Re: [digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal
You further reinforce my position; the amateur radio service is not going to support long haul emcomm infrastructure. It doesn't matter what color you paint it. If the amout of wasted envy spent on lamenting P3 was devoted to promoting the Amateur Radio Service; then it may have a chance of surviving a few more decades. The others who take a serious look at your stance, and the credibility the ARS stands to lose have a good idea about who is destroying the villiage. Of course I have heard the same complaints about WINMOR; I live on planet Earth. By the same token, if we had to resort to smoke signals, the same group would be protesting unattended operation of fire. To me, the discussion is a passing amusement. I don't anticipate the need to generally waste time or effort trying to use Amateur Radio Service spectrum for any useful long haul communications in an emergency; except voice when I may need a larger audience in an affected area. The SATERN nets in the first week of the Haiti response brought out the jammers. They had the same hatred for sustained net operations as the anti P3 crowd have for effective emcomm infrastructure. The end result is the same; ineffective interference... Long Haul Emcomm has migrated to NTIA spectrum. I am reaping a great crop of effective communications there. How well did your crop come in?? Cheers, David KD4NUE --- On Mon, 5/10/10, aa6yq aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: From: aa6yq aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 11:24 PM AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, David Little dalit...@.. . wrote: This would be a good plan to insure that the Amateur Radio Service is treated as hobby-only communications. We had to destroy the village in order to save it snip I run a 24/7 RMS WINMOR server. snip If things were different, I would put up a second station 24/7 within the Amateur Radio Service spectrum. It simply isn't worth listening to the whining. I've heard no complaints about QRM from WinMor stations. Have you? Also, the potential for being effective in an emergency is too heavily weighted toward Federal spectrum for the same reasons that the Winlink/P3 whining never ceases when it concerns Amateur spectrum. Complaints about QRM from WinLink PMBOs will cease when WinLink PMBOs stop QRMing ongoing QSOs. The only WinLink whining I hear is from those offering lame excuses for why the same busy frequency detection mechanism deployed years ago in SCAMP and now deployed in WinMor hasn't long been incorporated into WinLink PMBOs. You reap what you sow Exactly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
In a channelized setting, PIII will not exceed allowed bandwidth. But, to answer your question about why the ARRL pushes PIII; relevance in emergency communications for current sustainability of allotted spectrum. When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there is a renewed interest among military, agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt. But, the move to give more legitimacy to Pactor III (PIII) in the ham bands will fail, as ultimately the Amateur Radio Service's claim to all of the spectrum they currently enjoy. The Queen is dead; long live the Queen David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Ellison Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... http://hraunfoss. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
RE: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
This would be a good plan to insure that the Amateur Radio Service is treated as hobby-only communications. However, to be able to send traffic that is formatted in usable format for the players in an emergency, it takes a bit more than FEC, or throttled back ARQ. There are none of these problems or restrictions on NTIA spectrum, and it is another reason that the ARRL probably feels in peril as far as defending long-haul spectrum for the Amateur Radio Service. I run a 24/7 RMS WINMOR server. I run it on NTIA spectrum. I have had a P# controller in the past, and will probably invest in another one in the future. I wouldn't even consider running a RMS station within the Amateur spectrum; it is not worth the effort or wear and tear on the equipment involved to devote an emcomm asset where it has the least chance of doing anything useful. If things were different, I would put up a second station 24/7 within the Amateur Radio Service spectrum. It simply isn't worth listening to the whining. Also, the potential for being effective in an emergency is too heavily weighted toward Federal spectrum for the same reasons that the Winlink/P3 whining never ceases when it concerns Amateur spectrum. You reap what you sow As far as the bandwidth argument, remember, it is hard to consume like a humming bird and output like an elephant. The ARRL is certainly considering the trend that started in the early 90s when the FCC was defunded, and spectrum auction refarming was created. It is now part of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and will play a large part in the continuation of amateur radio service having use of the spectrum it currently enjoys.. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My objections are PIII is a proprietary mode . PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same for the primary services that have 60M allocations. Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if they are going to get mode specific. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail. mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com com wrote: On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
RE: [digitalradio] WINMOR good
Andy, The RMS WINMOR station is always in contact with one of the CMS (Common Mail Servers). When you negotiate a connection, it checks for any mail waiting for your call. You can also send mail through the RMS WINMOR Station. It doesn't have to be to a winlink.org address. There is also a RMS Relay for store and forward, in case the RMS WINMOR station you connect to has loss of internet. In that case, when you disconnect, it will connect to another RMS Station via RF and pass your traffic. I haven't fully implemented RMS Relay in my RMS WINMOR server, as it is only for Pactor 3 at this point. I expect that will also change in the future. I wish I had a better grasp that what I indicate here. It is a nice network; much wider in it's scope than most realize. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:29 PM To: digitalradio Subject: [digitalradio] WINMOR good Another major update came out today. FYI, despite some limitations on noisy HF (like all modes) , my view is the the RMS package is now a complete one. A application that fills the void mentioned frequently, namely the lack on HF on-ramps. With Winmor HF stations now connected to the WINLINK system, hams can easily communicate via Internet and without Internet. Example, today I connected to KN6NB-5 on 30M, just to see if the upgrade was working. I connected and received an email from another ham that was sent a couple of days ago. I had not checked mail for a few days. How I got the email, I have no clue. In other words, I don't know how it found me, I have not kept up on how Winlink works. I assume that I checked in to a WINMOR winlink station, it checks WINLINK for any mail for me by using the Telnet link and then sends me the mail via HF winmor. While many may have issues about the winlink concept, it now does do something effectively, gets messages to a destination via variety of methods ..error free. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail. mailto:k3ukandy%40gmail.com com wrote: Well, ROS diverted me and I am quite out of date with WINMOR and RMS Express. I finally upgraded tonight and it looks like it has taken a major leap forward with PACTOR now added to the suite, plus may new features. I'll play around some more before registering with the $39.00 fee but it looks very professional and well conceived. VERY nice channel selection and display with time feature and really nifty channel filters that let you set minimum signal quality. Pactor III is still probably the cat's meow, but this package now gives Telnet, Pactor (via hardware modem) and Winmor via soundcard. Winmore P2P or Winmor WL2K. Very well done . I'll try the K7EK station later tonight. See screen shot at http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/wmor.jpg eb.com/wmor.jpg Andy K3UK RMS Express Revision History RevisionDateDescription/changes 0.5.1 3/13/2010 Minor updates for Pactor and help after version 0.5.0.0 testing. 0.5.0.0 3/10/2010 Major update including New use of WINMOR TNC and addition of Pactor and propagation prediction. 0.4.2.0 1/21/2010 Release of 0.4.1.3 0.4.1.3 1/20/2010 Change logging in KHzToHz to not log exception on empty string. Updated WMLinkProtocol.Process Control for case HFF to not include state disconnecting. Changed sound card restart threshold of dttLastSoundCapture from 3 sec to 7 sec. Moved Reset of dttLastSoundCardCapture in ProcessCapturedData to where Data is decimated by 2. Modified RestartCaptureDevice to clear Capture State and PTT Modified StopRecord to clear capture state and PTT. Fix SetRMSCallListXML and SetRMSFreqListXML in WinmorChannels and Winmor to correct error with multiple intervals of one frequency. Extend intActivityTimeout from 15 to 20 seconds in WMLinkProtocol.DecodeFrames
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
One exception to that would be if it is part of a NASA rebroadcast IE: Wake-Up or Morning music on the Shuttle David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Jose, Oversight, we are certainly not allowed to transmit Music! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: José A. Amador ama...@electrica. mailto:amador%40electrica.cujae.edu.cu cujae.edu.cu Sent: Mar 9, 2010 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Cc: rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts El 09/03/2010 03:55 p.m., rein...@ix.netcom. mailto:rein0zn%40ix.netcom.com com escribió: Hello All, Suppose I would build an transmitter with a x-tal oscillator, lets say running at 7040.000 Hz Part of the system was a balanced modulator and just to make sure a a high quality crystal filter, with a 1:1.05 shape factor, was added in the driver stages for the final amplifier. With a lot of tweaking a carrier suppression of the balanced modulator was reached of 67.3 dB and the balanced modulator was kept temperature stabilized within .1 degree Fahrenheit. On the modulation section, I constructed a tone generator which could be changed in steps of 7.3 Hz starting from 1354 Hz to all the way up to 1646 Hz. I went out and got the xtal filter ordered for a lot of money. Center frequency of xtal filter ordered and delivered for 7041.500 Hz filter at - 80 dB BW 500 Hz. My question is what would the modulation be of this transmitter? The amount of audio was set in such a way that the output of the transmitter had no distortion what so ever totally linear! 73 Rein W6SZ All that trouble for MFSK ? :-) 73, Jose, CO2JA Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html eb.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
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card
Did you delete the ROS.ini File in the Windows directoty? -Original Message- From: graham787 g0...@hotmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/5/10 6:37 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Alan . are 'we' the only stns with this problem ?? .. I dont see whats causing the problem .. I have tried to remove the prog .. by removing the directroy and starting agen .. however the saved info is still retained ... so how to fully remove ?? G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, wa4sca alanbiddl...@... wrote: Just grabbed 2.4.0. Same problem. Of course the FCC says I can't transmit, so it is largely moot, but it would be fun to at least listen in. Alan WA4SCA
RE: [digitalradio] 13 Pin DIN Male to 6-Pin Mini Din Female
Tony, Thanks for the suggestion. I had considered the breakout box before, but will be setting up a few station positions with more than one digital interface, so wanted something that moved more toward industry standardization using the 6 pin mini DIN. Thanks Again, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 1:48 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 13 Pin DIN Male to 6-Pin Mini Din Female Re: 13 Pin DIN Male to 6-Pin Mini Din Female You might try giving West Mountain Raido a call. Web page: www.westmountainrad http://www.westmountainradio.com io.com Adapters: http://www.westmoun http://www.westmountainradio.com/order_us48a.htm tainradio.com/order_us48a.htm Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Use the *$%#ing RS ID!
This is not an official answer, but I will take a stab at it. RSID is an Olivia transmission at the beginning of each digital transmission that contains the operating parameters used by the originating station. RSID stands for Reed-Soloman ID. Wiki Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction RSID can be coded into the digital sound card software at the author's discretion. The modes it is most useful on are model like Olivia, MT-63, Contestia, or modes that have multiple combinations of number of tones, bandwidth, interleave, etc. Modes that offer many configuration options but sound relatively alike are easier to master using RSID on both ends. After becoming accustomed to the varying sounds, it becomes less of a concern, to the point that you can recognize them by ear, or proficient enough to decode on the fly. Currently, MultiPSK, HRD and (I believe) FL-Digi have it as an option. I am unsure of the FL-Digi implementation. The software determines if it is toggled off after first IDing a transmission or stays in constantly, once selected. Both originating and receiving station must have it enabled. It is enabled according to the Author's instructions, which is dependent on how it is implemented in each software package. This reply is based on limited usage of RSID when it first became available on MultiPSK a few years back. I never used it enough to really become proficient, but this is my basic understanding of how it works. YMMV, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nf2g Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:49 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Use the *$%#ing RS ID! OK, thanks for the clarification. In sum, this is the basic information we all appear to need: 1) What is RS ID? We are each responsible for everything that is transmitted by our stations, so we should understand what this is. 2) On what modes is RS ID required/recommended/preferred? 3) Which software supports RS ID? 4) How do we enable RS ID in each capable software package? 73 de Dave, NF2G
RE: [digitalradio] Hook up TNC and Soundcard to same radio?
