either remains silent, or transmits something quick like QSY to 14085. If B is unattended and without a busy frequency detector, its responds to A, QRMing C and D. It is the latter scenario that is responsible for most of the QRM from unattended stations responding to attended stations (often referred to as semi-automatic operation). The fact that we can't cure the first scenario is no excuse for not curing the second scenario, especially given that the second scenario is far more common than the first scenario. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA walt.dubose@ wrote: A B hear each other but dont' hear C D. But C hears either or both A and B. If C is receiving D, then A or B is QRMing C. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny Douglas Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? HMMM By whom is C being QRMd. You didnt say who he is hearing as QRM. I am assuming that C is hearing either A or B or even both? In this case, if A and B were already in QSO, then C and D should QSY to start their QSO elsewhere. If the C and D QSO was already underway, and A and B started up, and they were not hearing either C or D (not probable as usually prop is two- way if it is strong enough for QRM) then C and D would either put up with it, or move since under this condition, they cant tell the other pair that the freq is in use. It is prudent for both parties, starting a QSO to insure that neither of them is intefering with an ongoing QSO, and by both checking to see (both automatic stations having the capability) if the freq was QRL - it would avoid inteference to others. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA walt.dubose@ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? If A and B can hear each other but can't hear C or D then if A or B transmits and C is receiving D, then C is QRMed and can't copy D. This is something that happens quite often on HF and I don't think that any amount of coding willremedy this problem. Walt/K5YFW Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: AMEN !
The asymmetric propagation case is impractical to address, whether the stations involved are attended or unattended; fortunately, its not common. The case we can address is that of the unattended station that could, if suitably equipped, detect an already busy frequency and thereby avoid QRMing an ongoing QSO. The busy frequency detector in SCAMP was a first-cut see how it works implementation -- yet expectations were exceeded. From my email exchanges with Rick, it was clear that there remains plenty of opportunity for improvement. Appended below is Rick's post to the ARRL bandwidth committee, in which he characterizes SCAMP's busy detector. This was originally made available on the SCAMP reflector, to which you may not have access. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Rick Muething KN6KB's post to the band width committee: I want to take this opportunity to update the bandwidth committee on recent progress made in the testing of a new digital mode called SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Message Protocol). This sound card mode incorporates integrated ARQ (Automatic Retry reQuest) and dynamic encoding levels to deliver error-free digital data at respectable speeds (3-4 Kbytes/minute) over 1.9 KHz HF channels. One objective is to provide performance comparable to Pactor II and III using low cost sound card/PC technology and standard voice grade radios (HF and VHF). On March 19, 2005 we began initial beta testing of SCAMP with Winlink 2000 with the exchange of test messages on 17 meters from the client program Paclink SCD W5SMM (Vic Poor) to WL2K SCAMP Server KN6KB. This will be continuing for the next few months using KN6KB's SCAMP Server and one or two additional WL2K SCAMP Servers in selected areas. This marks the the third phase of on-air SCAMP testing which started in November 2004 ( http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/12/07/6/?nc=1 ) Since SCAMP is a wide band digital mode (1.9 KHz) SCAMP servers are operating only in the narrow HF forwarding sub bands shared with HF Packet, Pactor III and other automatic/semiautomatic wide band modes. These sub bands were envisioned many years ago as a compromise to permit unattended HF forwarding between HF packet stations. Clearly the abundance of new digital modes including digital voice, data and images has exceeded the narrow limitations of these sub bands (only 5-10 KHz on some bands) The SCAMP clients and servers also incorporate an effective channel busy detector to significantly reduce QRM from either the careless operator or the hidden transmitter (3rd station not heard by the station manually initiating the connection but detected by the automated server). While there is and continues to be much comment from groups that would like to banish all automated (full or semi) transmissions these automated modes have proven to be a very useful and popular. These modes have also proven to serve best and be most efficient and reliable in times emergency when sufficient control operators are not always be available. The attached screen capture GIFs from the WL2K SCAMP server show that while not perfect the state of the art in automated busy detectors has improved considerably. The following GIFs were all made at fairly weak signals...Signals barely moving the S meter above the background noise. The SSB signal is about 1 S unit over the noise. Clear channel display (reference) Weak CW (about 1000 Hz on the display) PSK 31 signal at about 1000Hz with a weaker CW carrier below Pactor II signal near the bottom of the Pass band Pactor III signal showing mode transitions SSB voice at about 1 S unit over the noise There is no question that the integrated use of these types of busy detectors can substantially mitigate QRM from automated or semi automates stations even in difficult hidden transmitter scenarios. This combined with reasonable partitioning by bandwidth (clustering like bandwidth signals in band segments) will allow a peaceful co existence of the myriad of modes now in use in amateur radio including the semi automatic transfer modes now so popular. It will also foster an environment to experiment with and expand the use of digital technology...an important aspect of keeping Amateur radio healthy. I think it is also important for the committee to consider that the US is only one country and that several other countries have adopted a policy of minimal regulation of bandwidth and modes. Canada for example permits all HF digital mode 3 KHz (1 KHz on 30 meters) with virtually no restrictions as to mode, or automation level. I would suggest the committee consider the following in developing a band plan to submit to the FCC. 1)Generally minimize the complexity of band restrictions by mode,bandwidth and level of automation. The Canadian model is a good example of such simplicity. 2) Allow semi automatic operation while encouraging the use of technologies like smart
[digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
The problem can be overcome, Walt; it requires equipping each station with a busy frequency detector. Attended stations already have a busy frequency detector: the operator. Unattended stations must be augmented to detect activity on the frequencies they use for transmission and never transmit when these frequencies are already in use. Multi-mode busy detection software was successfully prototyped in SCAMP more than a year ago, but has not been incorporated in WinLink or any other HF message passing service that employs unattended stations. If those complaining about technology prison spent half as much time coding as they do whining, HF message passing services could employ unattended stations that do not QRM in-progress QSOs, and thus could peacefully co-exist with the rest of the amateur community. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The hidden transmitter on any band and especially HF is always going to be a problem. It is not only a problem for us, but also in the commercial and military communications world. As hard as we try, as operators and using smart software, we will not overcome the problem. We then are left with two choices...understand it and live with it or not use HF. The problem isn't going away. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? Hi Dave, We agree actuallythe hidden transmitter syndrome is problematic be it on ssb, packet, PAX, Pactor, cw, am... you-name-itwhen one listens or asks if the freq is in use it can only query a station that it can hear. I ran semi-automatic for decades, was never sure of the difference as I only transmitted when present at the keyboard/station...of course I may have not been semi-automatic by definition as I was always too scared to let the computer control the radio (still am). The only busy detector was me... 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: Unfortunately, semi-automatic operation is problematic. The initiating operator can know that the frequency is clear at his or her end of the QSO, but can't know whether the frequency is clear at the automatic station. For example, I might connect with an automatic station in Nashville from my QTH here in Boston, confident that no one in the Northeast will be QRM'd. There's no way for me to know that the automatic station will QRM an already-in-progress QSO between a station in Houston and a station in Buenos Aires because I can't hear either end of that QSO in Boston. Thus all automatic stations must be equipped with busy frequency detectors, even when their being initiated by a manned station. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin bmc@ wrote: Dave, You cannot be suggesting actually listening before transmitting? Would be a slap in the face of tradition. Seriously, it will be interesting to see how it all sorts out...I will move the PAX2 station into the dustbin on 80 as I am not about to dump that wide a signal onto the new compressed band...hope yet doubt other wide-mode ops will do the same. Otherwise I plan on operating the narrow band modes much as before the 15thwill see how it all plays out long term. I have no problem with semi- auto stations as by definition they have a live op to initiate contacts that, in theory, actually listen before transmitting. Automatic stations are a whole other discussion! Be well and 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: You could host the last automatic digital QSO on 80m. If you ensure that the frequency is clear at both ends beforehand, then the QSO will be unique on two counts. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew J. O'Brien andy@ wrote: I assume the new regs go in to effect at midnight Eastern time, 0500 UTC DEC 15, 2006. Does anyone have a suggestion for something digital that we can do at that time ? Andy. Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
The scenario where neither A or B can hear C or D, but that C or D are QRM'd by transmissions from A or B is indeed possible, but is relatively infrequent. No one expects A or B -- whether they are attended or unattended -- to suspend transmission to avoid QRMing a station that neither can hear. The more common scenario is that A can't hear C or D, but B can hear C or D. A contacts B. If B is attended, he or she detects that the frequency is in use, and either remains silent, or transmits something quick like QSY to 14085. If B is unattended and without a busy frequency detector, its responds to A, QRMing C and D. It is the latter scenario that is responsible for most of the QRM from unattended stations responding to attended stations (often referred to as semi-automatic operation). The fact that we can't cure the first scenario is no excuse for not curing the second scenario, especially given that the second scenario is far more common than the first scenario. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A B hear each other but dont' hear C D. But C hears either or both A and B. If C is receiving D, then A or B is QRMing C. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny Douglas Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? HMMM By whom is C being QRMd. You didnt say who he is hearing as QRM. I am assuming that C is hearing either A or B or even both? In this case, if A and B were already in QSO, then C and D should QSY to start their QSO elsewhere. If the C and D QSO was already underway, and A and B started up, and they were not hearing either C or D (not probable as usually prop is two- way if it is strong enough for QRM) then C and D would either put up with it, or move since under this condition, they cant tell the other pair that the freq is in use. It is prudent for both parties, starting a QSO to insure that neither of them is intefering with an ongoing QSO, and by both checking to see (both automatic stations having the capability) if the freq was QRL - it would avoid inteference to others. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? If A and B can hear each other but can't hear C or D then if A or B transmits and C is receiving D, then C is QRMed and can't copy D. This is something that happens quite often on HF and I don't think that any amount of coding willremedy this problem. Walt/K5YFW Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Will Windows Vista bring a windfall?
I'm sure its fine for IT stuff, but do you find the fidelity of execution under VMware to be acceptable when testing multi-threaded real-time systems, Simon? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Myself I run the excellent VMware software to host many O/S. There is a free VMware server which you can use to test various LINUX variants, this is what I do. I currently have a VISTA rc2 system as there are new soundcard API's which I must support. Performance is not bad as long as you don't use the VISTA appearance, letting your apps use the Windows standard is 40% faster or so. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developers tend to hold on to older machines because they must continue to support the older versions of Windows.
[digitalradio] Re: cluster.dynalias.org
DX Central is also down. Must be something going around... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, What's the status of telnet://cluster.dynalias.org ? I'm getting connection refused (nothing listening on port 23). Simon Brown, HB9DRV
[digitalradio] Re: Will Windows Vista bring a windfall?
From a throughput perspective, I'm sure DBMS and app servers run fine. From a testing perspective, however, I'm not sure that running digital mode software in a virtualized environment would yield the same behavior as running it in the native environment that most users will employ. I have some old friends in a realtime software development environment startup and will see what they have to say... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Simon Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, for example a W2K Advanced Server + ORACLE 9i runs almost as fast under VMware Server as it does on a native system. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm sure its fine for IT stuff, but do you find the fidelity of execution under VMware to be acceptable when testing multi- threaded real-time systems, Simon?
[digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
You could host the last automatic digital QSO on 80m. If you ensure that the frequency is clear at both ends beforehand, then the QSO will be unique on two counts. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew J. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume the new regs go in to effect at midnight Eastern time, 0500 UTC DEC 15, 2006. Does anyone have a suggestion for something digital that we can do at that time ? Andy.
[digitalradio] Re: Dec 15?
Unfortunately, semi-automatic operation is problematic. The initiating operator can know that the frequency is clear at his or her end of the QSO, but can't know whether the frequency is clear at the automatic station. For example, I might connect with an automatic station in Nashville from my QTH here in Boston, confident that no one in the Northeast will be QRM'd. There's no way for me to know that the automatic station will QRM an already-in-progress QSO between a station in Houston and a station in Buenos Aires because I can't hear either end of that QSO in Boston. Thus all automatic stations must be equipped with busy frequency detectors, even when their being initiated by a manned station. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, You cannot be suggesting actually listening before transmitting? Would be a slap in the face of tradition. Seriously, it will be interesting to see how it all sorts out...I will move the PAX2 station into the dustbin on 80 as I am not about to dump that wide a signal onto the new compressed band...hope yet doubt other wide-mode ops will do the same. Otherwise I plan on operating the narrow band modes much as before the 15thwill see how it all plays out long term. I have no problem with semi-auto stations as by definition they have a live op to initiate contacts that, in theory, actually listen before transmitting. Automatic stations are a whole other discussion! Be well and 73 Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: You could host the last automatic digital QSO on 80m. If you ensure that the frequency is clear at both ends beforehand, then the QSO will be unique on two counts. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew J. O'Brien andy@ wrote: I assume the new regs go in to effect at midnight Eastern time, 0500 UTC DEC 15, 2006. Does anyone have a suggestion for something digital that we can do at that time ? Andy.
[digitalradio] Re: Auto
Are there any facts behind your pronouncement, Bonnie? If so, please share them, or point us in their direction. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick KV9U wrote: there won't be any more fully automatic stations within the U.S. on 80 meters. Hi Rick, As I said before, that is simply fiction and misinformation. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: New 80m USA Keyboarding Digi Frequencies
If PSK is successfully using 3580 to 3584, then perhaps it should stay there. It would be natural for RTTY and the other digital modes to operate between 3584 and 3600. We should respect the 3560 QRP calling frequency. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Skip Teller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip KH6TY wrote: If someone is going to propose a bandplan then it might be a good idea to first educate oneself as to the current usage and limitations, since that IS important! Hopefully you will research the situation, educate yourself, and get back to us at some point with a suggestion. Bonnie KQ6XA My suggestion is definitely not to follow your suggestion! Just leave PSK31 activity where it is now! 3525-3600 is open for CW, Data, and RTTY by FCC RO for all license classes, and there is no reason for PSK31 on 3580-3583 to move, nor for W1AW CW code practice on 3581.5 to move, just because you say it should. As I suggested, you need to educate yourself and understand the architecture of the Warbler transceiver. You can do this by going to www.smallwonderlabs.com and clicking on the PSK31 button and then the Warbler picture, or Google for PSK-80 Warbler and look at the schematic. The PSK-80 Warbler is a very inexpensive, unique, very popular, design that uses 5 colorburst crystals for all filtering and the only other available choice is to use 3686.4 microprocessor crystals which would put it in the new phone segment. In other words, it is not practical to re-crystal the Warblers, as it would take over $60 of custom crystals, which cost more then the entire $50 Warbler. The Warbler is affordable at $50, but not at $100. It has been years since Novices have been rockbound, so that argument has no merit, does it? If you want people to take your bandplan suggestions seriously, you might want to do your homework and accomodate current operating practices a lot better... 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: New 80m USA Keyboarding Digi Frequencies
97.221 limits 80m automatic operation with more than 500 hz bandwidth to 3.620-3.635; for verification, see http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=136 As far as I know, 97.221 was not changed in the recent FCC action. Anyone have hard evidence to the contrary? If so, there will be no automatic or semi-automatic US stations running wideband digital protocols on 80m after December 15 -- reducing the contention for frequencies below 3600. I don't know how much automatic operation there is at 500 hz bandwidth, but 3595 to 3600 seems like a good spot for it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell ae6vw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: expeditionradio writes: [snipped] Let's be blunt together, but let's focus on the topic instead of personality. The fact is, there's a proposed solution on the table. If you have a truly constructive suggestion, let's hear it. Sexist or condescending remarks do nothing to advance the discussion. Right on target. The other posters' remarks strike me as regrettably personal and non-constructive. Below are my comments on the proposal. [snipped] 80 meter Bandplan 2007 for USA: == 3500-3540 = CW 3540-3560 = Any Mode, 500Hz Bandwidth 3560-3600 = Any Mode Given what the FCC has done to 80 meters, nobody is going to get everything they'd like out of any new USA band plan. Still, it seems to me that as advocates for the data modes, we are more likely to obtain the cooperation and agreement of those with whom we share 3500-3600 KHz if our proposals leave half of the new band for the CW ops. Accordingly, while I can live with Bonnie's suggestion as presented, I suggest moving the boundaries up by 10 KHz. 3500-3550 = CW 3550-3570 = Any mode up to 500Hz bandwidth 3570-3600 = Any mode That gives general and advanced CW ops 25 KHz of mode-exclusive space instead of 15, and extras 50 KHz instead of 40. It still leaves room for about 12 concurrent 2.5 KHz-wide data-mode QSOs above 3570, or 10 if the wide mode operation are assumed to occupy 3KHz each. I think that's enough. (Of course, I *would* think that, since I'm not much interested in wide data modes below 10M. grin) Now let's move all of the keyboarding frequencies up by 10 Khz from Bonnie's proposals: PSK31 = 3545kHz USB (3545.3-3548.0 kHz) PSK31 = 3555kHz USB (3555.3-3558.0 kHz) QPSK31/PSK63/125 = 3547kHz USB (3547.3-3550.0 kHz) QPSK31/PSK63/125 = 3557kHz USB (3557.3-3560.0 kHz) MFSK = 3548kHz USB (3548.3-3551.0 kHz) MFSK = 3558kHz USB (3558.3-3561.0 kHz) OLIVIA500 = 3549kHz USB (3549.3-3553.0 kHz) OLIVIA500 = 3559kHz USB (3559.3-3563.0 kHz) CONTESTIA/DOMINO, etc = 3550kHz USB (3550.3-3554.0 kHz) CONTESTIA/DOMINO, etc = 3560kHz USB (3560.3-3564.0 kHz) HELL/FMHELL = 3552kHz USB (3552.3-3555 kHz) HELL/FMHELL = 3562kHz USB (3562.3-3565 kHz) RTTY/FSK = 3555+ (3555.3-3565 kHz) RTTY/FSK = 3565+ (3565.3-3575 kHz) PAX/MT63/OLIVIA1000 = 3560kHz USB (3560.5-3563) PAX/MT63/OLIVIA1000 = 3570kHz USB (3570.5-3573) As always, the CW folks, when they need elbow room, are free to move up the band, but we can at least hope that they will go fight it out with the Pactor3/Winlink crowd at the top of the band, rather with the experimenters and narrow-mode operators in between. Comments? -- 73 DE KW6H, ex-AE6VW, Chris Jewell Gualala CA USA
[digitalradio] Re: CPU performance ?
Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Flavio. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Flavio Padovani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saludos Dave, I have tried to contact you directly, but everytme the message is undeliverable. I would like to get some advice on flat screen monitors. Thanks Monday, November 27, 2006, 9:38:29 AM, you wrote: DB That's not universally true, Flavio. Its defintely not true of any of DB the Nanao or Dell LCD monitors I use, or the IBM Thinkpad or Sony DB Vaio laptop displays. -- 73, Flavio Padovani KP4AWX
[digitalradio] Re: CPU performance ?
That's not universally true, Flavio. Its defintely not true of any of the Nanao or Dell LCD monitors I use, or the IBM Thinkpad or Sony Vaio laptop displays. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Flavio Padovani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saludos Dave, All LCD or TFT monitors produce severe picture distortion at any but the default monitor resolution. Make sure that the one you get is not distorted at the resolution you plan to use. Ever saw an oval shaped circle? Just try and change the resolution in your monitor to any resolution but the default. And of course, the nice specifications only hold at the default resolution. For my money, I wpuld want a monitor that will go no higher than 1024 x 768 and is 20 size. That gives superb resolution and excellent picture. Sunday, November 26, 2006, 11:49:45 PM, you wrote: DB A critical parameter with monitors in amateur radio applications is resolution. $160 for a 20 monitor that can't do better than 1024 x 768 would be no bargain. 1280 x 1024 would be reasonable for that price, but check its reviews for good text readability. You should also verify that the display adaptor in the system you choose can support this resolution with reasonable color depth. Until recently, my primary display was a Nanao 20 LCD whose resolution is 1600 x 1200. This many bits is nice for running multiple applications simultaneously, but I found myself squinting after long development sessions; 22 or 24 would be a better monitor size for this resolution. When I built a new development system, I upgraded to a 30 Dell LCD whose resolution is 2560 x 1600. All that room is great, but I wish it were concave. In hindsight, an angled pair of 22 displays running 1600 x 1200 might have been better. DB DB 73, DB DB Dave, AA6YQ -- 73, Flavio Padovani KP4AWX
[digitalradio] Re: CPU performance ?
There are many versions of the AMD 64 3200+, ranging in clock speed from 2 to 2.2 GHz. All have 128 kb of level-1 cache; some have 512 kb of level-2 cache, and some have 1 mb. All versions of the AMD 64 X2 Dual-core 3800+ clock are specified as 2 GHz, with 128 kb of level-1 cache and 512 kb of level-2 cache. The package contains two processors. The P4 HT 524 is not listed in Intel's P4 web page http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/index_view_p4.htm but looking at the specs of its closest neighbors, its clock rate is probably 2.8 to 3 GHz, and its level-2 cache is probably 1 mb. Besides CPU clock rate, cache configuration, and bus speed, RAM size and hard drive speed (track-to-track seek time) are important performance parameters. All of the systems you're considering will likely yield adequate performance for IE, Outlook, and a couple of digital mode apps. The AMD 64 X2 Dual-core 3800+ will give you a 10-20% performance boost over an equivalent uniprocessor; only apps designed to exploit dual processors, e.g. Photoshop, get more than that. While 512 mb is enough to run XP, you'll almost certainly want to upgrade to 1 gb or more. What are the RAM upgrade limits of these three systems? I wouldn't buy a system limited to 1 gb; adding RAM is the cheapest performance upgrade, and you want that option when you need it. Unless you're also planning to use the machine for digital photography or videography, disk capacity is unlikely to be an issue; anything north of 40 gb should be fine. Do be sure that the system can accomodate a second internal hard drive, though, in case your needs change and you want to add capacity and/or redundancy. If you're running more apps than fit simultaneously in RAM, then you don't want a slow hard drive. Compare the track-to-track seek times of the drives in the systems you're considering with the data available from http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html If you have additional questions, fire away Andy. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm out of the loop on the latest in CPU performance. I'm looking at a three low end computer deals. One has a AMD 64 3200 + CPU, (basic PC with 512 MK Ram for $289, no monitor) another a 64 X2 Dual-Core 3800+ ( 1 Gig of RAM , no monitor for $389), and one more ...the Intel® Pentium® 4 HT 524 (no monitor , 512 Megs RAM) for $410. I wonder if people here would comment on these CPU's for digital modes and the usual multi-tasking that hams do? I tend to run a logging program, a couple of digital mode applications (like Multipsk and MixW),Internet Explorer, email, all at the same time. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: CPU performance ?
A critical parameter with monitors in amateur radio applications is resolution. $160 for a 20 monitor that can't do better than 1024 x 768 would be no bargain. 1280 x 1024 would be reasonable for that price, but check its reviews for good text readability. You should also verify that the display adaptor in the system you choose can support this resolution with reasonable color depth. Until recently, my primary display was a Nanao 20 LCD whose resolution is 1600 x 1200. This many bits is nice for running multiple applications simultaneously, but I found myself squinting after long development sessions; 22 or 24 would be a better monitor size for this resolution. When I built a new development system, I upgraded to a 30 Dell LCD whose resolution is 2560 x 1600. All that room is great, but I wish it were concave. In hindsight, an angled pair of 22 displays running 1600 x 1200 might have been better. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Meuser robertm@ wrote: Go with the dual core and the greater amount of RAM. That is assuming all other things are equal. Thanks for the feedback guys, I will go with the dual core that comes with 1 gig of RAM that can be upgraded 4 Gigs. I'll check Dave's HD related spefications. The packages states 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache , will do more research. After the comments on the widescreen monitor, I'm tempted to add a 20 inch wide screen for $160 more. Andy.
[digitalradio] Re: USA FCC: Technology Death Row for HF Data
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell ae6vw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I certainly wish that regulation-by-bandwidth had been rolled into the current rulemaking, but the next-best choice is for the Commission to act promptly on that matter now that the current rules are out. The FCC was not unaware of the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal when they issued the current Omnibus rules. If the FCC thought the ARRL proposal had merit, they would not have roled out Omnibus rules that move in the opposite direction (e.g. the new limits on data). I strongly suspect that the new Ominbus rules *are* the FCC's response to the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal was deeply flawed; it would have removed the constraints on unattended (semi-automatic) operation without providing any means of controlling QRM from the hidden transmitter effect. If this proposal is indeed dead, I'm pleased. However, the loss of 500hz data below 30 mHz is highly unfortunate, and puts a crimp in my personal plan to develop an interactive party-line protocol capable of background file transfer. On the bright side, 6m should become more popular... 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Many FCC Errors: Voice/Phone/Digi 3600-3700kHz Re: What is mode?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip As for the supposed loss or disappearance of the automatic band at 3620kHz to 3635kHz, I do not believe this FCC error should be allowed to stand for very long. Perhaps the FCC's interim correction to the rulemaking will be one of these options: 1. Simply move the automatic band to 3575kHz-3600kHz, although this is incompatible with bandplans of other IARU regions. 2. Drop all band restrictions for automatically controlled stations on 80 meters. Some form of automatic control will be working its way into many of the different systems we use, anyway. So the definition of what is automation, and what is operator-helping computer programs is becoming as blurred as the antique definition of mode itself. With the widespread opposition to the relaxation of constraints on unattended (semi-automatic) operation in RM-11306, as expressed by hundreds of comments filed with the FCC, one hopes the FCC would not casually decide to let automatically controlled stations run wild on 80m or any other band. Clearly, the FCC has been sloppy in its rollout of this rulemaking. Compounding this with an even sloppier correction would be a disaster. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: FCC error? Conflict sub-bands in new rules? 3620kHz to 3635kHz
If a conversion to bandwidth-based rules is imminent, why would the FCC role out these changes? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FCC error? 3620kHz to 3635kHz Automatic Band -vs- Extra Voice Is there a sub-band conflict in the new FCC rules? The FCC Report and Order says they will allow Extra Class Voice operation to expand down to 3600kHz. That is good. But, ooops... Did FCC forget about the fact that in 1995 they defined a sub-band at 3620kHz to 3635kHz in FCC Rules Part 97.221 for automatically controlled data stations? There are automatic Data stations using this sub-band every day! There is no mention of what they will do about this in their Report and Order. Will they continue to allow existing General/Advanced/Extra classes to use Data in this sub-band, while allowing Extra Class Voice to share the same sub-band? When the FCC actually publishes these new rules, will they resolve this problem? At this point, it there seems be a conflict brewing in USA new rules. It does show yet another example of the immediate need for new bandwidth-based rules, rather than our present content-based rules. --Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: The Rules are a changing!!! FCC publishes it changes
The Unibus? There's a DEC-defying trip down memory lane. As for the ARRL and FCC, they're off singing We're all Bozos on this Omnibus. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I thought this was the big unibus, or whatever! (HI) John - K8OCL Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Waterfall 2d
When operating in PSK mode, WinWarbler provides an Omega 25 button that replays the last 25 seconds of audio, allowing you to decode any signal in the waterfall during that interval. If you have WinWarbler's broadband decode function enabled, its Channel Monitor window decodes all QSOs simultaneously, providing another way to look back in time. WinWarbler is free, and available via www.dxlabsuite.com 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made my first Digipan/psk31 QSO last night in several years. It was the first one ever on 40 meters. It's good to be back. One feature request that seemed to jump out at me was the selection of historical info on the waterfall screen. Currently we can select where on the X axis to decode -- but everything down the display is past and gone. Lots of bright yellow bursts of transmissions that would be interesting to replay and see what the contained. Do any of the waterfall based applications keep a buffer of the received audio so it's possible to look back at the various tracks showing on the display? Thanks, Bill - WA7NWP Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Sorry, Andy. KD4E is an experimental AI application I've been developing. The recent HP spying scandal combined with a tract on religious freedom combined to expose a defect in its deduction module. Its fixed in the next release... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What??? - Original Message - From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] One could observe the same paradox about virtually every religion on earth at certain moments in history and/or in certain geo-political locales. The goal of the statement about peaceful Islam is to empower those who choose to make it a religion of peace, regardless of differing understandings as to what the Koran actually teaches. Life isn't as simple for decision makers as it is for those of us in the peanut gallery. Most of us have served in both roles and can remember the tough choices and strategic statements. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Looks like its working better now... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Think outside the technological box. There are few unique patterns of human behavior. Bonnie accused the ARRL technical folks of being deceptive about the possibilities of BPL-busting technology, she gave no reason for their behavior. I was drawing a current events parallel as to why sometimes decision makers say and do things that don't make sense to non-decision makers. Sorry that the professor in me presumes everyone is an active and aware student. :-) doc Sorry, Andy. KD4E is an experimental AI application I've been developing. The recent HP spying scandal combined with a tract on religious freedom combined to expose a defect in its deduction module. Its fixed in the next release... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien aobrien2@ wrote: What??? - Original Message - From: kd4e kd4e@ One could observe the same paradox about virtually every religion on earth at certain moments in history and/or in certain geo-political locales. The goal of the statement about peaceful Islam is to empower those who choose to make it a religion of peace, regardless of differing understandings as to what the Koran actually teaches. Life isn't as simple for decision makers as it is for those of us in the peanut gallery. Most of us have served in both roles and can remember the tough choices and strategic statements. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
At the bottom of all this, Mike, is the golden rule of amateur radio: never transmit on a frequency that is already in use. Whether we individually agree or disagree with the decision, the IARU, ARRL, and FCC (via its STAs for the US-based beacons) authorized the creation of the beacon network on 5 HF frequencies. As a result, these 5 frequencies are always in use; thus operators should avoid transmitting on them except under emergency conditions. Given the function of the beacon network, occasional outages due to QRM from those ignorant of its frequency allocations is no big deal. A polite email reminder addressed to this group and the RTTY reflector prior to major RTTY contests would be far more effective and collegial than a public pillory after the fact. If someone happens to notice an operator frequently QRMing a beacon, then they should make a phone call or send a private email message -- just as they would if they noticed key clicks or splatter. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:44 PM 9/26/06, Dave Bernstein wrote: So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan. Given normal circumstances, I'd certainly agree with you, Dave. But a more relevant question might be this: would there be any fault to be assigned for non-compliance with a band plan at those times when the band plan is not appropriate to the situation? The ARRL has indicated that band plans are not intended to address atypical situations, such as major contests. As a consequence, I think it's unrealistic to expect strict and universal compliance with the IARU band plans in a situation for which those plans were not designed to apply. I'd have to expect some lesser degree of compliance from hams who pay attention to what the IARU headquarters society has told us. As hams we all utilize the same spectrum and we need to plan how best to share this common resource. But our planning currently does allow for flexibility. Having an endorsed band plan does not establish exclusive enclaves which are inviolate. To view a band plan as a rigid absolute, compliance with which is mandatory is not productive and ultimately divisive, as that view leads to increased frustrations and causes more conflicts as opposed to resolving them. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
1. it is often difficult to determine an operator's location from his or her callsign. TO5DX might be operating from any French territory. Anyone using my signal as an indication of propagation to California will reach the wrong conclusion. 2. The IARU beacons transmit at known power levels with omidirectional antennas; they reduce power in known steps during their transmisssion. This provides a more accurate understanding of the signal path than can be obtained by monitoring most QSOs. Live and let live is a fine philosophy, but ignoring worldwide band plans doesn't sound much like let live. I agree that the occasional QRM from RTTY contesters constitutes no crisis to the propagation monitoring community. What's more important is our ability to effectivley share spectrum. From that perspective, publishing a hall of shame is no more constructive than ignoring band plans. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Soileau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hm Is the purpose of a beacon not to help someone determine just what the propagation conditions are on a particular day between various parts of the world? If one hears a ham transmitting as part of an actual QSO, would this not also provide the exact same information? I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs. No, I am NOT a contestor. As there are only a few major contests a year, I just do not see where this is a major problem. I do feel that this type of debate is very similar to the code-no code, extra-lite (no 20wpm code), and SO2R debates... it is an opportunity for folks to express their varying opinions on a topic whilst driving a wedge betwixt members of the amateur radio community. As for your Wolf Hong, well, you should be glad that those of us who do web development for a living do not have one handy at times. I tried to find out a little about you, but was only able to get a little info due to the large number of broken links on your own web page. Live and let live. There is spectrum and room for all of us. 73, Patrick ND5C --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: RTTY Hall of Shame Here is a list of some of the RTTY operators transmitting on the international IARU beacon frequency 14100.0kHz today. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA Saturday 23 SEP 2006 WM3T/4 (repeat offender) W4VD (repeat offender) N6CK JE2PMC IW5ABF IK1ZFO N6IU EA1DZL JA1GHH DF4ZW DH3JF YU7AM OE9SLH DD1UN F5OQL W5PUF K0GEO The list continues... Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
