Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj)
JTMS is 1500 BPS? Could it exceed the 300 baud limit on a single carrier, like PSK500 does? That wouldn't strictly be a B/W issue, but it would be a rule violation on HF. -- Dave Sparks -- AF6AS - Original Message - From: n9dsj n9...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj) Hi Russell, Not sure (I am not the lawyer in my family:) but suspect due to its signal rate it is legal. I asked the question on the HF JT65 board but no definitive response. ISCAT is 23 baud at 1500 Hz and JTMS is 1500 bps and the bandwidth 2250 Hz. You are correct that it may be more of an issue as to where in the band you were transmitting more so than the legality of its usage. I am not sure of the advantage of ISCAT on HF, aside from perhaps on a scatter path to 10/12 meters and it is down 10 dB or so in sensitivity from JT65/JT8/JT2/JT4 modes; albeit uses a 30 second sequence like JT6M. I have only previously seen it used on 6 meters and above. Of course some people simply do not like the wider modes in general, hence the inevitable controversy. 73, Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Actually, it's less than half of a 6 Khz. wide AM signal. -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
- Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
IIRC = if I remember correctly. The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered codes or cyphers, and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I have been experimenting with APRS-PSK63 lately. I'll probably get back to JT65 one of these days. I may even run ROS in beacon receive-only mode on occasion. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:34 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? OK and thanks. I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe (not published stepping patterns etc ) 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Immediately, take me off of your mailing list Weird language for a constitutional amendment. g
Re: [digitalradio] ROS UHF net February 6 1230 UTC
I take it you mean MARCH 6th? -- Dave Sparks - AF6AS - Original Message - From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS UHF net February 6 1230 UTC I will be on 432.090 mHz this Saturday Feb 6 at 1230 UTC . listening and testing ROS 1 and 16. If interested, check in to the K3Uk Sked page http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
I've noticed numerous CW QSOs taking place in the vicinity of 14.076 Mhz., where JT65A is usually spoken. Since they apparently have a right to be there, what sort of distance (in Hz.) do they need from a JT65A signal so as not to feel QRMed? It's easy to make sure my signal doesn't overlap theirs on the waterfall, but could that still cause problems? My guess is that if they're using a 250 Hz. filter, so would 125 Hz. be enough of a distance? I'm not a CWer, so that's why I'm asking. -- Dave - AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
IMO, ROS is not *true* SS in the legal sense. Other posts I've read cite an FCC reference that SS involves spreading the signal EVENLY over the bandwidth. ROS is using 16 DISCRETE tones to modulate, with a lot more empty space than actual signal. I'm curious how much of spread spectrum's jam resistance is created by ROS. I plan to try ROS as soon as a new version is released which will allow me to utilize a non-default sound card. I've run the currently available version, but the sound came out over my PC speakers rather than going into my interface, so I never transmitted anything. FCC rules, IMHO, include several gray areas. For example, is it permissable to send a PGP-signed message over the airwaves? The message itself is plain text, but it includes a cryptographic SIGNATURE for authentication purposes. According to the spirit of the law, that should be a Good Thing tm since it actually discourages the sending of false signals. Technically, though, there are a few bytes of code and cypher attached. We won't even discuss steganography, where a secret message is embedded in a harmless-appearing file, such as a .JPG file. Perhaps we need a ROS specific group to discuss this mode? -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: vinceinwaukesha vi...@mulhollon.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of the song... Dave (G0DJA) Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know. The K's N's W's and A's have no such excuse. Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is. The first letter is modulation. Clearly its F Frequency modulated. I read the ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that has its carrier frequency modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern. The number is nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier. Clearly its 2, A single channel containing quantized or digital information with the use of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding time-division multiplex. That sub-carrier is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data. The second letter is type of information to be transmitted. Well, obviously that is D for data. We're not sending E voice or A telegraph or whatever here. So, the overall FCC Emission designator would pretty obviously be F2D. Where can we run F2D? First, hit FCC 97.305(c) authorized emission types table. The FCC says SS only on 222 and up. I have no idea what inspires people to publically claim you can only run SS on 432 and up, as 97.305(c) explicitly permits it on 222 and up. For another example, on 30M we can do RTTY or DATA. How does DATA or RTTY or SS or PULSE relate to emissions designators? The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c) To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. F2D doesn't seem to match the def of SS. To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted. F2D doesn't seem to match the def of DATA. Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band. Ooops. Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court? Probably not. See 97.305(b) A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes, except that ... (essentially no SS or pulse where not otherwise permitted). So, fooling around for testing and experimentation of a new mode is well within the law by this exception. Running a contest, a regular schedule, a formal net, DXing, QSL card collecting, county hunting, or extensive ragchewing would be strictly verboten under 97.305(b). The key is doing it in a documented manner as an experiment, like as a research experiment or an article for QEX. Realize that big brother can deprive you of your life and liberty at any time for any reason, its not as if a rule prevents that, it just
Re: [digitalradio] K3UK moves ahead of DP1POL in rankings
Congratulations, Andy. I caught this post out of the corner of my eye, and noticed my callsign DEAD LAST. I don't even remember uploading any logs to this site. I'm not really a contester, and only participated in one on New Year's Eve a couple of years ago. I guess I might as well upload my entire log just for the heck of it. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 2:13 PM To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] K3UK moves ahead of DP1POL in rankings I am ahead of DP1POL now, where are you in the Digitalradio club rankings? Surely you can beat me. Upload YOUR log to http://www.clublog.org/ . Also we are ranked second from LAST among the rankings of 23 clubs. We need more digitalradio members to join and upload their log. Andy K3UK Rank Callsign 160 80 60 40 30 20 17 15 12 10 6 4 2 70 Total Slots Range 1 N7DC 123 212 2 270 268 313 267 288 201 252 44 0 1 1 333 2242 32 yrs 2 G1VDP 22 70 0 156 106 236 125 166 31 122 49 1 14 0 266 1098 6 yrs 3 K3UK 3 8 2 53 26 135 56 112 16 236 2 0 0 0 247 649 23 yrs 4 DP1POL 29 40 0 92 85 116 60 44 28 10 0 0 0 0 143 504 1 yrs 5 DL3MR 1 11 0 46 58 107 42 58 6 26 27 0 0 1 126 383 4 yrs 6 G0DJA 35 34 4 47 53 58 65 45 40 30 50 11 18 3 105 493 27 yrs 7 MW9W 59 50 0 84 0 51 0 47 0 33 0 0 0 0 100 324 1 yrs 8 MC0SHL 0 44 0 70 25 41 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 202 1 yrs 9 AI4OF 1 16 0 50 14 62 6 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 79 158 4 yrs 10 M9W 0 36 0 57 0 41 0 28 0 3 0 0 0 0 72 165 2 yrs 160 80 60 40 30 20 17 15 12 10 6 4 2 70 11 AF6AS+1 0 1 0 11 1 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 3 yrs
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Techs on HF digital
Gary, That was a great comeback. Eventually, sunspots should make 10 M usable for the techs. If it doesn't, then we may be in for a new ice age (Maunder's Minimum?) and ham radio will acquire a whole new value as a survival tool, perhaps. It's human nature to suspect that the next guy isn't pulling his weight, whether it's possessing (or not) computer literacy, knowledge of Morse code, spark gap experience, or whatever. In so many fields, newbies are met with You guys have it too easy. Back in my day ... followed by the technical equivalent of something like walking five miles to school every day, in the snow, in bare feet, uphill both ways. Licensing needs to be practical, whether it's a ham ticket or a driver's license. I don't need to know how to crank start a Model T to drive, nor even to master a stick shift, unless I buy a car that is so equipped. That's why the question pools are updated periodically to add newly relevant subject matter and delete that which was formerly so. Perhaps there might be some value in specialty licensing, to require special knowledge to earn certain operating privileges, such as sound card digital or MANUALLY sent CW, EME, etc. But what I don't see is that certain tests produce more CONSIDERATE operators. Some of the worst lids are people who seemingly paid their dues, and yet still cannot control their potty mouth on the air, deliberately QRM others, etc. Although I haven't taken the test in 25+ years, the GROL (2nd Class Phone, back then) exam contained a lot of practical troubleshooting material that is missing from current ham exams. It took me two or three tries, despite the fact that I already had earned a BSEE. It was much more vacuum tube related than the current ham exams are, but perhaps that has changed. Personally, I think that some knowledge of HF, missing from the technician exam, would be valuable to operating digital HF. You could sure frustrate yourself, especially now, transmitting on the wrong band at the wrong time of day because you don't understand ionospheric propagation. As such, upgrading to General is not insurmountable, nor is it trivial, either. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: Gary grwes...