With the capability to cut and paste a received message from MT-63 and send it out via Winlink, the 10 second turn around is very close to simultaneous operation. If you want to make things difficult for your self, or discourage others from using the available transport layers, you can advocate having 3 rigs and as many antennas. Here is an example of a complete Transportable outfit for rapid deployment: http://www.se-hams.com/html/emcomm1.html A single antenna (DX-CC, BW-90, Screwdriver on a tripod, etc.) is all that is necessary. The setup above allows voice, sound card modes, External DSP controlled modes (Pactor III being the main one), has manual tuner with bypass mode. The rig covers from 160m to 70cm. A separate UHF/VHF setup would be a nice addition to the setup above. A FT-8900 to a quad band tripod mounted antenna, would be the icing on the cake. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chas Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:27 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: [digitalradio] Hook up TNC and Soundcard to same radio? Given: TS-480HX Signalink USB Timewave PK232 USB, etc Thinkpad T-41 Doze XP Pro how do I hook this up so that I can run Olivia/MT63 or whatever at the same time this thing is trying to go Peer to Peer and is being driven freqency wise by Automatic freq control software? I suppose that the AFC will have to be disconnected or disabled and Pactor will be set to run on the ... I just don't see how you can run Pactor on the same radio as soundcard and at the same time. it is also obvious that this setup is not going to allow HF SSB as long as this stuff is turned on, nicht? so, a deployed station is going to have to have as many as three radios and as many antennas.??? thanks chas -- ch...@texas. mailto:chasm%40texas.net net k5dam Houston, TX Orwell -- If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. ---
RE: [digitalradio] 14074. MHZ - What Is That?
ALE 400 ARQ I believe David KD4NUE CQ K7TMGK2MO K7TMG DE K2MO ok tony back ag ain in FAE. The other ARQ is nowhere near as f -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of r_lwesterfi...@bellsouth.net Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:33 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] 14074. MHZ - What Is That? Anybody know what that is on 14.074? Rick - KH2DF/W5
RE: [digitalradio] SSB Phone versus other modes
Andy, This is a topic of discussion that is raging on behind the lines in Emergency Communications also. The fundamental thing that many miscalculate is how the Intel that is to be sent digitally is gathered and relayed to someone with the capabilities to digitize In this debate, a lot of babies have been thrown out with the bath water already. Please keep the most rudimentary concept of communications in mind in this discussion. It is like factoring to prime numbers. One day, everyone will have a total mobile digital station as an option in their cars at point of purchase. However, we aren't there yet, and we have to rely on what is available if we are to offer a useful service to the community to pay for our keep (and spectrum). Voice Ops will always be an option; especially in the first 96 hours when everyone is scrambling to restore enough damaged infrastructure to get back on the air. Again, as hunter gatherers someone must collect the Intel or ground truth that is to be sent via digital means. However, Amateur Radio is less about public service now than it has been in the past, and many don't consider Emergency Communications as something they are interested in. As far as DX goes, that is another battle altogether. Many who chase weak signals are deeply involved in the modes that were available when they were first licensed. Some (an un-known quantity), don't have email, internet or computer access. Some have never had their hands on a typewriter; much less a keyboard. Some don't own a microphone. To them , the topic is a non-starter. To the technician who has stayed on weak-signal VHF and above long enough to learn about propagation patterns, coax losses, antenna gain, AOS/LOS, line of sight, etc...These are most likely to continue to learn as they progress in their license upgrade path. They tend to see the full picture, and having to work harder for each line of sight or tropo-enhanced contact already have fairly well sized up the importance of good operating techniques, and what is needed to get the job done. They have already found that you will make more contacts on HF with a wire by mistake than you will ever make above 50MHz using proper operating techniques, a good station that is properly put together and mindful every step of the away of the losses and need for efficient operations as they move from the approximately 7MHz total of HF spectrum to the Gazillions of MHz of spectrum available to them, if they will develop the gear and skills to use it. They will be the ones that may carry 20th Century technology into the 21st century. The one day extras that come in to a test session with no license and exit with an extra; not so much. The CW ops that can't find a Microphone, but have a half-dozen keys around; not so much. Folks that enjoy and are heavily invested in ESSB; not so much Folks that are equally involved in both Voice and Digital ops, and understanding the need for each, and at what point in the timeline that need is most apparent; preaching to the Choir. Digital Only ops - When the Ohms jump out of the Pot, look out! Don't put all your eggs in one basket. By and large; specialization is for insects when it comes down to survival. Just a few thoughts, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:54 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] SSB Phone versus other modes I wonder why some folks bother with phone, especially under weak conditions. It sure is fun to just talk but the performance of SSB phone versus other modes continues to amaze me. Trying for the LOTW TP award has caused me to use SSB phone more of late, and I am often encountering situations where we switch from CW to digital and then to phone for the award. Today for example, I worked NX7F 559 on CW, then barely readable on phone, 339 at best, then 100% copy on PSK31. I wonder if there are many phone ops who do not yet do the other modes? They would be shocked at how much less shouting they would need to do if they pursued DX in CW or digital modes. Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Howard, I am a member of Army MARS in the state of Georgia. Actually, I should say Region 4 MARS, as we are now under the Region concept and are merging into a Tri-Service organization. So far, AF MARS has completely revamped their call-sign structure to adhere to FEMA Region numbers. and all Navy/Marine Corps guys are Zeros. Don't ask me why the zeros are leading the pack; they seem to be immune to change. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of W6IDS Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:17 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS David, I didn't see what MARS program you're affiliated with. Interesting read. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: David mailto:dalit...@bellsouth.net Little To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:23 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast.
RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Paul, Glad to hear Navy is giving it a try. The rest is grossly off-topic, but I feel the need to expand my understanding. On the Zero, it is a sore point across services, as is the full call debacle on initial check in that I believe came from Bo's influence. I can declare abbreviated calls are authorized, before I establish ANCS, and take 5 to 8 check ins per minute with out duplicate transmissions. In many cases, using abbreviated calls, I can get an entire working net of about 20 stations, establish ANCS, make the call for emergency or priority traffic, have ANCS make the same call, and have 54 minutes for training, administrative business or emergency net operation. Since we have to use full phonetics (Our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we never fall back to Abbreviated Call Signs (Our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we never give a call sign non-phonetically (our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we use FEMA Region designators to be able to geographically determine the effectiveness of the net (our prefixes are more complex than NNN0) We find that the attempt to require full call signs on initial check in to be a surefire way to create Chaos. Also, in preferring the concept of training the way we would operate in an emergency, we have generally found that requiring full calls to NCS, when the net can only have ONE NCS is as well thought out as being asked if we want fries with our fries, when we just order fries. One day, I may be fully expanded enough in mind and maturity to fully understand the full call requirement. I'll bet you guys are still laughing about that part of the new voice SOP. Bravo Zulu, David KD4NUE / AAM4__ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul L Schmidt, K9PS Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 7:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS David Little wrote: Howard, I am a member of Army MARS in the state of Georgia. Actually, I should say Region 4 MARS, as we are now under the Region concept and are merging into a Tri-Service organization. So far, AF MARS has completely revamped their call-sign structure to adhere to FEMA Region numbers. and all Navy/Marine Corps guys are Zeros. Don't ask me why the zeros are leading the pack; they seem to be immune to change. David KD4NUE Navy / Marine Corps *callsigns* generally use a zero as the digit... but that's just the callsign. Most Navy MARS callsigns don't indicate anything about the station's location. The organizational structure, though. shifted to the same as FEMA several years ago. I know of several Navy stations here in Region Five that have experimented with Easypal... 73, Paul / K9PS / NNN0___
RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast. All the other functions of the BSR and FIX apply to the text function. If you were tasked with sending the participants of a net a rather intricate set of instructions, taskings, or specifications, and had to be sure each member had received it properly, you could spend a major part of an hour with requests for fills or repetitions, words phonetically, groups, or numbers. With easypal, you get what you get on the original transmission, and you send the BSR (Bad Segment Request) and the sending station sends the FIX file containing only those segments. Each member receives benefit of any bad block that they missed in a FIX file sent to another member, since it is a broadcast (non-connected) protocol. If you were involved in dial-up file transfer in the 80s, when text files were captured you will remember that it took as much time to capture a space as it did a letter. Transfer protocols were created the compressed ASCII on the fly to improve through put, I seem to remember J-modem, I-modem, y-modem and others that had the compression routines built in. I remember using a shell on ProComm Plus to allow choosing up to 14 different transfer protocols, dependent on the type of file you were transferring. I had at least 9 options available on the BBS I ran from the late 80s to the mid 90s. If Easypal can send a perfect high resolution picture in a 20K Wave file, you can imagine how small a 2 page document would be when converted to binary, data digitized into a wave file then sent in this manner to assure error-free reception. The repeater function allows the file to be sent to a central repository then retrieved individually by the members who could retrieve the file list. The program is getting very polished, and has great potential. I don't know if it is getting much exposure in all regions, but it is a valuable tool for the toolbox. As far as acceptance, MARS is a fairly diverse group of folks. Some are up in age, some are retired and homebound, some are fit and ready for deployment at the drop of a hat. Since there are requirements for continued membership, participation requirements, reporting requirements, requirements for pulling NCS and ANCS, requirements for NIMS compliance, now the requirement for a General or higher license Then you can see that the members have to meet certain obligations and benchmarks to continue to be a member. With this in mind, the program has some fairly receptive members, who wanted to go further in their service in, and understanding of the art of communications.. Most of them are quite willing to try something new. We haven't spent the degree of time on Easypal as we have with MT-63. But with each region having up to 10 one hour long nets scheduled each day, and each net has the requirement for some sort of training, and many members are uniquely qualified in one aspect of the training or another, it becomes fairly easy to see how a new mode can be introduced, explained, setup and operation help given, and results seen within the course of an hour and in an interactive manner in a disciplined net structure. Is MARS the silver bullet? Hardly. It has it's growing pains as much as any organization. In Amateur Radio, if there is a community that has 3 Amateur Radio operators, there will be 4 opinions on every subject and pretty soon there will be the need for 5 repeaters to be established so they can communicate with their group. We all can key the Mic, but many times, as communicators we show that we can send out a signal, but actual communication is not often what results. The organized format of MARS, the requirements, continuous training, forward looking (not driving the car by only looking through the rear-view mirror), the disciplined net structure. All of these things help form a group that is dedicated to the art of emergency communications. Once that subset is created, most of the QRM is left behind, and they can concentrate on the task at hand. Overall, I am usually fairly happy to be associated with MARS. BTW, the General class or higher requirement was recently introduced, with the main purpose to allow interoperability with ARES, RACES and other Amateur radio groups. So we would sure like to see some organized effort for both groups to start working together. As usual, far more of an answer than you requested, but maybe some extra content slipped in that makes the big picture more visible. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:01 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
RE: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way.