Beacons are allocated space in all three IARU regional band plans. This is as much to protect live operators from being QRM'd by beacons as it is to protect beacon users from QRM from live operators. Given that the beacons don't have busy frequency detectors and pragmatically couldn't QSY even if they did, the 1 KHz per band beacon allocations seem like a reasonable solution to me. And since these allocations are incorporated in the IARU band plan governing my region then I ought to comply whether or not I personally think its reasonable. So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:40:54 -0700, Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether the FCC (and other national administrations) treat violating an IARU Region band plan as violating the good amateur practice provision of the rules is unclear to me. However, an OO notice, even if not an FCC citation and fine, does seem (IMHO) appropriate for violating the band plan. REPLY FOLLOWS Anybody, including you, me or the IARU can set up a band plan. Only if it is adopted by the FCC or your country's equivalent does it become enforceable. How about this scenario: Station A listens on 14.100 and hears nothing. Station A sends QRL? a couple of times and receives no response. Station A calls CQ and shortly thereafter is jammed by a beacon. Which station is at fault? Bill, W6WRT Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: tell me again
PSK -- which many posters here have asserted is the most popular sound card mode -- can be used in either LSB or USB at the operator's discretion. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I ask this before but tell me again why al the sound card modes are on USB when all the *pre* sound card modes (RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR PACTOR and others) are all LSB Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: tell me again
Everything Peter says about BPSK operation is sideband independent except his last point, which is a human limitation. Application software could mitigate this if desired, e.g. by providing QSY up and QSY down controls that take sideband into account. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but it is based mainly on how PSK31, the first popular soundcard mode , is tuned and viewed in a waterfall. I posted about Peter Martinez's views on this before... From the dude himself... Andy K3UK You can use either upper sideband or lower sideband when using PSK31, but there are two things to remember. When tuning to a particular frequency, for a sked or a net for example, the exact frequency specified for the net will be the centre-frequency of the RF signal. If your radio is operating with upper sideband, the RF frequency that it will receive will be the dial frequency of the radio plus the frequency shown in the Rx Freq box in the PSK31SBW program. This means that to operate on a given RF frequency for a sked, you need to subtract the Rx Freq from the RF frequency to get the required dial frequency. If your radio is operating with lower sideband, you should add the Rx Freq value to the RF frequency to get the required dial frequency. The other thing to remember when choosing which sideband to use, is that it's important that both stations use the same keying convention when using QPSK. In this program, the default is to use upper sideband. If you choose to use lower sideband and you will be using QPSK, then you must change the keying convention for QPSK, both when receiving and transmitting. This is done by checking the Inverted QPSK box in the SETUP menu. The keying polarity does not matter with BPSK, so it does not matter which sideband to use for BPSK, and the Inverted QPSK checkbox has no effect on BPSK, but you should remember the QPSK polarity problem because you may want to switch to QPSK during a contact, and if you have the wrong polarity, you will lost the copy. It is recommend to use upper sideband for PSK31. It will be easier to read the waterfall display and decide which way to QSY if the RF spectrum is the same way up as the audio spectrum. On 9/22/06, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PSK -- which many posters here have asserted is the most popular sound card mode -- can be used in either LSB or USB at the operator's discretion. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.com, John Becker w0jab@ wrote: I ask this before but tell me again why al the sound card modes are on USB when all the *pre* sound card modes (RTTY, PACKET, AMTOR PACTOR and others) are all LSB -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com www.myspace.com/k3uk [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - SCS TNC
The main problem with sole source technology is the absence of competition, which generally keeps prices high. And message delivery over HF is a niche market if ever there was one. If we want out of this box (pun intended), 1. expand the market Very few hams are interested in sending email over HF. Amateur radio serves a very broad range of interests, but there's one common aspect to all popular modes: the ability to communicate in real-time. The only significant driver for email over HF is emergency communications. As Rick KV9U has pointed out, a capability used only during emergencies will never be reliable during emergencies. Thus we must find a way to incorporate reliable message delivery as a useful adjunct to something much more broadly appealing. 2. minimize the cost of adoption Cost is not limited to money spent on a an outboard box, it also includes less tangible things like the effort required to learn, deploy, and manage a new operating system. We can debate the merits of various architectures until we're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that anything that doesn't run on a Windows PC with a soundcard and a 3 khz bandwidth transceiver will not see broad uptake in the amateur community over the next 5-10 years. 3. find some sizzle Why has PSK become so popular so quickly? It provides fast enough real-time communications, it runs on just about any Windows PC with a soundcard and a stable transceiver, and its narrow bandwidth permits panoramic reception -- a use of available computing technology that is both visually attractive and highly effective. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Before you change the subject, please acknowledge that its possible for computers with soundcards to run protocols with ARQ. Two examples have been cited: SCAMP, and PSKMail. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:28 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote: AA6YQ comments below Wrong. SCAMP, a protocol that employs ARQ to attain reliable delivery, was implemented on a Windows PC with a soundcard rather than an outboard TNC. SCAMP was specifically design to tolerate the long delays caused by the lack of pre-emptive scheduling in Windows. And where is it today? Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
There are two possible explanations for why we don't see PC-hosted Pactor 3 running on the bands today, even though its technically feasible: 1. a PC-based implementation makes little financial sense 2. information sufficiently detailed to implement Pactor 3 has not been publicly released Until I checked the price of SCS modems a few days ago, I'd assumed that #1 was the issue: the number of users interested in dedicating a $500 PC to Pactor would be low if one could purchase an SCS modem for $300. But SCS modems cost $1000, so a PC-based implementation would have some financial appeal. I suspect that the real explanation is #2. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong I think. With the right operating system, running on the right/correctly configured computer (hardware) and with the right software, you can do what Pactor II/III or almost any other mode used can do. Really ? If this was true we would be running it today. And I just don't see it on the bands. Everyone I run into running Amtor or Pactor is using a TNC. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
+++AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:49 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote: Before you change the subject, please acknowledge that its possible for computers with soundcards to run protocols with ARQ. Two examples have been cited: SCAMP, and PSKMail. I can not do that Dave as I never have tried scamp. And really not up with the sound card stuff any longer. I don't care for PSK and never went back to it after a week or two. +++Then having a technical discussion with you is a waste of time, John. You were right, the thread is dead. But it seems to me - if it can be done we all would be doing it right now. And that I don't see. There are people using PSKMail every day. The fact that you personally don't enjoy PSK doesn't alter the fact that PSKMail demonstrates the viability of ARQ in a protocol running on a PC with a soundcard. I really did not like the fact that what I did test or try that was a so called *ARQ* sound card mode was on it's very best day only 42 per cent of what a side by side TNC was running. This is like citing back in 1910, a horse can outrun a model T as proof that automobiles will never work. Come on Mr. software guy, give my a ARQ sound card mode like Amtor or Pactor mode, please. One that will work with my 500Mhz Dell's that I have here (anyone of the 9 of them) +++My dance card is already full. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ Soundcard Modes
A question for you, Patrick: in your opinion, is the public documentation for Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 sufficient to allow you to build your own implementations? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Is it just that the Pactor mode allows only a very short time for the ACK/NAK, or is there some synchronization from packet to packet that must be maintained? The second proposal is the good one. Is it possible that one could write a sound card program that could monitor Pactor II/III transmissions even if it can't interoperate with the SCS TNC? If the (detailed) specifications of Pactor II and III were public, it would be possible to monitor these transmissions (but not work them, for the same problem as for Pactor 1). 73 Patrick [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
SCAMP and PSKMail make it clear that a PC and soundcard can reliably deliver messages over HF even with the wrong operating system. The trick is to choose an error detection and correction mechanism that is compatible with the operating environment. Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 chose an error detection and correction mechanism appropriate for their operating environment, which is a processor dedicated to running a single application (their modem). The fact that these protocols can't be implemented on a PC running Windows cannot be generalized to protocols that use ARQ can't be implemented in software running on a computer. A mode that requires its users to augment a desktop PC and soundcard with additional hardware, e.g. a dedicated DSP, will experience limited adoption. To overcome the inertia, such a mode would need almost magical properties; most hams would spend $300 for a dedicated box that would make them telepathic or telekinetic, but anything less than that and you're in SCS's low adoption territory. In contrast, an exciting new mode that runs on a PC and soundcard would be tried by nearly every ham with a computer. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, You wrote...Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right? Wrong I think. With the right operating system, running on the right/correctly configured computer (hardware) and with the right software, you can do what Pactor II/III or almost any other mode used can do. What needs to be evaluated is whether it is better to run a separate computer, separate DSP boards, more than one DSP chip, more than one processor (dual processors...dual core dual processors), RISC processor, go to 64 bit processor, etc. The computer industry is full of COTS hardware and if we (hams) can incorporate it into our computers to developed and implement superior communications modes, then I believe we should rather and develop peripheral hardware for new modes. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes I knew that. So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988 Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right? At 09:45 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote: Yes. Open up your P 2 3 TNC, and you will find a microprocessor. That microprocessor is running software. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
I Googled SCS Pactor buy to get you a link or two, and was surprised to see these modems selling for $1100 rather than $300. A dedicated PC implementation would make more financial sense than I thought! Anyway, here's some links: http://www.marinenet.net/Radio%20Modems.htm http://www.landfallnavigation.com/pactor.html http://www.docksideradio.com/ptcii.htm There's a couple available on EBay for $700-$800. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where can I get an SCS Pactor TNC for $300 with the license to run Pactor III? I WILL buy one. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker w0jab@ wrote: I knew that. So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988 Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right? Wrong. SCAMP, a protocol that employs ARQ to attain reliable delivery, was implemented on a Windows PC with a soundcard rather than an outboard TNC. SCAMP was specifically design to tolerate the long delays caused by the lack of pre-emptive scheduling in Windows. Could Pactor-3 be implemented on a modern PC with a soundcard? Yes, but not with Windows as the operating system. Has anyone done this? No -- it would make no economic sense when you can buy a TNC for $300. Most TNCs are based on microprocessors, some augmented by digital signal processors; both of these devices are controlled by software. While such systems certainly incorporate hardware, they are not hardware-only solutions. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
That's not true, John. SCS multimode controllers do a fine job with Pactor-2 and Pactor-3, both of which utilize ARQ. These protocols are implemented in software running on a computer -- one of the 68K variants, as I recall. The impediment to running ARQ protocols on Windows PCs is the absence of pre-emptive scheduling in Windows. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this thread is about dead. WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS MOMENT: A computer will not work for a fast ARQ mode because every time it does anything else that timing link is lost. FIX: If you would like to play the AQR modes better get yourself some hardware (TNC) . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew that. So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988 Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right? Wrong. SCAMP, a protocol that employs ARQ to attain reliable delivery, was implemented on a Windows PC with a soundcard rather than an outboard TNC. SCAMP was specifically design to tolerate the long delays caused by the lack of pre-emptive scheduling in Windows. Could Pactor-3 be implemented on a modern PC with a soundcard? Yes, but not with Windows as the operating system. Has anyone done this? No -- it would make no economic sense when you can buy a TNC for $300. Most TNCs are based on microprocessors, some augmented by digital signal processors; both of these devices are controlled by software. While such systems certainly incorporate hardware, they are not hardware-only solutions. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
By definition Hardware solutions do not include dedicated microprocessors. They use non-programmable control mechanisms, e.g. finite state machines, stepping relays, or cam shafts. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have followed the discussions, you know that ARQ modes not only can, but have already been implemented on sound card modes in at least two cases. One for Linux and one for Windows. Many of us have done all the hardware stuff years ago, but it doesn't interest us anymore. Hardware solutions have a dedicated microprocessor to keep the timing very tight. Non real time OS's need to have a wider gap in time. I agree that Amtor and Pactor are dead as far as sound card modes go. But we will eventually have some enterprising and brilliant programmer come along and create a practical ARQ mode for sound cards. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: I think this thread is about dead. WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS MOMENT: A computer will not work for a fast ARQ mode because every time it does anything else that timing link is lost. FIX: If you would like to play the AQR modes better get yourself some hardware (TNC) . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
That's fine, Rick. The issue is specialization, not regression. Its not obvious to me why one couldn't build a desktop Linux around a realtime kernel. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, I am comparing current mainstream versions to the older ones. Examples would be Windows XP vs. MS-DOS also, any of the popular Linux versions whether Fedora or Ubuntu or SUSE vs. the early versions. There are RT versions as you note, but they are not used for typical end users who want a desktop OS. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: Your characterization of Linux as further from real-time than older operating systems is inaccurate, Rick. See http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8073314981.html http://www.mvista.com/products/realtime.html http://www.realtimelinuxfoundation.org/ http://source.mvista.com/linux_2_6_RT.html http://www.timesys.com/ 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Any one have valid email for G7IZW?
What I should have said is if your application is developed open source, then have addressed this issue. Transitioning from closed to open source solely to address longterm continuity would rarely make sense, IMHO. Effective open source projects require a significant management effort. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Open source is one solution. Another is to establish and maintain a repository containing source code and all necessary development tooling; this repository should be placed in the hands of a trusted individual or group with instructions for ensuring continuity in the event of the author becomes incapable of doing so. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Seems that Open Source is THE SOLUTION. Your definition almost coincides with that of Eric Raymond in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, finding someone or some group able to continue with the work already done. 73 de Jose, CO2JA Linux User 91155 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Any one have valid email for G7IZW?
Google says [EMAIL PROTECTED] but if ntlworld.com is non-responsive, this address may also be non-functional. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jerry W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking for email address of Frank G7IZW who was the support for WinPix32 SSTV software. His site http://homepage.ntlworld.com/winpix/ comes up with some chocolate bunnies? TIA, Jerry - K0HZI Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Any one have valid email for G7IZW?