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Techs on HF digital Ok fellas, I hear the message. No tech digital on the 80, 40, and 15 meter bands. I'll drop the idea. I do get a bit of a chuckle at the comments about reduced licensing requirements. Sure, I and my buddies had to study hard for our tests and we had to learn the code. By the time we took our Novice tests, we could probably have drawn out the complete schematic of a workable CW transmitter. That did not, however, mean that we knew what the heck we were doing. Today's CB converts know more about the basics of radio that most of the hams we knew back then. Heck, only one guy in our town with probably a dozen hams even owned a SWR bridge. Unfortunately, he didn't know how to use it. I'm not sure any of us knew why you would use one in the first place. Those CBers we all complain about may have developed some annoying operating habits but they seem to grow out of them as they get experience on the ham bands. They are no worse technically than we were back then Knowing the code and having to take a test without seeing the question pool ahead of time did not make us technical experts and it certainly did not make us good radio operators. We stumbled around, accidentally QRMed each other, messed up TV reception for the whole neighborhood, but we had fun. I'm just concerned that same level of fun does not appear to be available to new entry level hams, at least under these solar conditions. Now back to playing radio. Gary - N0GW
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
Interesting analogy. I guess we'd never have invented jet airplanes, then, if no one needs to travel faster than XX MPH. If getting data disseminated in an emergency has lower priority than an RTTY contest, then so be it. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow That is exactly the question. The next person may say that 9.6 is too slow for him. We refer back to the speed limit on road, and knowing human nature. Danny Douglas
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
The problem with worrying about people interfering with this hobby, you have to narrowly define this hobby. OK, staying with your analogy, we'd have to set surface street speed limits in concrete based on how fast a Ford Model T could have been safely driven, leading to a national maximum speed limit of what? 40 MPH? Lanes probably should be subsequently narrowed, too. Restricting research and innovation to VHF/UHF bands is not the answer. It's a little hard to test the NVIS or ionospheric characteristics of a new mode on 6 meteres and up. I've yet to hear a rational reason why a DSB AM transmission should be allowed to utilize 6 Khz of bandwidth, but not a digital one. Please note that I am not suggesting that hams should use 6 Khz. wide modes on a daily basis for ragchewing. From a practical standpoint, 3 Khz. is probably a PRACTICAL limit, for the time being, if we are discussing sound card modes modulating SSB signals. But I'd also like to see spread spectrum experimentation on HF, too. Maybe some fruitful experimentation would wind up earning us MORE HF spectrum, if we could show it could be put to good use. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow Back to the anology. Auto (ground based) speed have nothing to do with aircraft speeds. Aircraft were developed off-road, and did not interfere with auto carriageways at all. To this day, new records are being made by aircraft, away from other aircraft users. Land speed records are normally made, again, away from normal roadway surfaces. When either of them are developed to a particular speed/saftey situation, then improvements are made as new planes are put in the air, or cars put on the road. They are still limited to the roads, or air spaces where everyone else is, and mandated to certain speeds/locations, just like the vehicles developed and in use that are already there. They will not, and cannot suddely go faster on the ground than the other cars on the road (and sometimes not in the air - remember the SST which was limited so that it would not break the sound barrier over US land?) If spectrum can be identified, which is not populated by other stations/services, and which will not interfere with other previously licensed , I would say go to it. Improvements are always welcome, as long as their developments do no interfere with other legal users. The devlopment of new modes and methodology is great, and should be encouraged, but should be targeted to use the bandwidth which is already legal, and not push to suddenly widen, therefore take over that which is presently being enjoyed by operators who use them as a hobby, and personal enjoyment. I salute those with the technical knowledge, ability, and drive to develop these new modes, but ask them to direct their long term targeting to share, not take over amateur radio, for purposes other than what the large majority are using it. The government welcomes enhancements for emergency servies, so let the government assign spectrum for its development and use. This stuff of pushing the legal limits by using several channels (each within the bandwidth limit) but needing those several to get a message across,: thus using up the space of several users, on the amateur bands, is just plain wrong. Having said all that: know that I served as a telecommunications officer in several different federal positions for some 29 years, and would have readily accepted and used some of the recent developments in that job. But I remind you - it was a JOB. We had our own spectrum, and one of the most aggrivating things I saw, and stopped, was our operators sliding into the ham bands when they thought those small pieces of spectrum were the best place to go. I did not and will not condone other users interfering with this hobby.