Dave, It is a good start, but I am afraid the lines were drawn long ago, and the opponents are so emotionally involved that nothing would appease them. I would really expect the only thing that will satisfy would be the total abandonment from the amateur bands and 100% move to NTIA spectrum. All the restrictions that were in place so the software could be freely given to Amateur Radio operators to alllow them to better meet their emergency service obligations required to justify the spectrum they enjoy could be removed, and the Winlink Transport Layer could be allowed to operate flat out and no longer be impeded to meet the Amateur Radio requirements. It is looking ore and more like a win win situation. The end result, less Pactor on Amateur Bands, and far less need for amateur radio operators to assist served agencies in any kind of emergency, unless it is meals on wheels, or another support NGO that only services the emergency responders. I have tried many times in softer ways to hint at this dynamic in the past. Only the future will reveal the outcome. It would be a real shame to see the WINMOR protocol be releases and be a cost-efficient for any amateur operator to send data in the form of choice for those whom they serve in emergency, only to see that the Transport Layer had been taken away from Amateur Radio so it could be fully developed for the served agencies. As you know, you see less and less need for folks who make wood-spoked wheels for wagons, since rubber and steel became the norm for enclosing circular mobility enhancers. Contrary to the opinion many have on my comments, I am basically a voice guy. My involvement in digital modes is secondary, as I know that there is nothing to send until the intel can be gathered to send it,. Also the digital infrastructure has to be put in place in any disaster. The first 48 to 96 hours is usually a knuckle-graggers domain. By Knuckle-Dragger, I refer to what the voice guys are consider to be by the digital guys. I am a knuckle-dragger, who knows the importance of digital, and when it will come into play and what it is capable of. Are there any digital guys or gals out there that know the similar importance of the voice operations. This is were co-operation and interoperability are born. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:18 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way. It is true that the long history of WinLink PMBOs QRMing in-progress QSOs has generated more than a little frustration and anger. Some small percentage of those so affected are alleged to have stooped to similar misconduct -- intentionally QRMing WinLink transmissions in revenge. Over the years, more than one WinLink proponent has stated here that given the anti-WinLink sentiment, that busy frequency detectors should not be incorporated in PMBOs because opponents would exploit them to impede WinLink operation. We must put an end to this situation, which means installing an effective busy frequency detector in each WinLink PMBO. Might this be exploited by WinLink opponents? Possibly, but only for a short while. An automatic station is far more patient than any human QRMer, and the elimination of perceived provocation will soon remove the motivation required to spend hours intermittently QRMing a frequency. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of WD8ARZ Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way. Hello Dave, I was there during those scamp beta testing adventures too . and I remember that part of the evaluation. Various levels were played with, akin to a sensitivity level. Bottom line to me was that when the level made it 'work' ie, not transmit when the frequency was 'active', throughput dropped way back Remember those that would intentionally put 'activity' on the frequency to kick in the transmit control system so we had zero activity with scamp No cynicism involved at all, just the real world. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ (Grateful for those who are doing for all of us what they do, giving us what we have today hi) - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. mailto:aa6yq%40ambersoft.com com To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules re The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled. I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
I know some thought went into that reply, and that it has merit if we are only concerned with short-range communications. However, no matter how wide, narrow, thick or thin the emission, you cannot expect the same range on 1 1/4m as you can on 20m - so I am not sure the statement has any merit in this discussion. This discussion has little effect on some, who have long since vacated the Amateur bands for their serious use of digital signals for anything other than entertainment. However, for those who are limited to the Amateur Radio Service Spectrum, pragmatic consideration should be given to the position the regulating body is in when other services that may offer a tangible and beneficial service petition for the spectrum we enjoy. Could it be used to be more of a benefit to mankind with wider bandwidth emissions, which can improve both accuracy and speed in moving traffic that is also beneficial to mankind? What are the basic requirements for moving traffic? I seem to remember Speed and Accuracy to be a major part of the definition... It is all a relatively moot point... As the average age of the Amateur Radio Operator continues to increase, attrition will ultimately be the deciding factor. Consequently, I appreciate the merits of 2KHz wide digital modes, which are used daily on NTIA spectrum - and enjoy using the keyboard modes as a form of entertainment where bandwidth is limited. It does boil down to a question of if we appreciate the privileges of the use of the spectrum afforded to us, and how we show that appreciation. Many only consider it a right for their enjoyment, some look to a higher calling that may help preserve the spectrum for their grandchildren. Wider bandwidth digital signals as a vehicle for efficient long range traffic handling is an unavoidable fact. It doesn't matter how many temper tantrums are thrown, how many stress-related conditions are created by those who know how to spell automated and common carrier. It is here, it will stay here, and it will be advanced to the point at any signal that meets the qualifications of providing 2 KHz of through put with a minimum guard band above and below it to prevent moving past the 3 KHz assigned to the channelized concept used in professional communications will be used by the less technical forms of transmitting that is afforded to the public. I don't much like being taxed into submission either. Neither do I like a lot of things that I must do in day to day life. The frog often wishes for wings. Some Amateur communicators will always fall back upon their comfort zone when faced with a new concept that doesn't square with what their grandfathers taught them. Maybe we would be a better service to mankind if we specialized in finding a way to send smoke signals without burning organic material or creating greenhouse emissions. That is a fairly narrow-band emission, and it would pay tribute to times gone by and also not be automated or considered common carrier. See, everyone could get their wish Cause and effect; what a concept... David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bruce mallon Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:45 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: wa4...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Things go round and around Back 70 years ago the FCC band SPARK GAP because it was wide and interfered with other stations. CLEAN NARROW signals became the standard. With bands like 220 MHz sitting there dead one would think wide band on 20 meters would be the last thing we see. . --- On Thu, 3/26/09, kh6ty kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: kh6ty kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the necessary bandwidth appears to be roughly twice the frequency shift, although an exact calculation is obviously very complicated. More importantly, with regards to the amateur radio service is the summary statement, The necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service. It has already been concluded, after many months (even years!) of debate, that radio amateurs are amateurs and not professionals and do not have either the ability or the means to measure necessary bandwidth of their signals. Their communications are casual amateurcommunicat ions and not professional communications. If the necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service were to be codified into the radio amateur service regulations, it would also be necessary to also define what acceptable quality is, in particular for the radio amateur