I'm very sorry to hear that, Jerry. Its a topic no one really likes to talk about, but there are more than a few orphanned amateur-written software applications. I probably encounter more than most, as users of orphanned logging applications seek ways to salvage their log data. Open source is one solution. Another is to establish and maintain a repository containing source code and all necessary development tooling; this repository should be placed in the hands of a trusted individual or group with instructions for ensuring continuity in the event of the author becomes incapable of doing so. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jerry W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Thanks, tried that but no response. Would be sad if no one archived WinPix32 files. Don K0HEO seen the first versions of MMSSTV and said he didn't think much of the software, but he knew that MMSSTV being freeware would kill WinPix32. Don was working on some improvements to WinPix32 before he got so sick he went into a hospice. Was a great ham and good friend. Jerry - K0HZI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: Google says winpix@ but if ntlworld.com is non-responsive, this address may also be non-functional. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jerry W k0hzi.mn@ wrote: Looking for email address of Frank G7IZW who was the support for WinPix32 SSTV software. His site http://homepage.ntlworld.com/winpix/ comes up with some chocolate bunnies? TIA, Jerry - K0HZI Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Leigh is referring to the fact that the founders of Purify went on to create Netflix. I don't think Reed and Neal used much of what they learned with Purify to build Netflix, other than to make sure that it doesn't leak memory. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Purify gave us Netflix! On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 2:05 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote: C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
If I understood its description correctly, PSKmail is a server-base architecture: if you you want to send an email message, you establish an HF connection on a known frequency with a PSKmail server, which then forwards your message via the internet. Is this the right network architecture? Is it desireable for multiple stations operating on the same frequency to exchange messages with no designated master or server? Do messages only carry email, or do they also support IM? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola Jose, I think that Paul, K9PS attempted to do this at one time, but was not able to finish it. He has developed ARQ criteria that was the used to help develop PSKmail. I thought that MT-63 could handle multi-path quite well, but I still prefer MFSK16 for difficult conditions. While I can understand the reason for moving most of the messaging to the internet due to the congestion we would otherwise have with HF forwarding. We still need some kind of HF forwarding for emergency use when other systems are not operational. It seems to me that it must have a full character set. And in order to insure that such systems are in place at all times for the inevitable emergency, it also has to have some kind of practical use or it won't be ready when you need it the most. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose Amador wrote: --- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Rick, TKS for info. Perhaps, next year I will see if it is possible to carry a synchronous ARQ mode (perhaps Pactor 1 forced to 100 bauds) in Multipsk, under a big PC XP. 73 Patrick I know that somebody I cannot remember is working on a wrapper for MT63 as layer one. On my tests on 40 meters, seemingly MT63 does not stand the multipath on the lower bands. On 20 it works great. Maybe some Olivia variant could be good with a wrapper for the lower bands. Olivis is rugged, but slwww... Nevertheless, my KPC-2 received many packets on 40 m that it could not decodethe LEDs blinked and the TNC output was nil on 40 at 300 bauds. A slow, steady flow is far better than a quicker signalling rate with many failed frames. I see a need for substitute Layer One alternatives. Really, the performance of Layer One established in 1982 sucks, a single failed bit trashes a frame. For some time Pactor and its variants has been a good substitute, but the high costs of the SCS boxes makes them unaffordable for many. Forwarding thruput is 10 times better, and even quasi-QRP operation (25 watts) becomes a workable option. After some time away from packet, I find that activity is inexistent. I don't know if a better Layer One could revive HF forwarding, but certainly, better alternatives are required for FBB and JNOS. I have been a BBS sysop since 1993. I tried a keyboard to keyboard QSO using PAX and it did better than 300 baud packet on 40 meters using Multipsk. I believe that some sort of a driver for FBB and JNOS would be a good thing, both for Windows and Linuxmaybe even MSDOS...you don't need much of a computer to run a fairly decent radio only BBS under MSDOS...we have one here in Havana. Possibly many BBS's are doing internet forwarding among them, but that is not an option for many BBS's without an internet link. The revival of HF forwarding would be a good thing on those less fortunate cases. Jose, CO2JA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] busy day on 20m PSK31
33 unique callsigns were decoded -- each at least twice -- during the last ~10 minutes between 14070.5 and 14072.5. I thought there might be a contest going, but its all just keyboard-to-keyboard chatting. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: USA; Baud Limit = 300 Symbols Per Second (HF Digital Data)
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the case of 40M, if each data channel (mode bandwidth) is 5 KHz wide, there would be room for 25 QSOs. I RARELY hear 25 QSOs between 7000 and 7150 KHz on any given evening. Most of the time there are 4 or 5 (some multi stations) QSOs within a 15-20 KHz section of the band and then the rest scattered out with 3 maybe 4 individuals in a QSO. In all, probably less than 30 callsigns can be heard on the band. With 25 5KHz channels available and 5 having multiple users, that leaves room for 20 individual QSOs. Either you have a very poor 40m antenna, or you're only listening during coronal mass ejections. Over the last couple of evenings, there have been 10-15 stations in 40m PSK segment alone, with at least 15 CW stations below them and sundry digital modes above them. Folks, we got to use our heads to make informed operating decisions. If we do, I believe that we have adequate space for even some 10 KHz bandwidth modes. If you repeat your testing using a dummy load for an antenna, you can probably justify 25 kHz modes. I've asked you this question in the past, but you've never responded: what commercial amateur transceiver has a passband capable of sending and receiving a 10 KHz bandwidth mode? 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Maximum baud rate limitation
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I don't know about the ARRL DV WG's request. However, I believe that the League and its legal staff have come to understand that you don't want to ask the FCC for a ruling as you probably are going to get the strictest agency answer in writing which will/may cause you to have to request a rules change which the agency DOES NOT want to do...it is VERY time comsuming and all agency staffs have been cut due to budget constraints. The ARRL has submitted its bandwidth proposal, which is a request for a rules change. Does this proposal clarify or alter the symbol rate limitation? Thus the thought process is don't ask don't tell and its easier to ask forgiveness than permission. At least I HOPE that is the position the League has taken. Do what you feel is in accordance with good communications engineering technology advancement and amateur radio practice. So any ham can do what he or she wants as long as they personally believe its good communications engineering technology advancement and amateur radio practice? That's a recipe for chaos, Walt. Remember that a ticket from the FCC can always be asnwered with...sorry about that, I will quit doing it. And then quit doing it until you get an STA, experimental license or rule change. That's easy for you to say, but then you won't have been the one who put countless hours into designing, implementing, and testing the software, will you? Its already been noted here that attracting software developers to this sort of project is a challenge. Adding oh, and we'll find out whether the ARRL will let us use it after you build it to the equation won't help much. If we're going to continue this thread, I suggest we move it to Digital Radio Policy. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I were Hollingsworth and you ask me for an official opinion I would tell you that it applied to the mode. So you already know the answer to the question. Everything else is chaff. If you ask me for a verbal opinion, IF I gave one at all, it would be use what you think is in accordance with good amateur radio practice and the development of better communications techniques, etc...but don't use my name. It seems unlikely that the official charged with enforcing amateur radio regulations would give you carte blanche, but it would be easy enough to find out. If you are the David H who works in NYC, then you understand where I am coming from and should understand my answer. But you probably aren't so you might want to contact that David H. Hi Hi As I've previously said, I'm not a lawyer, and you already know that I don't live in NYC. I like to go with what a great Admiral said...Its better to ask forgiveness than permissions. Google doesn't reveal the origin of this well-known saying, but if it was indeed an Admiral, one hopes that he led by example, rather than by exhorting others to take all the risk. As you know, opinions are like belly buttons...everyone has one. Hi Hi. An opinion from Hollingsworth on this topic would be significantly more meaningful than one from anyone else. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Re Dr. Hopper is also know for her work on Flow-Matic business language, COBOL and Ada. I met Grace Hopper when we (Rational Software) validated the first Ada compiler in the early 80s. She was inspirational... 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. How many billions of dollars have been lost just to = vs ==, much less to memory leaks. Pascal was a teaching language never intended for industrial use. Both Pascal and Ada are Algol-style languages, which optimize for human readability. The developers of C optimized instead for minimal keystrokes during program entry, and C++ inherited this unfortunate decision. We type a program once; we read it many times over its life. But we digress... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, Speaking of Ada, I developed the MS-Windows AMDS ( https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/IEWS_Public/rus/ /AMDS.htm ) for the I-REMBASS Battlefield Sensor System in Ada for the U.S. Army due to requirements (Ada is a very good large embedded systems language, it is very much PASCAL like ) to use Ada, but the compilers were never great. When I wrote Sight It! LOS ( http://www.n2ckh.com/SI/sight_it.htm ) for the hobby based on all I had to learn to do AMDS and showed it off to my employer and Army bosses, AMDS went from ADA to C++ pretty darn fast, which did not bother me at all. Years later when I stated working in the ASIC/FPGA world along comes VHDL which is based on Ada, I was glad that those 5 years up time January 2005 were just spend selling the ModelSim/FPGA Advantage and other VHDL CAD tools and not actually doing development in VHDL (or Verilog) which are both facing stiff C++ competition these days. PC-ALE and MARS-ALE are both MS C++/MFC developed tools. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 11:50 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: Re Dr. Hopper is also know for her work on Flow-Matic business language, COBOL and Ada. I met Grace Hopper when we (Rational Software) validated the first Ada compiler in the early 80s. She was inspirational... 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
I'm not a lawyer either, Walt, but the 300 baud symbol rate limitation from §97.305(c)(3) below applies to a RTTY or data emission, not the individual components of that emission IMHO. You and I have discussed this potential loophole in the past, and my advice was to run it up the flagpole with Hollingsworth at the FCC before mounting any major effort to exploit it. Any progress on that front? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is this 300 symbol/sec limit? I don't see that in Part 97. §97.305(c) of this Part. (1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. (3) 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 1kHz. You will note that the description the maximum frequency shift that it references a single carrier. Thus the reference to the symbol rate is for one carrier. In the Frederick/Harris modem, as I recall, no carrier tone has a symbol rate of more than 45.5 (baud). Therefore Ok under Part 97. In interpreting Federal Administrative Code or Law, unless a prohibition is specifically stated, you should not take it as implied. There is no implication that the 300 rate limit is for the total sum of all carriers (tones) in a mode, rather for a single tone or carrier. I am not an attorney but have a number of years working with government engineers and DoD and DoJ attorneys in interpretation of Federal Administrative Code or Law. If the FCC wants to limit the symbol rate to 300 for the total sum on all data in a mode, then they are obligated to say so. The public must NOT be left to guess what the agency is trying to say. Our laws MUST BE CLEAR and understandable. Administrative Law and Code does not, nor was it meant to convey our national feelings, prides or desires. Rather to specifically define limits and give direction in the implementation of Public Law. Don't put words in the FCC's code. And, don't let MARS interpretation of Part 97 cloud you view of it. 73, Walt/K5YFW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fortunately, that's not the way it works with ALE, John. There is plenty of room for thousands of ALE operators around the world on the few ALE HF channels we presently use now. Signals are separated by time, location, and propagation. Simple arithmetic that no one has disputed shows that with one pilot channel per amateur band, ALE can support between 64 and 128 simultaneous users. If your statement that Signals are separated by time, location, and propagation means that ALE operates as many disjoint sub-networks, then your earlier claim that one ALE user can reliably contact any other ALE user is false -- an ALE user can only reliably contact one of the 100 or so users on the same sub-network. This sounds a lot like a VHF repeater. However, HF propagation is not nearly that clean -- it constantly shifts over the course of the day, particularly on the higher bands. Sub-networks will sub-divide; since each station only sounds once per hour, members of a sub-network may find that stations supposedly connected do not respond. Disjoint sub-networks will also merge; if this happens to two sub-networks that each have ~100 active users, the result will be a sub-network whose pilot channels are oversubscribed, and users will be dropped as described below. There is some collision prevention within the ALE protocol. As for soundings, when collisions do occur, it is not a problem, because of the redundancy of timing and channels. If only two seconds of a desired sounding gets through, that is enough because it is only a simple callsign we are looking to decode, not a complete message. That's not correct, Bonnie. If only 2 seconds of a 10-second sounding get through, then on average 80% of the receiving stations will miss the sounding because they were scanning other frequencies during that 2 second interval. These receiving stations will conclude that the sounding station is not available, a misunderstanding that can not be corrected until the station's next sounding an hour later. But unless the congestion terminates (users drop out, or propagation divides the sub-network), then 80% of the receiving stations will again reach the wrong conclusion at the next sounding. For future expansion, the flexibility of the ALE sytem makes it possible to make a variety of adjustments, so the timings and channel lists we use today are not etched in stone. Right now, we use timings and settings that are optimized for light load and maximum weak signal decoding. In the future we may want to optimize for peak loading, at the discretion of the operator, or as part of the overall amateur ALE strategy. Omnidrectional NVIS antennas and tuners set to bypass on receive seem inconsistent with optimizing for maximum weak signal decoding. As currently described, amateur ALE sound like a fine way for local groups of amateurs to connect, though propagation may occasionally separate them or unite them with other groups. If groups are limited to ~30 users, loss of connectivity due to pilot channel overload when propagation combines multiple sub-networks should not be a frequent occurrence. These limits can be overcome with faster scanning and more frequencies per band, as military deployments have demonstrated. Both of these solutions are problematic for amateurs, however: the former because the minimum sounding duration is set by the slowest receiver's scan rate, the latter because its difficult to assign frequencies to one particular mode of operation. Electronically- steerable directional antennas could provide much better control over pilot channel congestion, and represent an opportunity for amateur innovation with ALE. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???
The issue is control over the operating system's scheduling decisions. There are real-time versions of Linux that are comparable in this dimension to the firmware running in a TNC; given sufficient CPU horsepower, a Pactor-2 or Pactor-3 implementation on realtime Linux is feasible. The Windows scheduler cannot be adequately controlled for use timing- critical applications; as a result, the response time requirements of protocols like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 cannot be guaranteed, no matter how fast the CPU. Generating CW with consistent timing is a challenge on this platform. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was on a linux system But that does not matter. The problem is EVERY time the computer thinks what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so is the link. At 09:53 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote: Have you tried it with an up-scale sound card on a computer equipped with both a fast processor and a lot of RAM? What was the interface between PC and rig? USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, Serial, Parallel, other? I am wondering if the rapidly improving PC hardware may have solved the speed problem? Also, which OS did you test, please? Apple, the MS version of windows (XP?), Linux? I am not questioning your observations just am curious as to the testing context. -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
The documentation in http://hflink.com/ recommends that a station transmit a 20-30 second sounding hourly on each frequency. Below, Bonnie says In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. How many stations can be sounding a band's pilot channel before it saturates? Lets assume the best case, which is that each stations sounds for 20 seconds each hour. If the channel is perfectly utilized, it can handle (60*60)/20 = 180 independent stations 180 non-synchronized stations attempting to sound one frequency for 20 seconds each hour would produce nearly continuous collisions. I have yet to find any reference to collision detection and/or collision avoidance on an ALE pilot channel. Does ALE provide some means of reducing contention? Without contention reduction, the practical number of simultaneous ALE stations sounding the same frequency at the recommended rates would be in the 30 to 60 range. How could 1000 amateur ALE operators to be simultaneously QRV with one pilot channel per amateur band? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John VE5MU wrote: If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 24/7, how much QRM will this create? Hi John, It would be far less QRM than the average RTTY contest, such as we had this weekend that took over a large chunk of the ham bands with soundings. In fact, it is unlikely that you would notice 1000 ALE operators on the air, unless you tune your VFO to the specific frequency the ALE operators are using. In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. The nature of the way ALE works enables many stations to dynamically use the same channel on a time/space shared basis for various purposes, such as messaging, calling, sounding, and geo-position reporting. The global or regional capacity of a single channel for ALE is rather large. One channel is probabably enough to handle a 1000% increase in amateur radio ALE use over the next 5 years, if and when it becomes that popular. It would be wonderful if we had 1000 ALE stations on the air 24/7. Perhaps the ALE On-The-AIR Week event in October will give us some idea of what is possible with a few hundred stations on at the same time. We don't really know yet, since this will be the first such event. Bonnie KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???
There are variants of Linux with pre-emptive scheduling; this enables guaranteed real-time response. Linux-based cellphones use this approach, for example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_real-time Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell ae6vw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:33 -0500, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was on a linux system But that does not matter. The problem is EVERY time the computer thinks what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so is the link. ??? now, I am not a geek for computers, but my Perl mobo has a pair of 3.1ghz cpus running with huge cache, and 2gb of ram. the soundcard is running along with a pretty wide gateway and its own gb or so of ram. i just don't think that the wait states, if there are any, are going to be sufficient to bog down a real, damned slow modem since most of those are probably running at 1200 to 2400bps. which is real slow. I have a dsl which supposedly is running at 3.2kbips but it is uploading slower than my pc is pushing it up the line. I am definitely confused which is NOT unusual in the least. Suppose you're using your sound card as a modem to receive Pactor I data. Your sound card takes care of turning tones from the receiver into 1s and 0s. There's no problem there. However, when a packet is finished arriving (and getting turned from frequency shifts into bytes of data), the application program running on the PC must verify the check, turn the radio around to transmit, and send either a positive or negative acknowledgement, then turn it back to receive mode so it can hear the next packet. The problem is that the OS may have dispatched some other process at the time, and the process that does the checking and sending of the ACK or NAK may not get a time slice from the OS soon enough to meet the timing requirements of the Pactor acknowledgement. If you were using a TNC, the processor in the TNC would be old and slow by current standards, but it would have nothing else to do EXCEPT check the checksum and send the ack or nak, while the much faster CPU in your Linux (or even worse, Windows) PC may be busy doing something else at the crucial time, since it is running a multitasking, and even potentially multi-user, OS. In principle, it seems that it should be possible to manage that problem in the Linux environment by: 1. adjusting the dispatching code in the OS so that it gives very short timeslices to processes, so the Pactor process can get CPU time sooner; and 2. running the Pactor process with a high dispatching priority (which the superuser can accomplish with a negative priority value on the renice command.) Shortening the time slice means that more of your CPU power is used up on trips through the dispatcher portion of the OS, rather than in running whatever user-mode application programs are ready to run, but with a fast computer that doesn't have a lot to do, that should be okay. In FreeBSD, you would issue a command like this as root: # sysctl kern.sched.quantum=1 The quantum is measured in microseconds. The default value is 100,000, or 100 milliseconds. By changing it to 10,000, or 10 milliseconds, you make it possible for the highest-priority task to get use of the CPU within 10 milliseconds, rather than 100. I'm not really a Linux guy, so I don't know whether there is a comparable sysctl variable in Linux, or whether you can build a custom kernel that uses a shorter scheduling quantum, or what. -- 73 DE AE6VW, Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gualala CA USA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???