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
- Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
I'm not sure who suggested 50-100 khz. of B/W... But if someone can take up 6 Khz of B/W just to transmit a human voice, why not something similar for digital modes? I'm not saying you SHOULD, or that it would be PRACTICAL, but if we're setting limits ... -- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: DANNY DOUGLAS To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and then be legal to wipe out dozens if not hundreds o QSOs. There MUST be rules, because there is always going to be someone who will push the envelope with so called advances which ignore the rights and wishes of others. Thats why we have speed limits even the Germans have finally come around to realizing you just cant let every Hans drive his own speed.By the way, 200 mph will get you there (if it doesnt kill you and everyone else on the road), but 60 will get you there too, and a lot safer. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk dxandt...@yahoogroups.com Moderator Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole wide versus narrow issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes, I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because they exceed baud rates and bandwidth limitations in the USA. Obviously, if I am parked on my narrow part of the spectrum having a nice chat, I would be unhappy about someone with a 10 Khz wide signal zapping the entire band. I guess I would say that keeping the max under 2.7 Khz makes some sense. Andy K3UK Hi Andy, That limitation would only make sense if you were also willing to ban DSB AM transmissions, which take up over twice that bandwidth. What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
- Original Message - From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow but Dave, ...how would we define get the job done. I might feel I need to transfer my message at 9600 baud on HF but others might argue I should be patient and accept a 300 baud transfer. Andy What we really need is a rule that says you should use the minimum bandwidth needed to get the job done, just as we do with power. Or, to take it to its [il]logical extreme, make the maximum bandwidth 31 Hz. and outlaw everything except PSK31. Maybe JT2 would be even better... That rule would need as much interpretation as the one about power. You could communicate worldwide on a couple of watts *IF* you picked the proper mode and were willing to wait a few years for the right number of sunspots. The hardest word to define in law is the word reasonable. BTW, what is the necessary bandwidth for an RTTY Contest? grin, duck -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 **Minimum SNR - Fast vrs. Slow PSK Modes**
If you go much above a 2 Khz bandwidth, you're going to start ruling out a lot of rigs that don't have the audio bandwidth to pass that wide of a signal. I wonder how PSK 2000 would compare with esisting modes, such as Olivia 32/2000 and MT63 at 2 Khz bandwidth. BTW, your figures seem to indicate that the product of gain times bandwidth is roughly a constant in an entire HF system, just as it is in a transistor amplifier. --- Dave Sparks AF6AS - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 **Minimum SNR - Fast vrs. Slow PSK Modes** Andy, Thanks Rein. Is there a PSK2700 ? That would certainly get Peter Martinez's eyes rolling. I agree, he would roll his eyes but the throughput would be lightening fast! I tried to get Mixw to run at very high speeds a while back just to see if it would work. It did, but it seems to stop printing at PSK625. The path simulator indicated that the minimum signal-to-noise threshold increased by roughly 3db each time the word-per-minute / baud rate was doubled (see below). It would be interesting to test PSK63 vs. PSK625 on VHF to see if that wide 10db difference shows on-air. It should take 10 times the power to maintain the same throughput according to the simularor. Difficult to prove on HF with all the variables; bandwidth is 2K-plus. Mode Minimum SNR PSK31. -10db PSK63-7db PSK125..-4db PSK250..-2db PSK500.+2db PSK625.+3db Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 **Minimum SNR - Fast vrs. Slow PSK Modes**
- Original Message - From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSK500 **Minimum SNR - Fast vrs. Slow PSK Modes** If you go much above a 2 Khz bandwidth, you're going to start ruling out a lot of rigs that don't have the audio bandwidth to pass that wide of a signal. I wonder how PSK 2000 would compare with esisting modes, such as Olivia 32/2000 and MT63 at 2 Khz bandwidth. BTW, your figures seem to indicate that the product of gain times bandwidth is roughly a constant in an entire HF system, just as it is in a transistor amplifier. I should hame mentioned Olivia 64/2000, instead. I seem to remember that FLARQ won't work with Olivia for some reason, but I'm not sure about jPSKmail. Reading the specs on these modes, they actually sound a lot like spread spectrum. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS Riverside, CA, USA (DM13gw)
Re: [digitalradio] Why so much interest in WINMOR?