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Except for the fact that PSK has no error correction, no compression, no formatting capabilities and no way to accurately know if the traffic was delivered properly other than read back, your figures are fairly accurate. Fortunately, most Winlink traffic is moved on NTIA spectrum, where it is able to run full speed. I am not a large Winlink fan, but I do like 2K MT-63, and I am encouraged by the 2K WINMOR mode that is currently being tested. I don't suspect much development of the newer wide-and modes will be wasted on Amateur spectrum in the future, as most of the long haul and critical traffic transport seems to be migrating toward NTIA spectrum, and leaving the short-haul for VHF where wideband and closed-squelch operation are a given. It further divides Amateur Radio, but at least those who move to where their assistance is helpful can take advantage of modern technology. For keyboard to keyboard, where nothing more important than Call, QTH and 59 needs to be passed, BPSK is exceptionally spectrum efficient. It would be wonderful if a single piece of traffic could be moved on multiple BPSK streams in a parallel fashion. However, when you factored in the redundancy needed to provided error-free reception, I would wager the end result would consume wider bandwidth and take more time. But, for the 99% that the other 1% are defending by operating in the true interest of preserving the Amateur Radio Service, wideband digital modes are a waste of valuable DX or contesting spectrum. If it wasn't for DXing and contests, us Rabid digital dinks would never get the lawn mowed. :) And Amateur Radio is a Big Tent endeavor; when properly executed, provides something for everyone. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Moving traffic IS NOT what 99% of hams want to do on 20 meters working DX IS. And this band is filled with stations doing just that. I think you are quit right, Bruce, and the Winlink 2000 network is probably currently the most efficient say of moving traffic, but that interests less than 1% of the licensed hams in the US. A single 3 KHz-wide Pactor-3 channel can, under average good conditions, process about 400 wpm per minute, and this assumes the channel is busy all the time. In comparison, a single 3 KHz-wide channel can accomodate 30 PSK63 stations, all simultaneously sending traffic at 100 wpm, for a total of about 3000 wpm. Since the traffic on PSK63 can be passed in parallel, instead of serially, as on the Pactor-3 channel, the narrowband modes are obviously more efficient overall than a sngle Pactor-3 channel. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty. http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net home.comcast.net
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
their motion from one site to another. NTIA spectrum will be the long-haul backbone of RF communications by volunteer communicators. They have accepted the concept of wide bandwidth protocols, as they are already guarding every 3 KHz slice of their spectrum. A 2 KHz bandwidth mode still provides a guard band of 500 HZ on the top and bottom and still stays within the 3 KHz that is designated as a Channel. With each assigned frequency, there is an USB and LSB choice, except when it caused the data to migrate into the Amateur band edges. It is actually well thought out. Why would a served agency want to rely on a communications provider that can't stop arguing long enough to move the traffic? I am in and out of this group as the tide tosses and turns, hoping to see some acceptance of the way things are going to be. I am still optimistic. In the mean time, I am still hedging my bets, and utilizing the spectrum that is available to me to explore new and better ways of getting the job done. As an aside, if you really want to see something that is slick, give Easy Pal a shot for sending text. Also ultra high resolution pictures with no scan lines that occupy 20KB of data on each end. 90 seconds to send or receive, with the ability to only request the individual blocks that weren't received properly to be sent again. We are also utilizing it in MARS. As I said, I am still optimistic, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules David, The thing that I find particularly attractive about WINMOR is that it is an open sound card protocol and it can be used in three forms: 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 2000 Hz modes. Putting this capability together with its automatic adaptibility for conditions, it may be the break though of the year for e-mail messaging. It will not require user knowledge of error correction and FEC, etc., since that will be done automatically, just like it was for the SCAMP mode a number of years ago. What it may not have is the emergency features that I see in PSKmail which is peer to peer messaging and chat along with ad hoc server deployment which can never be possible with Winlink 2000. Put the right protocol with the right solutions and you have a fantastic synergy not possible with any other protocol. I don't think that many of us can agree with you about new sound card modes not having a future on ham radio unless they are of a certain type. They just have to be the right protocol that solves an actual need. 60 meters is off the table at this point since you can not even use emergency data modes on those frequencies. What may die is Pactor modes. Having one protocol sourced by one foreign entity is not a good thing. Open source solutions are a good thing. Will many hams use and actually practice using NBEMS? Thus far I have had no luck in my local and regional area. But then again, I can not even get the NTS folks to consider digital messaging other than Pactor, HI. I don't have any interest in NTIA and no one in our area is much involved with non amateur emergency traffic. I suspect that many areas have the same situation. But I appreciate your comments and they are important issues to discuss. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup David Little wrote: Skip, I use FLARQ and FLDigi on the FT-2000 Data Management Unit, when I boot it from Linux. It allows me to do digital modes without an external computer. The DMU also is networked via Ethernet. I was looking at MT-63 2K with FLARQ when WINMOR was announced, but since it was a 2K wide protocol, I never gave it any more consideration, as it would just be treated as the same annoyance, just with different tonal qualities. Winlink has no future on Amateur radio spectrum. Anything more complex than RTTY or BPSK has little future on Amateur spectrum. Other than a small core of folks willing to take the time to learn something about ARQ, FEC, redundancy, error correction, and what makes up a dependable transport layer - There is little future of any digital mode with the complexity necessary to be efficient in times of need. I do wish you well. I applaud what you are doing, but you are playing to a hostile crowd if you expect to deploy any digital mode more complex than RTTY or PSK on the Amateur Radio Spectrum. No matter what it is, what it sounds like, what it carries, where it is going, or where it came from; it is Automated or Common Carrier traffic. Even the legitimate traffic on frequencies that amateur radio is the secondary user of; same thing; always automated or common carrier. A very intelligent mantra, often used to describe legitimate
RE: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63)