Precise timing isn't the issue, Steve. WinWarbler originally used GetTickCount() and QueryPerformanceCounter() in its CW generation code, but a high-resolution timer using the multimedia library is sufficiently accurate and more convenient. The problem is thread scheduling. WinWarbler uses SetPriorityClass to establish REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS and SetThreadPriority to establish THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL . Nonetheless, there are many CPU- consumptive events that Windows insists on handling at higher priority -- such as displaying and moving the Task Manager window. Spin locks are not an acceptable solution IMHO; the user would find it disconcerting if the mouse pointer stopped following mouse movements during CW generation or Pactor-3 operation, for example. Yes, one could dedicate a headless Windows PC to executing one application like Pactor-3, but what would be the point? Even the most expensive Pactor-3 TNC would be cheaper and more compact to boot. I didn't comment on the feasibility of implementing AMTOR on Windows; Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 were the protocols I mentioned. From my days as a CPU architect and designer, I have lots of experience with real-time operating systems and applications -- but WinWarbler was my first encounter with extracting real-time performance from Windows. Any suggestions or pointers you have in this area would be appreciated. 73, Dvae, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GM Dave, Yes, a technical item up for discussion. I must assume that you have never done any Near Real Time Systems development such as ATE or Industrial Control applications under MS- Windows? I on the other hand have and the WIN32 API beginning all the way back with Windows NT implemented a number of functions for embedded applications with critical timing requirements. For example you have the GetTickCount() API call which has a resolution of 10ms and the QueryPerformanceCounter() which returns the resolution of a high-resolution performance counter to 0.8 microseconds and then there are Spinlocks to synchronize timing events during an interrupt response or other similar activity, together with Process Priority and Asynchronous I/O and some other functions you can achieve nanosecond accuracy and make your application own the operating system to prevent other system processes from interfering with your critical timing needs. It is my opinion that ARQ protocols such as AMTOR and others with their short ACK/NAK can implemented under MS-Windows 2000 Professional and above taking the above approach. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 10:23 PM 8/27/2006, you wrote: The issue is control over the operating system's scheduling decisions. There are real-time versions of Linux that are comparable in this dimension to the firmware running in a TNC; given sufficient CPU horsepower, a Pactor-2 or Pactor-3 implementation on realtime Linux is feasible. The Windows scheduler cannot be adequately controlled for use timing- critical applications; as a result, the response time requirements of protocols like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 cannot be guaranteed, no matter how fast the CPU. Generating CW with consistent timing is a challenge on this platform. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Steve, I asked a few simple questions about the amateur implementation of ALE; these questions were not focused on politeness, but rather on understanding how many ALE users can be simultaneously QRV if there's one pilot channel per amateur band. Bonnie claimed 1000, but two multiplications and a division yields a much lower number. If the model underlying this math is incorrect, please set me straight. I have reviewed enough of the military documentation to understand that they employ dedicated ALE transceivers capable of much faster scanning rates. As a result, sounding duration is signficantly reduced, and channel capacity increases in proportion. But one ham with an amateur transceiver limited to a 2 channel-per-second scan rate would force all ALE participants to sound for 20 seconds, even if their equipment could scan more rapidly. Do I have this right? Since the 20 second sounding time is calculated to allow each station to scan 40 frequencies without missing a sounding, one obvious step to increase capacity would be to reduce the number of frequencies being scanned. If there's only one pilot channel per amateur band, scanning could be reduced to 10 frequencies, which would allow sounding time to be reduced to 5 seconds. This would increase capacity by a factor of 4 -- to ~120 simultaneous users, if I understand correctly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, At 10:53 PM 8/27/2006, you wrote: Does ALE provide some means of reducing contention? I recommend that to answer all of your technical questions on subject ALE that you refer the actual Federal, Military and STANAG Standards which you can find on the Internet quite easily. You can start with a number of them at the following URL: http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/tecref.html Listed below are the ALE Operational Rules taken directly from MIL-STD-188-141B APPENDIX A, take the time to read this and do additional research WRT the details of the referenced items herein and you should be satisfied that ALE is the most courteous digital mode with automatic operation you could ever want to see, compared to any other system that has ever been used on the Amateur Radio bands. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY A.4.4 ALE operational rules. The ALE system shall incorporate the basic operational rules listed in table A-V. Some of these rules may not be applicable in certain applications. For example, always listening is not possible while transmitting with a transceiver or when using a common antenna with a separate transmitter and receiver. TABLE A-V. ALE operational rules. 1) Independent ALE receive capability (in parallel with other modems and simular audio receivers) (critical). 2) Always listening (for ALE signals) (critical). 3) Always will respond (unless deliberately inhibited). 4) Always scanning (if not otherwise in use). 5) Will not interfere with active channel carrying detectable traffic in accordance with table A-I (unless this listen call function is overriden by the operator or other controller). 6) Always will exchange LQA with other stations when requested (unless inhibited), and always measures the signal quality of others. 7) Will respond in the appropriate time slot to calls requiring slotted responses. 8) Always seek (unless inhibited) and maintain track of their connectivities with others. 9) Linking ALE stations employ highest mutual level of capability. 10) Minimize transmit and receive time on channel. 11) Automatically minimize power used (if capable). NOTE : Listed in order of precedence. TABLE A-I. Occupancy detection probability (2G and 3G). WaveformSNR (dB in 3 kHz) Dwell Time (s) Detection Prob ALE 0 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 SSB Voice 6 2.0 0.80 9 2.0 0.99 MIL-STD-188-110 0 2.0 0.80 (Serial Tone PSK) 6 2.0 0.99 STANAG 45290 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 STANAG 4285 0 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Timing requirements of digital ARQ
To use your example, Rick, if Windows introduces a 10 ms delay from the time when you strike a button to initiate transmission in MultiPSK until the point where Commander sends a CI-V Transmit! command to your 756 Pro2, you'd never notice. However, such a delay in confirming reception of a Pactor-3 packet would break the protocol. The SCS PTC-II Pro, which supports both Pactor-2 and Pactor-3, utilizes a Motorola (now Freescale) 68360 clocked at 25 MHz and a 56303 24-bit DSP clocked at 100 MHz; see http://www.globalmarinenet.net/ptc.htm The 68360 is a descendant of the venerable 68000; its probably being used for administrative tasks like running the serial port and command line interface. The 56303 DSP does the heavy lifting. While its DSP instruction set is advantageous, its performance is modest by current standards; see http://www.bdti.com/articles/benchmark_icspat99.pdf#search=%22dsp% 20benchmarks%22 I am unable to locate a benchmark comparing the performance of dedicated DSP chips like the 56303 DSP with general purpose microprocessors, but I suspect that a 1 GHz Pentium could handle the processing load. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I am not a programmer, other than taking some rudimentary courses, reading some of Don Lancaster's books, and knowing that it is not something I could ever do very well, something still doesn't seem right to me when it comes to the claim that computers just can not meet the timing requirements of ARQ digital modes. When I use the computer to key my ICOM 756 Pro 2 with Dave's DX Lab Commander software in order to run other programs that interface with Commander (such as Multipsk which is my main digital sound card program), it does not seem to have much latency at all. And if one could key relatively slow CW as is done with the software for the SDR1000, why would that not be almost a magnitude faster than you would need for adequate ARQ switching speed? How many ms do you need? Rick, KN6KB, the inventor of SCAMP, has said that the power in the typical Windows OS computer we use is something like a magnitude less than that available in the dedicated SCS modems and that is why they perform so well compared to a computer (for the dedicated part). I wonder where the dividing line will come so that computers will at least match the SCS type units? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: The issue is control over the operating system's scheduling decisions. There are real-time versions of Linux that are comparable in this dimension to the firmware running in a TNC; given sufficient CPU horsepower, a Pactor-2 or Pactor-3 implementation on realtime Linux is feasible. The Windows scheduler cannot be adequately controlled for use timing- critical applications; as a result, the response time requirements of protocols like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 cannot be guaranteed, no matter how fast the CPU. Generating CW with consistent timing is a challenge on this platform. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: The digital throughput challenge on H
Those are all low-occurrence events that could be implemented with one-to-one messages with no significant performance degradation. One-to-one messaging with ARQ would seem optimal. KISS, remember? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New/updated Routing Information...station availibility, frequency changes, etc? Currently in NTS called net bulletins. 73...K5YFW -Original Message- ...under what circumstances would a message transport layer require one-to-many transmission? 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have reviewed enough of the military documentation to understand that they employ dedicated ALE transceivers capable of much faster scanning rates. Really? Please enlighten me, I was under the impression that the ALE scan rates of 1, 2 and 5 ch/sec was it at present and that the future goal as stated in MIL-STD-188-141B was 10 ch/sec. The PC-ALE software supports 1, 2 and 5 ch/sec with an HF transceiver that is cable of all selections. In a previous post, you stated that the scan rate for amateur ALE was 2 channels per second. Current military equipment supports 5 channels per second. That's 2.5 time faster, is it not? As a result, sounding duration is signficantly reduced, Sorry, but you will have to explain to me how Sounding duration decreases with an increase in the Scan Rate. My understand from www.hflink.org is that a station must sound for an interval long enough to allow all receivers to scan all channels; a shorter sounding interval would result in some receivers failing to hear the sounding. If all receivers scan the same number of channels at a faster rate, then sounding duration can be decreased. is this not correct? and channel capacity increases in proportion. Well not exactly. A 2 ch/sec scan rate allows you to cover the same number of channels faster than a 1 ch/sec scan rate and thus increase the odds of hearing a Sounding or a Linking call sooner. A 2 ch/sec scan rate allows you to use half the sounding interval required by a 1 ch/sec scan rate. This doubles the number of supportable simultaneous users, does it not? Running 2 or 5 ch/sec will also permit the station to be part of more than one ALE network at the same time, not an issue per see with Amateur Radio, but if two networks had scan groups of 10 channels each, you could scan both with excellent results. We're discussing amateur ALE here. The number of channels you scan does have an effect on your Soundings, you sound longer when you have more channels in the mix. There are variable here as we are now at a stage were you have 3 generations of ALE. The latest ALE technology supports GPS time synchronization of the Scanning/Sounding which in the future will radically reduce BER/SNR data transfer for LQA ranking when all user's can support it. Yes, that's the sort of approach I was asking about when I asked if there were techniques for reducing contention among competing sounders. PC-ALE would have to be extended to support this, and as you say its only effective if everyone uses it. But one ham with an amateur transceiver limited to a 2 channel-per-second scan rate would force all ALE participants to sound for 20 seconds, even if their equipment could scan more rapidly. Do I have this right? The details are to be found in MIL-STD-188-141B Appendix A. Regardless of the scan rate, if the controller Sounds based on number of channels in the scan group its less than 1 second per channel. The minimum redundant sound length (Trs) is equal to the standard one-word address leading call; that is, Trs = Tlc min = 2 Ta min = 2 Trw = 784 ms. Thus for 12 channels it would be about 9.4 seconds depending on your address length being sent. The address length is based on an ALE Word which is 3 ASCII characters, for Amateur Radio applications we would being using 2 ALE Words as there are no 3 character callsigns, whereas in the Military and Government world there are 3 character ALE Self Addresses being used. So W1AW, N2CKH and WB2XYZ are all 2 ALE Words were automatic padding is used to fill the second word. The least number of ALE Words the more efficient and reliable is the system. One would now want to use WB2XYZ/W6 to indicate they are in California. For AQC-ALE where many things were changed to make things even more efficient, a 2 ALE Word is the maximum allowed, whereas the original ALE allowed a 5 ALE Word (15 character) Address to support the Military Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN) system to directly link a Phone Patch call. Feel free to double check me with the standards, I am no expert on all this stuff and I am not perfect either, I make calculation errors often. I don't see how the sounding duration can be independent of scanning rate (as discussed above), but using your 9.4 second sounding duration for 12 channels with each station sounding once per hour, (60*60)/9.4 yields a capacity of 383 users with 100% pilot channel utilization. Without synchronization or some other form of collision avoidance, the realistic number of simultaneous users would be in the range of 64 to 128. This is considerably less than Bonnie's claim of 1000 simultaneous users - so either I'm misunderstanding something, or the claim is false. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other
[digitalradio] Re: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???
Agreed, there's no problem if you can own the OS; but on an end- user's Windows PC, you can't do that. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, I mentioned AMTOR as its timing is more robust that PACTOR I. As I have stated to the MARS-ALE users, the future version of that tool when PACTOR I support is added ont he PCSDM will pretty much own the OS, not a problem for our purposes as that one program running is our only focus. GTOR is less demanding, but may be require the same approach as PACTOR I. This is not required of DBM ARQ which is much less demanding that GTOR. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 06:43 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: Precise timing isn't the issue, Steve. WinWarbler originally used GetTickCount() and QueryPerformanceCounter() in its CW generation code, but a high-resolution timer using the multimedia library is sufficiently accurate and more convenient. The problem is thread scheduling. WinWarbler uses SetPriorityClass to establish REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS and SetThreadPriority to establish THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL . Nonetheless, there are many CPU- consumptive events that Windows insists on handling at higher priority -- such as displaying and moving the Task Manager window. Spin locks are not an acceptable solution IMHO; the user would find it disconcerting if the mouse pointer stopped following mouse movements during CW generation or Pactor-3 operation, for example. Yes, one could dedicate a headless Windows PC to executing one application like Pactor-3, but what would be the point? Even the most expensive Pactor-3 TNC would be cheaper and more compact to boot. I didn't comment on the feasibility of implementing AMTOR on Windows; Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 were the protocols I mentioned. From my days as a CPU architect and designer, I have lots of experience with real-time operating systems and applications -- but WinWarbler was my first encounter with extracting real-time performance from Windows. Any suggestions or pointers you have in this area would be appreciated. 73, Dvae, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and hardware maybe needed???