- Original Message - From: jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@earthlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Why so much interest in WINMOR? Seems like people are falling all over one another to participate in WINMOR testing, yet we have other ARQ schemes that aren't getting exercised at all. I don't understand it. Jim W6JVE Amateur radio should be about pushing the envelope, technologically. WINMOR is a new mode and deserves to be tested. After it's been thoroughly debugged and finalized as a mode, then people can vote with their mice which digital mode to use. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] What mode on 14.109.50
Is sounds like it MIGHT be an ALE sounding. That was one of the main 20m freqs, but it was eventually moved to 14.109.000. Sound like it might be someone with an older QRG file loaded. - Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: swlstation rsn...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: [digitalradio] What mode on 14.109.50 Hello, As a newbie i have the follwing question, what kind of signeal is transmitted on 14.109.50 Mhz ( dialfrequency ), it sounds like burst , but i can not decode them, maybe some one can give me a clue. The trx i am using is the FT-897 D, and software MIXW and DM780, but i don,t now what mode this is.. KInd regards Ron ( PD1ANB ) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] JT65 VFO Dial Frequency 10139.0 kHz USB
I was there earlier, and sent a couple of CQs, but saw no JT65 activity. I saw some interesting activity at the upper and lower extremes of my waterfall, but nothing that would seem to interfere with the center freq. I have programmed this freq. into my radio. Thanks. -- Dave AF6AZ - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65 VFO Dial Frequency 10139.0 kHz USB I will add this to the Bozo Guide. Andy On 7/16/07, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recommend JT65 VFO Dial Frequency: 10139.0 kHz USB. Signal frequency 10140.3-10140.7 kHz (Lowest Sync Tone ~1270Hz). Use of this frequency enables operators in all IARU Regions and countries to QSO. This avoids the many Automatic Stations that are mosly in the range 10142-10150 kHz, with heavy ARQ and APRS traffic in 10145-10150kHz. It also makes possible QSY below 10140.0 for operators in countries and regions that can work digital in 10130-10140 sub band. This is compatible with digitalradio group 30m frequency. See 30 meter band image: http://www.obriensweb.com/d1.jpg Bonnie KQ6XA __ NOD32 2400 (20070716) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 2400 (20070716) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 6 meters digital
I'm wondering if this is related to the interference issue with the military PAVE PAWS radar system by a number of 70 cm. repeaters. Dave AF6AS -Original Message- From: Rhett Isley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 6 meters digital Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 9:22 am Size: 8K To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Bonnie, Why and how is the 70cm band going away in the greater San Francisco area of California? 73. Rhett KB4HG
[digitalradio] JT65a on 6m?