I would like to remind all, if you are not already aware, to turn AGC off when static crashes are an issue. If you are fortunate enough to operate in a mixed mode net, turn it to fast, or for inland stations, medium. Slow recovery time of the rig in response to a strong signal cannot be corrected by a sound card protocol; no matter how robust. While we are at it, when using MT-63 at 1K long, keep in mind that most software hard codes a starting frequency of 500 Hz, and that is a 1.5Khz total width. It doesn't work well if you have your filters set for PSK, or a narrow-band mode. In running digital training nets for newcomers to MT-63, it is absolutely amazing how many ways can be found to lessen it's effectiveness; primarily due to not understanding where the signal is, where it is going, and how it is getting there. It took me a long time to factor out many of the common reasons it didn't work. That is one of the main reasons that PSK-31 is so popular; even a caveman can do it. (Sorry Geico; couldn't resist) David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:04 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63) Skip, MT63-1000 has a -5 dB minimum S/N, but MFSK16 has a -13.5 dB minimum S/N, so the static tests you made must be at signal levels high enough that MT63-1000 decodes, which may not be a realistic level. That is true. Fortunately, there are times when signals are above the decode threshold for the majority of modes. That gives us the chance to test the higher throughput modes to see what works in heavy static. MFSK16 turned out (after three months of testing) to be the most static-resistant mode of all That is interesting Skip. It did seem to do slightly better than THOR22 during n simulated tests. Did you see any advantage in throughput with MT63 during the static crash tests when signals were adequate? Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63
Also the redundancy of the FEC treatment in MT-63 allows it to give 100% accuracy with 25% loss of data. In actual use, Olivia will do better under worse conditions at a large loss of speed. Contestia attempts to bridge the gap, but MT-63 gives the highest accurate through put at the highest speed before going to an ARQ protocol. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:41 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63 Rick, You have done the tests and found that MT-63 is not very good at handling weak signals compared with other modes. It is less sensitive than others, but some of the most sensitive modes are not necessarily the best performers when conditions deteriorate. I think it's reasonably sensitive though. Is you recent on air testing to determine that or some other parameters, such as ability to handle interference, etc.? Not really. I pretty much know what to expect with MT63 because I've been using it since IZ8BLY first released it a long time ago. The most impressive thing about MT63 is how it seems to resist heavy static crashes. I made a few recordings with short segments of the signal removed to simulate this type of QRN and there was little effect on copy. It seems to withstand a lot more QRM than most and will usually print well with a good chunk of it's signal obliterated. There's a short video on this reflector in the file section showing how MT63 resists a combination of Pactor QRM and some fairly deep selective fading. By the way copying both you near noise level, and Skip, KH6TY, a bit stronger at S3-4. Tried to decode an earlier narrower mode but no luck. Was it MFSK8? That was DominoEX4. Please give us a call next time Rick! Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63
Cortland, We also use it in Region 4, but mostly 1K long interleave. We have used 2k under good band conditions, and the speed is very impressive. We are also experimenting with the text transmission capabilities of Easypal. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cortland Richmond Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63 In MARS nets I've noticed MT63 2000 Hz with long interleave delivering surprisingly good performance. Here in Michigan Army MARS, we usually choose 1000 Hz long for normal training texts, but 2K for larger files. Cortland KA5S -Original Message- From: David Little Sent: Mar 21, 2009 8:56 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63 Also the redundancy of the FEC treatment in MT-63 allows it to give 100% accuracy with 25% loss of data. In actual use, Olivia will do better under worse conditions at a large loss of speed. Contestia attempts to bridge the gap, but MT-63 gives the highest accurate through put at the highest speed before going to an ARQ protocol. David KD4NUE
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
-Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian Crayton Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:05 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Brent Gourley bg...@... wrote: But humans provided the emcom traffic to the machines, and the machines at the far end of the communication deliver it to humans. Without the humans, there is no communication. I agree. What I was referring to are store-and-forward links where HF is used as a internet replacement, instead of a mode in which a human operator relays a message to another human operator. *** Efficient use of resources dictates that we use the mode efficient transport layer and delivery system. Using a repeater to spell the names phonetically of shelter occupants looking for family members in another shelter hardly makes sense, if there are working fax machines and telephone lines. This has nothing to do with the art of radio; it addresses the concepts of common sense and efficient operations. We are not only Amateur Radio Operators, we should be resourceful in our utilization of the tools available. Also, it is hard to relay a multi-part form (IS-213) via voice, when a binary format retains formatting... This is not in the realm of voice operations; sitreps, on the ground intel, real-time info gathering that fills the formatted form are the realm of voice ops. The two can co-exist. WL2K is not a store and forward system like packet networks were in the past. In the WL2K system, the traffic goes from point to central repository (with redundant storage), where it is directly retrieved by the addressee (or their assigned operator). The fear of more efficient transport layers will do more to destroy amateur radio than being resourceful and making use of available infrastructure. We are supposed to think on our feet; not fear technology. For genuine, this-is-no-drill emcom, we should use the most effective mode possible. Effective being the balance between speed and required accuracy. Again I agree. However, there is a distinction between this-is-no-drill emcomm, and the other 99.95% of the time that these automated messaging systems are just handling traffic that could be handled on the Internet. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that these systems be shut down. I am not against email, Pactor or technology. I am concerned that the people who are creating the HF to Internet links don't really understand Internet security issues to know what they are doing. I am also concerned that these technologies will, if taken to the extreme, do significant damage to the art of radio. My opinions only, other opinions may vary. :) The other 99.95% of the time is spent making sure the system is a working piece of infrastructure during the .05% of time it is needed. It is a time in which new operators come on line and learn to be a part of the network, where system operators improve their system's effectiveness, where new methods of more efficient operations are tested and perfected, where the outgoing system operators are replaced by newer ones, or more remote areas come on line; which further increases the redundant appeal of the system. This is amateur radio; not Fear Factor. Why should we be so afraid of using newer technology to enhance or value to those we serve? I am primarily a voice operator. I spend time on the air improving my technique, time off the air improving my skillsand technical understanding. I am certainly a long way off from understanding everything, and the most important part of that statement is that I understand this limitation. Having said that, I don't include fear of emerging technology as a skill-set that is important to the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. I also try to use as many of the digital modes as I am able to try. An emergency is no time to discover the inherit weaknesses of handling a served agency's traffic in a manner usable by them; via voice.. Some things just aren't compatible, and the quickest way to get uninvited from a disaster party is to dictate how the hosts require their info to be disseminated. We need to embrace the future, not fear it. It is the only way we will remain relevant. David KD4NUE
RE: [digitalradio] NTS Digital