Chas, the term modem is a contraction of modulator and demodulator; it purpose is the bidirectional conversion of digital signals to analog signals. There are many different kinds of modems, employing different modulation techniques to achieve different speeds and error rates over different transmission media. A modem used for internet dialup access, for example, is optimized for use with telephone lines and uses industry-standard signalling conventions so it can interoperate with any other telephone modem. The RTTY modem in in a TNC (Terminal Node Controller) uses the baudot code and RTTY mark and space tones and should be optimized for transmission and reception over HF. Circuits that modulate and demodulate PSK, FSK, Pactor, Amtor, or Olivia are all referred to as modems, but their implementations are radically different. Multi-mode TNCs typically employ a microprocessor and perhaps a programmable DSP circuit; software running on this one set of hardware components can thus implement multiple protocols -- but only one protocol is typically running at any one time. The modem in your PC is most likely a telephone modem; it may also have facsimile capabilities. The Icom 756 definitely does not include a modem; I doubt that the 736 or 746 do either. More recent Icom transceivers like the 7800 and 756 Pro 3 include a dedicated RTTY modem; to my knowledge, this modem cannot be used to encode or decode any other protocol. You mentioned the Icom CI-V bus in an earlier post. This is the means by which an application running on a PC can control an Icom transceiver -- read or write its frequency or mode, etc. It is not a modem -- its a simple serial protocol using open-collector TTL levels (a binary 0 is represented by 0 volts, and a binary 1 is represented by 5 volts). To use this with a PC serial port, a level converter to RS-232 levels is required. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:17:06 -0700, Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose you're using your sound card as a modem to receive Pactor I data. Your sound card takes care of turning tones from the receiver into 1s and 0s. There's no problem there. actually, there is a modem in the 736. why can't that handle the packet checking tasks? it IS an FSK system but should be available, using HRD to run it, to handle any modem duties in the txcvr. Also, I THINK, that there is a high speed modem built into my mobo as well as 10/100 etherlink. I am just trying to figure out why I have to add another piece of hardware to the system. we KNOW that the latest, deep pocket ICOMs like the 756P3 are fully set up with an internal TNC, or so I have been assured by some of those elmers/gurus (the ones who do not agree with each other G) The reason I am here is to try to find out what is true and what is bushwa and to simplify the shack to as great an extent as possible. My experience is that the more hardware you add, the greater the load on output of final product. that applies to anything with a pretty limited source of power, be it computing, motive or whatever. I truly do appreciate all the information I am getting here. Again, do I HAVE TO HAVE a TNC with an IC736, 746 or 756? thanks 73/chas -- K5DAM Houston EL29fuAAR6TU http://tinyurl.com/df55x (BPL Presentation) Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: -tor modes and PCs
In the case of Pactor-2 and Pactor-3, the developers knew they were running on dedicated processors with complete control over scheduling, so there was no reason to reduce performance by unnecessarily extending turnaround time or pipelining control messages (which extends recovery when an error occurs). If you're in the business of selling standalone TNCs, as these developers are, then you exploit every strength afforded by this approach. The last thing you'd do is design a protocol that could be implemented without your hardware! IBM Bisync? I know it all too well. The first commercial product I designed was a hardware interface for this protocol. Dating myself, it was implemented with TTL MSI -- before the availability of large scale integration or customizable logic. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm willing to believe that the timing tolerances in -tor modes are so tight that ordinary PC operating systems cannot cope with them the way a dedicated processor can. What I don't understand is why the tolerances need to be so tight. The transmitter sends a packet and then listens for an ACK or NAK. Why can't it wait arbitrarily long? There are protocols for wire transmission e.g. IBMs Bi-Sync which worked in the days of modems that could only transmit in one direction at a time. These used old slow computers to run the protocol. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have no idea how much ALE will take root in the future via Amateur Radio period, I would love to see at least one station Sounding 24/7 on each Amateur Band (excluding 60m) from 160-6m from every state/province of every country in the world for propagation study where all other stations just RX and there is not two-way comm. There are similar things taking place with ALE, but not a concerted world wide effort spanning MF through to VHF. The ARS is in the position to provide this valuable service that anyone could monitor. There are already several active propagation beacon programs. The NCDXF and IARU operate a set of beacons positioned around the world that continously transmit on each amateur band between 20m and 10m inclusively. The frequencies used by these beacons are allocated by the ITU. Each transmission includes stepwise reductions in power levels by powers of 10, which facilitates the assessment of openings. There are several free software applications that let you monitor HF beacons, including PropView, which is free and available via www.dxlabsuite.com . MFJ even has a hardware product! See http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html . There is also the PropNet project, which uses PSK to assess propagation on the 160m to 2m bands. See http://www.propnet.org/ for a more detailed description. Steve, when you say I would love to see at least one station Sounding 24/7 on each Amateur Band (excluding 60m) from 160-6m from every state/province of every country in the world for propagation study where all other stations just RX and there is not two-way comm., have you done the math to compute the amount of spectrum that would be required to do this? Personally, I find HF propagation fascinating, and continue to devote significant effort to its study. Beacons are a great help, but if every amateur were to start up there own HF beacon project, there would be few clear frequencies on which to hold QSOs! Before creating new beacon projects, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the existing efforts. It would be better to augment their momentum than to reinvent the wheel and consume more spectrum in the process. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?
There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in §97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made explicit. In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bill, I just want to make one observation regarding the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) from a strictly U.S. Amateur perspective as you to are U.S. based. That observation is with respect to FCC Part 97.1 below, in the order of priority listed, I pretty much think it sums it all up pretty well, don't you? Now, anyone for some Digital Radio technical exchanges in the spirit of Part 97.1 and the similar basis and purpose for the Amateur Radio Service that bond Amateurs around the world? /s/ Steve, N2CKH §97.1 Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art. (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?
No priority is stated, thus all of the principles set forth in §97.1 are equally important. In particular, no one can claim that one activity is more important than another solely because its applicable principle has a lower ordinal. This is not a matter of interpretation. Regulations are explicit when they convey an order of priority. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, We have a fundamental difference of opinion here which I feel speaks volumes on your part. So tell us, as you feel 97.1(e) should be first, what order would you place the others ? /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:01 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote: There is no implied priority in the enumeration of principles in §97.1, Steve; had a priority been intended, it would have been made explicit. In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?
I said In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important. The rationale for this prioritiation is that a typical month sees more people killed, injured, or displaced by conflict than by natural disaster. This is a personal view that shapes my time allocation. I did not derive it from its position in 97.1 -- I didn't say clearly, they saved the best for last -- nor do I expect any other amateur to agree with me. Each of his must use his or her own best judgement in fulfilling our obligations as radio amateurs. 97.1 gives us a set of principles to guide our decisionmaking. As I have said before, the premises on which we make technical decisions are highly relevant. If you assert that the principles in 97.1 are listed in in priority order, and use that assertion to drive a chain of technical decisions, then those decisions will be flawed because the premise on which they are based is false. Identifying such errors is hardly a waste of bandwidth. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, But did you not just state In today's world, (e) is arguably the most important To me your statement read that you placed 97.1(e) in the priority. My purpose of the posting on Part 97.1 was to make a point that the rules are very much interpreted by all that read them, to include the entire basis for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service. I believe the bandwidth on this forum would be much better utilized to discuss the technical aspects of digital radio communications and to assist our fellow Amateurs seeking help with the digital modes rather than moving off focus. The statement intent of intent for focus of this forum lists many protocols and tools and I think is pretty clear as follows: This is a meeting place to discuss amateur radio digital applications such as RTTY, CW, PSK31,PSK63/125, MFSK16, Olivia-MFSK, PAX, Chip64, DominoEX, THROB, ALE, PACTOR, AMTOR, HELL, SSTV, Digital SSTV, and more. There are several reflectors dedicated to these separate modes but this group focuses on ALL digital modes. Software applications such as MixW, Logger32, MMVARI, MMTTY, MultiPSK, Hamscope, Winwarbler/DXLAB, Digipan, etc, etc, are often discussed. Theory of digital communications is encouraged. Experimentation with new digital modes is also encouraged. Questions from newcomers are welcome If is of course all up to Andy as to the direction personality of this forum. Personally, I am interested in discussing many aspects of Amateur Digital Communications and of course those of which I am most involved will be of more interest to me than ones that I am not so much involved. I do not knock another digital mode for its existence or use, I look for ways to coexist with all modes. I am not pushing anything, just interested in discussing the technical aspects of technology and being of assistance, this is where I am coming from in my use of this forum. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:39 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote: No priority is stated, thus all of the principles set forth in §97.1 are equally important. In particular, no one can claim that one activity is more important than another solely because its applicable principle has a lower ordinal. This is not a matter of interpretation. Regulations are explicit when they convey an order of priority. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
If as you say, ham radio operators have not been thinking outside the box, and are largely content with the status quo, having never known anything better, then how do you explain - the blizzard of new digital modes developed over the past 5 years - the rapid adoption of panoramic reception and broadband decoding - the use of software-defined transceivers ? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave G0DJA David It's a bit of a silly arguement to say we should be able to call up someone who we probably have never spoken to before and have not got any idea whether they use the same bands and modes as we do... Hi Dave, I believe it is not silly at all to call specific hams we have never spoken with before, without knowing bands or modes they use... simply by knowing their callsign. I suggest that the reason some might think it is odd, is that ham radio operators have not been thinking outside the box, and are largely content with the status quo, having never known anything better. Calling each other on the air is technically feasible in many ways, especially with our available digital radio technologies, microprocessor-driven transceivers, and computers. In posing the question, I had hoped to spur some thought and intelligent discussion about different ways to dependably initiate communications with each other on the air. I'm interested in all kinds of methods, especially the ones that do not require schedules, manual net monitoring, or telephone calls. Bonnie KQ6XA . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
Bonnie claimed that amateur radio had devolved to random QSOs. Since amateur radio began with random QSOs and random QSOs remain a significant component of amateur communications today, that claim is false. If the original post was on topic, then correcting its factual errors must also be on topic. The premises and context on which we make technical decisions are critical. Leaving errors and misrepresentations unchallenged would be irresponsible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what is techincal about this thread at this point. Dave, you are wasting bandwidth here. Can we get back on topic, please? Chuck, AA5J At 11:22 PM 8/25/2006, you wrote: Amateur radio began with the randomness of chance QSOs -- you remember CQ, don't you? Its not exactly honest to claim that amateur radio is devolving from the style with which it began, has used during all of its existence, and remains dominant to this day. No one is saying you can't use ALE if you want to Bonnie, but don't imply that anyone who doesn't is a dope. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In mailto:digitalradio% 40yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/2006 Regards, ChuckM mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/~clmayfield http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mayfield Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
A misstatement of that magnitude is hardly a nit. Its a foundation of her argument! 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I suppose that nit-picking every statement made by others on the reflector is to be considered responsible behavior? GIVE ME A BREAK! 73, Chuck At 01:19 PM 8/26/2006, you wrote: Bonnie claimed that amateur radio had devolved to random QSOs. Since amateur radio began with random QSOs and random QSOs remain a significant component of amateur communications today, that claim is false. If the original post was on topic, then correcting its factual errors must also be on topic. The premises and context on which we make technical decisions are critical. Leaving errors and misrepresentations unchallenged would be irresponsible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The ALE antenna issue is a major one for either portable or fixed though. How's that? I have a NVIS antenna that above that range starts to look like a random wire with gain that is a 125 foot dipole make of brightly jacketed 14ga. wire (could be lesser gauge) that mounted 6 feet above ground, easy to do just about anywhere, easy to make very visible. From the center of that 125 foot dipole span is 28 feet for 300 ohm twin led that raises to 10 feet above ground at which point is hung a CWS ByteMark 6:1 balum with a heavy earth ground and from there 50 ohm coax to the transceiver, over the soil in my backyard this antenna mounted as described is resonant at 3.2Mhz, the LDG AT200PC tunes it from 2Mhz (and lower) to 27Mhz (and higher) with ease for my MARS channels in use. It is basically a full 160-6m antenna with an HF-6m radio like my FT-817 and FT-847 and the AT200PC ATU. This antenna rolls up nicely and fits in a back backpack, if you are lucky enough to just suspend it from trees etc in your target surrounds then poles are not even needed, just dacron rope, although I have various push up and intersecting poles for use as needed. There are even screw together ground rods these days, although I just lug an 8 footer about. The point is that you need a multi-band antenna. If the ALE scan rate is 2-5 frequencies per second, then presumably you need an in- board or out-board auto-tuner capable of retuning that rapidly if the frequencies lie on different bands, correct? 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
Yes, I understand that the 2-5 per second rate is for receiving, but you presumably must retune when switching from one band to another. If the tuner takes 500ms to retrieve its settings, how do you accomplish a 5 per second rate? A low fan dipole might give you good local multiband coverage without the need for a tuner. You can make one out of multi-conductor rotator cable. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Harold Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, Most of the 2-5 per second is receiving remember. The LDG AT-200PC computer-controlled tuner is pretty much the accepted standard for MARS-ALE, and support is built-in the program. You pre-tune the frequencies you will be transmitting on, and store the setting for each freq. When actually transmitting, the recall is near instantaneous as long as you did a solid tune before. There may be a 1/2 second delay as the tuner retrieves the settings. I use a 468' NVIS dipole for MARS-ALE (about 10-12 ft/. above ground with two parallel wire reflectors along the ground, and have recently been using it on regular nets just above 80 meters. Any regular antenna I try to use (Alpha-Delta off-center fed dipole) is just destroyed by atmospheric noise as we pretty much always have storms in the area during the late afternoon. On the nets I just crank the power up a bit (30-40 watts using ALE, 100 -200w SSB) and it offsets the reduced transmitted signal level caused by the NVIS. It sure does tame the noise to an acceptable level though. Best, Hank KI4MF NN0BBX _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:20 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek shajducek@ wrote: snip The ALE antenna issue is a major one for either portable or fixed though. How's that? I have a NVIS antenna that above that range starts to look like a random wire with gain that is a 125 foot dipole make of brightly jacketed 14ga. wire (could be lesser gauge) that mounted 6 feet above ground, easy to do just about anywhere, easy to make very visible. From the center of that 125 foot dipole span is 28 feet for 300 ohm twin led that raises to 10 feet above ground at which point is hung a CWS ByteMark 6:1 balum with a heavy earth ground and from there 50 ohm coax to the transceiver, over the soil in my backyard this antenna mounted as described is resonant at 3.2Mhz, the LDG AT200PC tunes it from 2Mhz (and lower) to 27Mhz (and higher) with ease for my MARS channels in use. It is basically a full 160-6m antenna with an HF-6m radio like my FT-817 and FT-847 and the AT200PC ATU. This antenna rolls up nicely and fits in a back backpack, if you are lucky enough to just suspend it from trees etc in your target surrounds then poles are not even needed, just dacron rope, although I have various push up and intersecting poles for use as needed. There are even screw together ground rods these days, although I just lug an 8 footer about. The point is that you need a multi-band antenna. If the ALE scan rate is 2-5 frequencies per second, then presumably you need an in- board or out-board auto-tuner capable of retuning that rapidly if the frequencies lie on different bands, correct? 73, Dave, AA6YQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?
Here's a technique that can be used with PSK31 or PSK63. WinWarbler has the ability to decode all PSK31 or PS63 QSOs within a 3 khz band segment. It further has the ability to decode each QSO to extract the two callsigns involved (or the fact that one station is calling CQ or CQ DX). Using measures of signal magnitude and quality, decoded harmonics are eliminated, and broken callsigns can be discarded. The result is displayed in a Stations Heard window, an example of which can be found in http://www.dxlabsuite.com/winwarbler/Heard.jpg Double-clicking on an entry in the Station's Heard window configures WinWarbler to QSO that station. It generally takes 2 or 3 minutes to determine who's QRV on a band; I have often used this mechanism to connect with friends. Its also quite effective when chasing a DX station working split. WinWarbler is free, and available via http://www.dxlabsuite.com/ 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For communication between two ham radio stations to exist, some type of starting point is required. In ham radio, the importance of this fundamental initial starting point has gradually been lost, while heavy emphasis has been placed upon the body of the communication or the technique of the radio medium itself. This has resulted in an entire ham radio culture built upon varying degrees of random communication. A random communication has great value as a hobby pursuit, a playful pastime, an exploration, or a curiosity. Many hams have never known anything but this randomness and are therefore content with it or have accepted it as status quo. Hams are by and large, traditionally most familiar with the starting points of random communications, characterized by the most famous starting point, the CQ. The operator can turn on the radio, call CQ, and possibly start up a random communication if another ham happens to be randomly listening on the same channel or dialing the VFO. The longer the CQ, the better the chance of the random QSO. A non-random or less-random communication however, requires a more definite and intentional starting point. Many hams are interested in non-random communication. There is a need to further the state of the art for initiating communication between specific hams and groups of hams. Hams traditionally have employed some less-random techniques to generate a more intentional or controllable starting point for less-random communications. Most of the common techniques use manual monitoring of some kind: 1. Dial up a specific frequency or channel or repeater, and roll the dice that the other ham is manually listening to the radio speaker at that moment on that channel for your call. 2. Regularly scheduled QSOs: Get on the air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day. Call and monitor it. 3. Regularly scheduled nets: A larger group of hams gets on the air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day. The ARRL was founded upon a relay network of hams using some of the above techniques. For the ARRL network, Maxim placed a good deal of importance on inititating non-random communications through regimentation of operators and standardizing techniques. There are other techniques that some hams have been using to achieve non-random communication starting points. We can explore these in future postings and discussion on this group. Bonnie KQ6XA . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Is Ham Radio Only for Random Communications?