Is anyone using JT65a on 6 meters (or higher) for terrestrial (non-EME) Work? If so, what is the best frequency to try? -- Dave AF6AS
[digitalradio] Re: [pskmail] Re: n5ale server
Just FYI, 14.076 is also used by a growing number of hams working JT65A in terrestrial (non-EME) mode. Does PSKMail incorporate a waterfall display to check for other users on the frequency? 73 de AF6AS Dave -Original Message- From: WN1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: [pskmail] Re: n5ale server Date: Tue May 8, 2007 11:11 am Size: 926 bytes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rich, if you keep it on 14076 thru this coming weekend, i will be sure to try to connect Sat. or Sun. The scanning freqs have kept me from trying, plus reports (perhaps not accurate) that someone was having no luck connecting at all. orrin wn1z in northeastern Calif. CN90qk On 5/8/07, Rein Couperus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fine Rich, can you change the wiki (http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/PSKmailservers), and also indicate which minute you are beaconing (by making it bold in the table)? Tnx, Rein PA0R -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: 08.05.07 13:30:11 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [pskmail] n5ale server Folks I am going to lock down the server on 14.076 for a while so anyone who wants to try and connect can do so with out a shifting frequency target. Rich -- http://pa0r.blogspirit.com
Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ......)
Interesting dilemma. We love uncrowded bands but if they're too uncrowded they might be considered under-utilized and be in danger of being taken away from us. Dave AF6AS -Original Message- From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit (was Re: ARRL wake up ..) Date: Wed May 2, 2007 7:05 am Size: 1K To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I think this is a good idea Bonnie. Get on 20 meters with a few hundered of your wide band digital users on field day and demand they not interfere with your group ... It will make for a interesting test case. your comment I will be happy to provide a examples of how the rules allow very wideband data bandwidth on HF, if you like. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links --- message truncated ---
Re: [digitalradio] HF search text
Please include me, too: AF6AS DM13gw -Original Message- From: w6ids [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [digitalradio] HF search text Date: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:07 am Size: 1K To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Well, I'm happy to read that YOU'RE doing this. I was going to set out to try to make one for myself. S, I'll give you my stats if you don't have it: W6IDS EM79 Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: John GM4SLV [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HF search text On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:35:40 -0700 WN1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To the person who is compiling an HF deep-search text: please post here when you do that. Hi Orrin and others, I'm adding every Call/grid square I get sent, or that I can deduce from reading messages on this list. SNIP SNIP Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] LoTW for JT65a
I am finally set up with ARRL's Logbook of the World and would like to upload my JT65a QSOs. Unlike eQSL, I cannot find a mode option for JT65a using ARRL's log software. The closest option I see is DATA. What is everyone else using? 73 de AF6AS Dave Sparks Riverside, CA
Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0
Hi Andy, I've been running at half power but I suspect that most transceivers could safely transmit at full power for a minute or less followed by at least a full minute's rest, which is the nature of the mode. 73 de AF6AS Dave -Original Message- From: w6ids [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0 Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:34 am Size: 1K To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Are we under the same power constraints as PSK or is full power allowed (meaning w/o linear) for JT65? - Original Message - From: KT2Q To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0 Andy, Boy, that would be something. I was running 20 watts / rotatable dipole on the tower at 75 feet. Cesco's antenna is a low G5RV with a barefoot rig. He usually runs 50 watts on digital. Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links --- message truncated ---
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A
Hi John, I had that same problem and it turns out the Muted box was checked in the Windows Control Panel. 73 de AF6AS Dave -Original Message- From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: [digitalradio] JT65A Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 12:43 pm Size: 732 bytes To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I still can't get any output audio with this program Anyone else having a problem? Any Ideas? Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links --- message truncated ---
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A
Hi John, OK, when you hook up speakers to the sound card do they get any audio? 73 de AF6AS Dave -Original Message- From: John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 2:14 pm Size: 438 bytes To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Thanks Dave, I did check that also. Nothing muted... John Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links --- message truncated ---
Re: [digitalradio] Re: John VE5MU
I think it might have been from me. I copied your callsign on 7076 USB. Dave AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Bradley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: John VE5MU was just getting a string of numbers but didn't copy any callsigns John VE5MU - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: John VE5MU -John, I have seen a Cuban and an American calling you in response to your CQ but you do not reply. After you send a CQ and then receive something like... 023200 4 -7 -1.9 -3 3 * VE5MU WB9F EM57 1 0 Send message number one, then after he responds agains, send 2 , and 3 and so forth. Just click on each message as you cycle through and with auto on they will xmit at the right time. Andy -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See you John on 7076 015100 9 -7 2.3 0 3 * VE5MU DO70 1 0 -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