Another approach is the Who's on the Air? database, which is under development. See http://www.wotadb.org/ 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For communication between two ham radio stations to exist, some type of starting point is required. In ham radio, the importance of this fundamental initial starting point has gradually been lost, while heavy emphasis has been placed upon the body of the communication or the technique of the radio medium itself. This has resulted in an entire ham radio culture built upon varying degrees of random communication. A random communication has great value as a hobby pursuit, a playful pastime, an exploration, or a curiosity. Many hams have never known anything but this randomness and are therefore content with it or have accepted it as status quo. Hams are by and large, traditionally most familiar with the starting points of random communications, characterized by the most famous starting point, the CQ. The operator can turn on the radio, call CQ, and possibly start up a random communication if another ham happens to be randomly listening on the same channel or dialing the VFO. The longer the CQ, the better the chance of the random QSO. A non-random or less-random communication however, requires a more definite and intentional starting point. Many hams are interested in non-random communication. There is a need to further the state of the art for initiating communication between specific hams and groups of hams. Hams traditionally have employed some less-random techniques to generate a more intentional or controllable starting point for less-random communications. Most of the common techniques use manual monitoring of some kind: 1. Dial up a specific frequency or channel or repeater, and roll the dice that the other ham is manually listening to the radio speaker at that moment on that channel for your call. 2. Regularly scheduled QSOs: Get on the air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day. Call and monitor it. 3. Regularly scheduled nets: A larger group of hams gets on the air at a pre-determined channel and pre-arranged time every day. The ARRL was founded upon a relay network of hams using some of the above techniques. For the ARRL network, Maxim placed a good deal of importance on inititating non-random communications through regimentation of operators and standardizing techniques. There are other techniques that some hams have been using to achieve non-random communication starting points. We can explore these in future postings and discussion on this group. Bonnie KQ6XA . Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Rick, KV9U wrote: - The technology you recommend requires considerable extra equipment (computers/interfaces/frequency agile antennas and band hopping) which is fairly complicated Actually, it requires nothing more than the usual ham radio rig and a laptop. Isn't an antenna also required? What sorts of antennas and matching systems are required for ALE between amateurs, and for ALE between amateurs and non-amateur organizations? As for the ALE to initialize the contact, you can now buy an HF radio in the US$1000 to US$1500 cost range that has ALE built in. Just above you say, it requires nothing more than the usual ham radio rig but here you imply that for the ALE to initialize the contact, one must purchase a radio with ALE built in. What does for the ALE to initialize the contact mean? We are now finding that with newer hams, there is less interest than ever in anything beyond VHF and maybe UHF voice. In USA, that is almost entirely due to an antiquated licensing, testing, and band control structure that has unwisely relegated most new hams to VHF and UHF. Most of them do not survive the boredom of VHF/UHF repeaters, and rapidly fade away from the ham community. Hopefully, that will change soon, as it already has in many other countries of the world, and more hams will join HF operation. If an asteroid struck earth, Bonnie, you'd blame it on antiquated licensing, testing, and band control structure. Your real agenda is that you want more amateur band space allocated to ALE and other automatic modes. You'd make more progress being straightforward about this position rather than with this constant spinning. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Can You Call Another Ham On The Air? Right Now?
Amateur radio began with the randomness of chance QSOs -- you remember CQ, don't you? Its not exactly honest to claim that amateur radio is devolving from the style with which it began, has used during all of its existence, and remains dominant to this day. No one is saying you can't use ALE if you want to Bonnie, but don't imply that anyone who doesn't is a dope. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever had a visitor to your ham shack... and they ask if you can call up another ham who they know? You sit there in front of a wall of impressive radio equipment and electronics... And you might be a little embarassed to answer... Well, I can't really just call them up like the telephone. or It is not that easy. Can you call another ham on the air? Right now? How would you actually go about calling another ham on the air? Have we lost sight of the most basic thing, about communication, to be able to signal another ham that you want to talk with them? Has ham radio devolved into only randomness of chance QSOs? Bonnie KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
*** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. 2. If it were possible to pinpoint the source of a cyber-attack in realtime, the internet's routers could dump packets from that source into the bit bucket. The problem is that attack payloads are very difficult to distinguish from valid payloads. The use of RF links in no way simplifies this problem, and could well make it harder. snip Several times in this thread, I have agreed that overcoming local internet outages would be a reasonable objective. Its your insistence that we must cover for the loss of the entire internet that remains completely unjustified. ### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it is very possible according to experts that the Internet could be attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local area does not have connectivity outside the local area. ***Your proposed solution -- an independent message passing network based on HF links -- would be every bit as vulnerable as the current internet, as I've pointed out above. What attacker would be foolish enough to reveal itself by bringing down the internet but leave its backup running? We're not talking script kiddies here, Walt. ### Local law enforcement and governments might not be able to contact their state counterpart and states might no be able to contact the federal government. And in many cases, local governments and law enforcement need contact at the federal level. Thus there is a need for the local area to connect to the entire Internet. If the Internet does not exist, how do a local area connect to the state of federal government? ***That's a fine question, Walt, but your proposed solution does not answer it. If attackers bring down the internet, they will also bring down its backup. snip So are you suggesting that this amateur-built HF world-wide messaging system should not employ software? ### Not at all. I am saying that it is the software that is attacked not the hardware. And that the software is attacked because it is running on the Internet. ***The software on your proposed backup network would be equally vulnerable to attack. RF links have no magical ability to separate attack payloads from valid payloads. ### Speaking of hardware, if you are aware of the public documents on the Internet that show the physical location of major backbone hubs...physical connections, then you would realize that 21 well placed and well times explosive events (attacks) on those physical locations could disconnect the Internet for several days, perhaps weeks, until the connections could be rerouted. ***Yes. It would be far more practical and less expensive to mitigate this risk by replicating these installations -- perhaps in hardened sites -- than to assemble an HF-based backup network. Doing so would would have the side benefit of increasing overall internet capacity; in contrast, why would anyone use your proposed backup network if the internet was running? snip I agree that there's cause for concern, but I don't see how the approach you're suggestion would come anywhere close to addressing this problem. ### It approaches the problem in that it can be a small part of the solution. THe DHS had envisioned using an amateur radio national messaging system for delivery of critical loss of life and properity messages to various NGOs (non-govermental organizations). Where information from one remote Zipcode could be delivered to another Zipcode (large area not specifically individual Zipcodes) and then the USPS would deliver the messages. ***So in 24 hours, Walt, your rationale for a concerted effort to build a worldwide HF message-passing system has gone from because we CAN do it to this will provide backup message-passing in the event of a cyber- attack that brings down the entire internet to it can be a small part of the solution. If you're having trouble getting developers excited about this mission, it should be obvious why. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol:
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
I understand that your proposed HF system would be entirely independent of the internet, Walt. My points are 1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving target. 2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use them to inject his attack. 3. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but synchronized attacks. 4. My suggestion that internet backbone hubs be replicated and hardened was in response to your mentioning their vulnerability to physical attack. I made no claim that such hardening would render the internet less vulnerable to a cyber-attack. A parallel email system implemented with the same software technology used in today's internet would provide no increase in protection from a committed attacker. None of the amateur protocols in use today were designed to resist intentional attack. Inspecting these applications with static analysis tools would likely reveal long lists of vulnerabilities. The redundancy from multiple identical systems approach only works when you can deploy so many independent systems that an attacker cannot hope to disable them all, and is thus deterred from attacking any. This may work with strategic weapons, but no one remotely understands how to manage thousands of independent worldwide email systems. I do believe there is a role for an RF-based email system that would complement the internet's email delivery system by supporting portable operation and by standing ready to compensate for local outages. The boil the ocean approach that you've been advocating can only delay the development and deployment of this far more practical application. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $$$ Comments to comments Hi Hi. Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment *** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA walt.dubose@ wrote: snip Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your jamming station/site be taken out. ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. $$$ I'm not talking about new protocols. A cyber-attack on the Internet comes over a hard connection that everyone with Internet connectivity has access to. $$$ Using RF and non-internet protocols, specifically the Ethernet protocol(s) then you limit first the access to the network initially to those individuals who are already using HF data modes and then to those who will start using that method of communications...friend or foe. $$$ Remember cyber-space is not RF. We cannot run RF over an hard wire Internet network...RF just doesn't run on DSL, cable, WiFi like it does on HF using an antenna. If you run Pactor III on 13cm it doesn't mean that a WiFi signal can copy your signal any more than a Pactor III modem connected to a 13cm receiver can copy a WiFi signal. $$$ I suppose you could call Pactor III or MT63, etc. a protocol; but again, they don't run on the same media as the Internet. $$$ Therefore use of RF (HF) data modes on a network that is not connected by any media to the Internet isolates it from current cyber- attacks. You must first build a
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
AA6YQ comments --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW Dave...if I come up to your neck of the woods, I'll take you out to some place that you can recommend that serves good crab cakes, New England Clam Chowder and lobster. You're on, Walt! I'm giving a DXLab presentation at the ARRL New England Division Convention in Boxborough MA on Saturday morning; if you happen to be around, stop by. snip 1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving target. *** I would disagree because DNS, routers, switches, network management software, load balancing, firewall, filters all are virtually not seen by the human eye and sometimes when there is an automatic notification of a problem or new hack is used, its days before its known. If you don't what the attack is going to look like, you have a hard time defending against it. That's it...for every measure there is a counter-measure. For every counter-measure there is a measure. Its a FAST moving target. All true. That's why increasingly, these network components can be rapidly updated to deal with new threats. And this is the reason I think a scaled down simple network would be less of a target. The system you propose would not be simple, Walt. On how many versions of how many different operating systems would it run? What other applications would also be installed on these systems, downloaded from who knows where? How would you ever establish initial security, much less maintain security in the face of new installs and upgrades initiated by the user and the constantly changing threat environment? The attacker would first have to get on the air, establish their credentials and be accepted to the network. This is trivial; if any US amateur can authenticate, anyone can authenticate. But even without this, a user-operated node could be penetrated by a bot embedded in software downloaded from the internet months or even years earlier. Even my encrypted signature mail folder on occasion gets SPAM. If I restrict my incoming E-Mail to only one known valid domain, I have no SPAM unless messages from my network control center are considered SPAM. I wanna use the KISS theory. You'll have no control over what the user loads on the PC that's running your HF messaging application, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) won't help you. 2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads, your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use them to inject his attack. *** Its really to install a bot or any malware if your system is 90% text based. Before MIME E-Mail, malware was unknown. We take a GIANT leap backwards. KISS. Hi Hi. As I point out above, the message isn't the only entry point -- there's other's whatever else the end user has installed on his or her node. I don't think your point regarding MIME being the enabler for malware is accurate. And without MIME or something similar, how will your system deliver attachments? *** If you try to join my system and I can't authenticate your call sign, you ain't gettin in. With no hard feelings to non-U.S. amateur radio operators, I talking about only U.S. amateur radio operators. Any tribal contacts would be between only specific authorized stations. (BTW tribal is the international politically correct name to be used for sovereign nation.) Penetrating this sort of system would be all too easy, Walt. It happens thousands of times each day. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but synchronized attacks. *** Ok...understand and that is true but again we have made it more complicated to the enemy...and the society that enemy comes from is not know for a large scale amateur radio contingent or operational capability nor is their government know for its RF capability. They are well known for their Internet capability. Know your enemy. A committed adversary will locate all weak points, and attack
[digitalradio] free security auditing tool
If any digital radio software authors here would like to check their code for vulnerabilities, RATS is available via https://securesoftware.custhelp.com/cgi- bin/securesoftware.cfg/php/enduser/doc_serve.php?2=Security This is a primitive static analysis tool compared to commercial products from Secure Software, Ounce Labs, Fortify, and Coverity, but it will get you started. RATS will scan C, C++, Python, Perl and PHP code. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: The digital throughput challenge on H
If messages to N recipients are converted to N messages to 1 recipient, under what circumstances would a message transport layer require one-to-many transmission? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, There are several amateur radio to e-mail systems available now and they all use ARQ. For sending a shared resource, such as is done all the time on SSTV, the stations are often using WinDream or Hampal which allow you to send out replacements for bad segments. It can be time consuming, but it will allow for perfect copy on the receiving end without repeating the entire data stream. The timing issue for ARQ has been solved for the PC side. And most any rig would be able to handle it easily. The one exception was Amtor and that is pretty much obsolete as an ARQ mode as it only transmitted three characters on each chirp. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data
The message you cite provides no reference to an amateur implementation of the 5066 standard in amateur radio. I Googled it, but the only hits were to commercial manufacturers of milspec equipment. We have indeed amassed collection of soundcard digital mode implementations over the last few years, but I for one don't appreciate these being labeled oddball. Advancing the state of the art is an important component of amateur radio; the lively debates here and elsewhere over technique and policy are hardly petty squabbling, they are the crucible in which progress is forged. KN6KB's advancement of busy detection in SCAMP was encouraged by discussions here, for example. If someone seriously wants to stimulate concerted action toward a unified approach, then a clear exposition of technical vision and mission would be a far more effective starting point. And when followup questions are posed, straight answers would be appreciated. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WELL SAID --- BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING?? BOB, K2CRR - Original Message - From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Open 5066 for HF-based Digital Email, Emergency Data We have plenty of oddball ham-only HF methods for hams to play hobby with. But very little attention is being paid to interoperation with other radio services, for initial calling, voice, image, or data. I support the 5066 standard in amateur radio. It is time for hams to step up to the plate, and to unite behind useful baseline standards that are compatible with the rest of the HF world for emergency interoperation. The best way we can be prepared for communications emergencies is to have a compatible ubiquitous system and use it on a daily basis. Picture yourself in the following scenario: You and your home survived the disaster that came suddenly in the middle of one night. But all the internet and telephone has been down for several weeks in your area. A local emergency worker comes to you with a request to contact the disaster headquarters with an important 5000 word emergency message. What would you do next? How would you call them? Where would you start? Are you prepared to assist? Here at my QTH in California, we await just such an impending disaster scenario. We don't know when it will happen, but we certainly know it indeed will happen. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and huge fires are part of California's recent history... they will continue in the future. Even during the relatively small Loma Prieta Earthquake I experienced in 1989, the power went off for a long time (9 days at my home, and several weeks in some areas). The cellphone, landline telephone, electronic banking, and most of the repeaters went down over a wide area within a few minutes or hours after the quake shaking stopped. The gas stations shut down when their tanks ruptured or infra- structure was damaged. The grocery store shelves were rapidly depleted. That earthquake was not the one we Californians call the Big One. You may not have earthquakes or tsunamis in your area. Perhaps you may have tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, floods, (or maybe a pandemic) instead. Let us put aside our petty squabbling, and not worry about whether any particular digital method was not invented here by hams. Let us unite behind a common HF standard and actually achieve interoperable digital communications capability with the rest of the HF world for when The Big One comes to your hometown. Bonnie KQ6XA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. Either its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their nodes (transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or some subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain super nodes that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, Walt? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate. WinLink is a messaging application. SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard modes are modem/data protocol implementations. We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application. As far as data modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early PSK31 days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems. If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose was developing communications technology...or the technology officer for amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data protocols/modes/modems produces as well as the HF E-Mail applications developed. None are really as robust as the should/could be, none of the sound card modes have the throughput that they should and there are is no really good HF E-Mail program that is based on the capability of operating stand-alone without using the Internet. Surely amateur radio can do better. Let me mention that a chat mode, while certainly the basis of so much amateur radio operations, and rightly so, should not be our ultimate goal in developing data modes and messaging systems...we should have and have always had higher goals. If we stop developing the chat modes, we risk losing the fun in amateur radio and the avocation itself. But still we need to look our purpose in society. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment Hopefully, there will be a shift toward more open software which would be more in line with amateur radio tradition. The Winlink 2000 folks keep everything proprietary up to this point. That even includes the old software such as Winlink. From what we can tell, Winlink 2000 has one main programmer who is very accomplished, but one person can only do so much. There may be one other person working with them but it is not clear and they are not open to discussion. SCAMP actually uses components from Linux and uses GPL'd software such as RDFT. But it is hard to tell what future software would be used. It has been a year or two since any development was done on SCAMP that has been openly discussed. The one ARQ mode currently available for sound card use is the Linux based PSKmail. Even Linux sound card Pactor I may not work as well as hardware versions, although I wonder if the much more powerful computers of today might help remediate that. The huge breakthrough that SCAMP provided in addition to the busy channel detect capability, was the pipelined ARQ which eliminated the computer timing issues. After all it worked fabulously well (with a good signal) on Windows XP. Pipelining also means that when you ARQ a mode, it doesn't appreciably slow down the throughput, although it will increase latency somewhat since the software is working on the last packet of data while the next packet is being received. It is my view that the amateur radio community can best benefit when we have cross platform products that interoperate. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: Given that the developers have little or no motivation nor spare resources to bring SCAMP into the light the task must fall to an proprietary-app independent team. Are there elements of SCAMP that are controlled by the proprietary Winlink2000 licensing that make independent work impossible or improbable? Linux developers wrestle past the efforts of MS and Adobe and others to prevent interoperability of Linux with their apps and have succeeded magnificently. Perhaps the solution to the SCAMP/Winlink2000 protocol bottleneck will be found in the Linux world? Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
Re: The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals. A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, and to have that goal make sense. To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more likely to contain anti-goals then goals. Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building, organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a means of rapidly compensating for local internet outages is obvious, but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not could such a system be created; it certainly could. The question is, why should we build and deploy it?. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, What you say is mostly true. However, the actual infrastructure, network design has been made. The major, regional, district and in some cases local HF node owners/operators (and their backups for redundancy) would have to agree to maintain an almost 100% on-the-air operational capacity. Additionally, some nodes would likely maintain watch on 2 or 3 frequencies. In other locations, their might need to be 2 or 3 stations serving the area (region, district or local) that might only be able to watch one frequency. Down at the local level, it would be expected that messages would be dumped off to V/UHF systems using the same E-Mail/messaging format/protocol. BTW, an open source server and client E- Mail/messaging protocol exist...there is simply the need to interface it to a ubiquitous modem. There should be no need for a mesh network as it would not be expected that stations would be mobile. The network does however consider portable operations. I think the motivation is there in the individuals who now handle traffic on the NTS and perhaps even more would join if the system used only a currently available HF or V/UHF transceiver system and PC...no additional hardware required. This is what FEMA and DHS desired when they joined in with the ARRL in an MOA back a few years ago. We have come a long way since the AX.25 SkipNet on HF and TCP/IP NOS systems operating on 2M and 70cm. And most of that experience or rather lessons learned can be and will be applied to any new national/international messaging system. All that is needed is for some to present a requirements/specifications document (a specific goal) that the amateur radio community will accept and work toward in a concerted manner. Thus far, there has been no concerted amateur radio effort to accomplish a like task. Rather a few individuals who pursue their own ideas what a few others follow...much like the clans of 1000+ years or more ago. Society has seen the need for concerted efforts in accomplishing common goals, yet today there is still much clannish movements in all corners of the of society. The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:00 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment An HF email system that could operate entirely independently of the internet (as opposed to using HF links to overcome local-area internet outages) would require a significant infrastructure. Either its a mesh, in which case users must be persuaded to keep their nodes (transceiiver + PC running the app) running most of the time, or some subset of users must be persuaded to deploy and maintain super nodes that handle the routing. Given sufficient motivation, either approach could be made to work, but what would be the rationale, Walt? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA walt.dubose@ wrote: Remember...let's keep WinLink and SCAMP, Pactor, etc separate. WinLink is a messaging application. SCAMP, Pactor and all the soundcard modes are modem/data protocol implementations. We know how WinLink works so there is not problem duplicating a like or perhaps better HF E-Mail application. As far as data modes/protocols go, look at where we have gone since the early PSK31 days...there are dozens of soundcard data protocols/modes/modems. If I were a company technology officer, of a company who's purpose was developing communications technology...or the technology officer for amateur radio, I would be very dis-heartened at the data
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
I agree that an application that convey can convey email to the internet via HF would be handy during emergencies or other disruptions, and during portable operation (though 3G cellular and WiMax are beginning to reduce the need for the latter). Enabling it exploit a direct internet connection when available would not be difficult. This is a very different objective than the one Walt suggested, which if I understood it correctly is to provide reliable worldwide conveyance of email via HF links with no reliance on the internet whatsoever. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, I might point out that the Winlink system is a total HF solution and operated for many years. The owners of the system felt that this system was too slow and wanted a system that would operate primarily with e-mail connectivity. This developed into Winlink 2000 and removed much of the HF traffic off the ham bands and unto the internet. Of course such a system doesn't work if the internet fails, but the assumption is that can never happen except over a small area at any one time. The Winlink system (some call it Winlink Classic) which evolved from the earlier Aplink system is used for some MARS activity, or was at one time, and it is also the same software that is used for the ARRL NTS/D system. The software is no longer maintained and the Winlink 2000 folks no longer want it used by anyone and have made some rather forceful comments to put it mildly. Therefore, there is a vacuum at the moment for a system that will work RF when needed and still can send via the internet for e-mail in those cases where you want increased speed and the ability to deliver to non-amateur radio addresses. Ideally, it would work in a similar manner to a decentralized system such as PSKmail which is not dependent upon one system run on the internet. Some would say that the downside of PSKmail type systems is that it can not be controlled by a few hams and would be available to anyone to set up as they chose to do so. This would be less structured along the lines of open software, however, my view is that is much closer to the tradition of ham radio. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently reliable, despite the multi-billion dollar investments by telecom companies and suppliers, governments, and research institutions. Thus there's an opportunity for amateurs to build a more reliable means of conveying email thats independent of the internet using HF links. I'm sure there are people on the planet who view the internet as insufficiently reliable, but most of them are in uniform, and have the multi-billion dollar budgets required to build and maintain networks sufficiently reliable for their purposes. My guess is that they don't use HF either; they use some combination of fiber and satellites, and are researching entangled quantum bits for their next generation of capability. The rest of us think the internet is just fine, except when the power goes down or the local ISP runs into trouble. Overcoming such outages is a MUCH simpler problem than replacing the internet with an HF- based system as Walt -- and evidently you -- suggest. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, At 01:59 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote: Re: The technical world, and especially amateur radio should rise above that in concerted efforts to accomplish desired common goals. Amend to that ! A prerequisite for concerted action is to clearly state the goal, and to have that goal make sense. To me, pronouncements from inept bureacratic organizations are more likely to contain anti-goals then goals. Since we have a worldwide internet that does a fine job of transporting email messages, what's the rationale for building, organizing, and operating an HF-based world-wide email transport system that's entirely independent of the internet? The need for a means of rapidly compensating for local internet outages is obvious, but you're proposing something many orders of magnitude more comprehensive, complex, and expensive. The question is not could such a system be created; it certainly could. The question is, why should we build and deploy it?. 73, Dave, AA6YQ My reply would that a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail system via HF/VHF such as an implementation of STANAG 5066 within the Amateur Radio Service would be just that, a reliable radio-to-radio e-mail system via HF/VHF, unlike the actual Internet which is not reliable, especially during various types of natural and man-made emergency/disaster scenarios. FYI - Open5066 has begun, see: http://open5066.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page FYI - The NPHRN has a mandate of September 2007 that will drive those that support it and that it supports, see: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/coopagreement/pdf/fy06guidance_qa2.pdf Just what will take place within the Amateur Radio Service WRT STANAG 5066 is unknown at this time, in the U.S. nothing will take place until the FCC bring the rules up to date and even then it will depend on just how much they update the rules as to just what can be accomplished on HF. Other countries do not suffer the same limitations and then some other countries suffer worst limitations, it an age old story in that regard. What is obvious to me and many if not all is that for the Amateur Radio Service to really be effective as a Service and not just a way to have fun with radio, we need to have a full blown radio-to-radio e-mail (or automated radio relay if you prefer) system in place worldwide to meet the demands of the Amateur Radio Service, be it based on STANAG 5066 or whatever and it needs to be done use the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) and before anyone laughs at that, STANAG 5066 is already being done via the PCDSM commercially, refer to: http://www.skysweep.com/binaries/doc/SkySweepMessenger.pdf P.S. - ALE is at the Physical Level of STANAG 5066 Sincerely, /s/ Steve, N2CKH Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
Walt, you're going to have to do MUCH better than that if you want motivate concerted action. The fact that we CAN do something is irrelevant; the question is whether we SHOULD. Answering this question generally involves identifying the value to stakeholders, understanding the costs and risks, and comparing these factors to alternative approaches. With high-value objectives that are well-reasoned and clearly articulated, motivating concerted action is actually easy -- and fun! Lame objectives with rah-rah rationale usually go nowhere, thankfully. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment [stuff deleted] ...The question is not could such a system be created; it certainly could. The question is, why should we build and deploy it?. 73, Dave, AA6YQ == === Because we CAN do it. 73, Walt/K5YFW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
Yes, there's opportunity to use digital radio to augment current communication systems to overcome local outages -- but we don't need to duplicate the internet to accomplish this. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Harold Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agree with you Dave. About 99% of the time the internet is reliable. The weak link however, is the ISP. For example, I live on the coast of North Carolina along the Pamlico Sound. We are remote, so there are no cable modems or any such hardwire connections. Our high-speed provider uses microwave shots from multiple towers tied into several T-1 lines provided by ATT or whoever they are now. I can guarantee you the first utility to go is the internet, normally followed by power, and it does not take a hurricane to do it, just a good old nor'easter will do. To keep the radios alive a have a whole-house generator good for about 6 days of operation. From the emergency/MARS aspect I can see where the internet would be seen as unreliable. Wasn't too reliable in New Orleans either. When the trees start to come down and the water rises you can count on the landline phones and cells going out as well. What's left? Ham radio, that's about it. On the pointed end of the stick our 2- meter repeater systems are most valuable as long as they are up. However, they too are prone to failure as well, as they are installed on commercial towers with limited generator back-up. After that it is simplex FM and HF. The one aspect of ALE, and again I speak from AMRS-ALE experience, not PC, is that is has managed to standardize comms among the many government entities involved in disaster support and recovery. That is no small accomplishment when you consider the territorial toes and empires that were stepped on in the progress. Similar,to a lesser extent, as hams complaining about having to take FEMA courses that standardize response command and control. We don't need no stinking class! I remember my Q codes. When comms are available, how do we efficiently handle a large volume of traffic? If you have ever worked above 80 meters on voice nets it is surely not by SSB. That brings us back to this reflector - digital radio. The most efficient means is via digital modes - FEC error correction, PACTOR, GTOR, whatever the protocol, digital provides the greatest chance of a message being transmitted and received without error, and does not waste 5 minutes transmitting call signs and fills for a voice message under less than ideal conditions. Robustness is a good word. For a poor comm link, (generally what you expect on HF) and a signal that is 5 dB below the noise, you might not expect any signal recovery. However, there are several digital modes that can recover almost 100% of the transmitted data under those conditions. This is where ALE comes in by documenting these differing conditions and providing a link across the frequency with the greatest probability of success. Once the link is established, you can resort to any digital or analog means to convey the information. Most interesting to remember that the initial concept of the internet was for redundancy - survivability of comms following a nuclear attack. Conceived by the same bureaucrats, but contracted out to the long- haired wizards at ATT - Bell Labs. I guess history repeats if we wait long enough. What was the subject again? Best, Hank KI4MF NN0BBX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the motivation for a man to try and circumnavigate the globe in a hot air balloon? Why do individuals enter a triathlon or climb a high mountain? Because its there to do. We're discussing a technical initiative that would require the concerted effort of a team of developers and operators, Walt -- not a display of personal courage, stamina, or initiative. There is no stake holders in amateur radio unless you are a supplier of goods or services or in some other way make a livelihood or money from it...it is a hobby. I strongly disagree. The stakeholders in this case would be the developers who construct the system, the operators who deploy and maintain it, and the members of the public who benefit from it. There are always a cost in any hobby. I have lost many hundreds of dollars in radio controlled model airplanes and I understood the risk but the risk didn't count. I stopped when I could no longer afford the hobby. And again, I have owned aircraft but stopped with each one when the cost was too high...but I never considered my hobby a risk. The same with amateur radio. We are involved in it as a hobby and for enjoyment unless we are making money in the hobby. SO being a stake holder and looking a cost vs. risk are not applicable. But again, if you view amateur radio as something other than a hobby, then yes you might be concerned in the stake holders...those who you want to play with and yes, I'm sure you could consider a cost vs. risk analysis. In amateur radio, opportunity cost is a significant factor. A software developer willing to freely contribute his or her services can donate a finite number of hours each week. If those hours are applied to project A, then they can't be applied to project B. Few developers would contribute their scarce time to a project whose only rationale is because we can. There are plenty of far more useful undertakings to which a developer could contribute. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: The Internet is Unreliable for Amateur Radio Service Emergency Communications
Walt's suggestion is to replicate the internet's worldwide email transport capability. After getting beyond because we can, his rationale is to protect against cyber-attack, though he has yet to reveal why a system constructed by amateurs would not be equally vulnerable to cyber-attack, or why whatever attack-prevention technique he has in mind for this amateur-built system couldn't be applied to the internet's email transport system. You're suggesting that we should replicate the internet's worldwide email transport capability because the internet is unreliable for emergency communications. What emergency scenario would justify complete replication, Steve? From an emergency services perspective, a quixotic replicate internet email project would compete for scarce development resources with useful applications that could compensate for internet outages during emergencies. Changing a thread's title and then editing someone else's response generally does not indicate the presence of a strong argument. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, You go it. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 01:17 PM 8/23/2006, you wrote: Oh, I see, Steve. You believe that the internet is insufficiently reliable Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Logging
I understood that from the earlier discussions, Andy. I was asking whether PC-ALE was capable of interoperating with existing logging applications to allow users to - record the information along with the rest of their QSOs - track progress (e.g. how many countries have I worked in ALE mode?) - generate QSL cards - synchronize with LotW and so on... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/20/06, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine, Steve, but none of that satisfies the need for interoperation with logging applications - including the ability to log the frequency in use. Dave , the software automatically logs its own activity. Not entirely in the usual amateur radio manner but it does log freq, time, date, and S/N of received signals. It also logs any transmissions even those that do not receive a reply as evidenced by: STARTED Aug-20-2006 21:46 Eastern Standard Time [22:04:13][FRQ 10136500][FAILED ][HFL] [TX END] [DAT K@@] [TIS K3U] -- Andy K3UK Fredonia, New York. Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 Also available via Echolink Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE and CAT Control
As Rick KV9U pointed out, determining that a frequency is not in use requires more than seeing an absence of signals for the 200 ms before you transmit. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GM Dave, Just back at here in NJ, that East Coast-West Coast thing/ I see both Andy and Bonnie have already replied. I also noted the same in my messages, you most have missed that comment. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 11:21 PM 8/20/2006, you wrote: Fine, Steve, but none of that satisfies the need for interoperation with logging applications - including the ability to log the frequency in use. If you are scanning/sounding more than one frequency at those rates, I sincerely hope your implementation includes a busy detector that prevents transmission on any frequency that is already in use. Otherwise, its entirely incompatible with amateur radio. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek shajducek@ wrote: Hi Dave, As fine a product as DXLab, HRD or anything else may be for casual Amateur Radio CAT Rig control, nothing is geared for the needed support of ALE Scanning/Sounding at 1, 2 and 5 channels/second (the future MIL-STD-188-141 goal being 10 ch/sec) taking into account all the various needs of radio port selection and the bypassing of Power Amplifier Band Pass Filter relays all within the timing constraints of RX to TX turn around and factoring in an Automatic Antenna Tuning Unit. PC-ALE was originally written for a few specific radios, similar to the U.S. Government ALElite tool what was written for just one make/model radio. The most critical focus is not the CAT Rig control but rather the challenging Military Standard protocols. With MARS-ALE, derived from the PC-ALE baseline, a big effort was made to support all suitable 2-30Mhz coverage (e.g. Ten Tec Orion is not supported as its ham band only) SSB transceivers in use by MARS members, be it Amateur, Commercial, Marine or Military grade as we needed all MARS members operational with ALE in short order. We kept that library current and it has been provided to for integration to PC-ALE. When that library is integrated into the PC-ALE baseline in a future release all the desired make/model radios should then be supported. A listing of all supported make/model transceivers and receivers in MARS-ALE can be found in the document at http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/ALE102BRHUGAA.zip when it was last updated. I last updated as many things have changed but not that document yet, the new FT2000 was just coded and MICOM and SEA units are being coded and we are waiting to hear if the new Ten Tec Omni VII will support 2-30Mhz out of band, the VX-1700 is being reviewed. In guard channel receivers the new ICOM PCR-1500 and 2500 receivers were added and we just heard about the new IC-R9500 receiver as well, see: http://ndl-dx.se/icom_r9500/http://ndl-dx.se/icom_r9500/ In closing, those that have problems making PC-ALE work with their current radio simply need to be patient. P.S. - I seen a question in passing about PTT on a 2nd serial port aside from the CAT port, that is supported in the PC-ALE Beta as well as MARS-ALE. Sincerely, /s/ Steve Hajducek, N2CKH/AAR2EY U.S. Army MARS-ALE Software Development Team aar2ey@ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MARS-ALE/ Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policy of U.S. Army MARS management, or the Department of Army. At 03:45 PM 8/20/2006, you wrote: Does PC-ALE include an API that would enable interaction with DXLab? If you point me at a URL, Rick, I'll take a look. 73, Dave, AA6YQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