Rick, Army MARS is using MT-63 on mixed mode nets with some regularity. We also use Olivia when conditions warrant the slower speed of transmission. Easypal is also being used for picture transmission, as well as text broadcasts. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] NTS Digital Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in past years (now SK) was involved at some level, perhaps Pactor. At least one of the daytime region voice nets is struggling to survive. I suspect that CW nets are having some similar problems and if not, they surely will have as more CW competent OTs become SK. I don't see anywhere near enough new hams becoming proficient in CW and also having an interest in traffic handling. So I suggested that if there was any interest, maybe we could try using some of the new technologies that have only recently become available to us. That means either using an extremely robust mode such as Olivia which can compete with CW from some of my experiences, or using an ARQ mode with NBEMS or possibly Multipsk's FAE400. Eventually, it is possible that WINMOR may become available for peer to peer but that is likely far into the future from what they are saying. Are any of the NTS digital stations using sound card modes or are they staying with the NTS/D (actually the old Winlink system) and Pactor? Any recommendations, or even better, any actual experiences with getting area, region, or even section nets using some of the newer digital sound card modes? 73, Rick, KV9U
RE: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
Andy, It is a soundcard ARQ mode. It will allow a more economical way to access the Winlink 2000 system, and give a higher through-put than Pactor 1 There will probably be other uses, but I believe that to be the prime reason for it's development. I don't know the nuts and bolts of it, but it has a lot to do with taming the timing cycles needed for a soundcard to negotiate a ARQ connection and handle binary (compressed) data. In the past, there was too much overhead for this to be done with a sound card on a Windows machine; other than for SMS Text-Based messaging. The above is probably a poor explanation of what it is and what it does, but I think it captures the intent. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] on another note
John, You have confirmed what others already know about P3. I sold my PTC IIex last year, when the Winmor protocol was announced to be in development. It should introduce an ARQ mode to compete with P3, but will not replace it. I had the SCS in a go kit with either a Yaesu FT-897D or and Icom IC-7000, manual antenna tuner, switching power supply, sound card interface, USB to 8 Serial port converter, communications speaker and sometimes an auto tuner. http://www.se-hams.com/html/emcomm1.html That go kit has also found it's way into the Netcomm Magazine, as well as World Radio in the past year. It allowed me to setup remotely, string a dipole (actually put a furniture moving pad on top of the car and a tripod to be a center support, with ends staked to ground) in NVIS configuration. Then, the best demo was to send email (actually SMS messages) to various volunteers (read unbelievers) cell phones. For spice, I could include the location, time and frequency to show how unlikely it would be for me to connect to a RMS at that time of day, on that band, covering that distance. When this got boring, I substituted the rig for an Icom IC-703+ and lowered the maximim operating potential to 10 watts. With that combo, I could connect to around 80% of the RMS stations that I picked based on time of day, frequency and distance. I know there will always be folks that will not accept P3 within the amateur spectrum. It is a real shame, because it could really make the Amateur Radio Service stand out in an emergency with serious loss of infrastructure. As it is, the Winlink system is really concentrating on the MARS services and direct to the served agencies on NTIA spectrum.One major catastrophe, and the lack of the amateur community to move high volume traffic over long distances may bring unexpected consequences if the Amateur Radio Service is evaluated as compared to the MARS services. The jury is still out on that. But, as you have stated, P3 does an amazing job of connecting and moving data at much higher than expected speeds under the worst of conditions. Add the ability to utilize binary (compressed) format with attachments of which the size limit can be controlled on the fly by collaborating with the RMS operator, or event specific, routing formats, and priority determination by subject line... You end up with a protocol that can move a served agency's traffic in the format that they are accustomed to using, to be retrieved by the intended agency, using their WL2K system; already in the EOC, or their agencies support group. Winmor and P3 will serve side by side in the RMS stations in the near future; bringing the best of both worlds. But, when speed, accuracy and ability to cut through the worst of conditions are the criteria on which success is determined; P3 will still come out on top. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:48 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; hfl...@yahoogroups.com Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] on another note - S N I P - Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2 usb modem with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried, including RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else I have tried. I have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000 miles away on what I would call a dead band. I have connected to RMS stations at least 500 miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and resumed these connections by about 3PM , still when nothing else could be heard on the band. I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would work 10db into the noise. At the time my reactions was yah,right!!! but it really does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes with internet access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the last mile or so.. and would like to hear other opinions.we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are expensive, the operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc etc. but how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard software? John VE5MU
RE: [digitalradio] No audio from soundcard
Make sure Wave volume is turned up as well as Master volume. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mac2251 Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No audio from soundcard I have tried everything I can think of and cannot get the 746 to transmit. The audio from my speakers sounds perfect with no distortion etc, but no transmitting. The card is the computer card Realtek and I also tried with a USB external card, still no luck. Am I missing something here ? If anyone has a solution I would appreciate it. I might add the system was working perfect until about a week ago...Thanks Mike K9HCK
RE: [digitalradio] Filter question
Paul, It may help on PSK-31. Olivia can use a bandwidth wider than the filter. MT-63 and other modes can also. For this reason, I would look at how much I used the narrow bandwidth modes and make your decision accordingly. To slow Olivia down to 250Hz BW needs to be considered in terms of duty cycle and speed of delivery. Just some thoughts to consider, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deadgoose38 Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:20 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Filter question I have a stock Yaesu FT-817ND that I am using with great results on 40 meters with PSK-31 and Olivia 16/500. I wonder if adding the 500 Hz CW filter would be useful? Any experiences along this line?? /paul W3FIS
RE: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
FWIW, in the response to Gustav It was known that Region 4 Resources would be deploying into the area in support of the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief Organization. Days ahead, info was exchanged on formal net operations in that area to allow members from Region 4 to check propagation and effective communications into what was projected to be the effective area; region 6, which is a fairly big target area. Propagation, time of day and available frequencies were reviewed and a net plan was decided on to allow the best chance for reliable communications into the affected area for 24 hour operations to support the deployed members from region 4 as they traveled into the affected area, in-transit to their various support locations and to get them safely back home to region 4. NCS were lined up on 2 hour shifts, and a pool of 12 were scheduled to make sure each day was covered in every 2 hour slot with a minimum of operator fatigue. One member was appointed to gather status reports on the deployed teams and report up the chain of command Weather conditions were constantly given directly to the teams via voice to advise them what they were traveling into, as Gustav was leaving and they were traveling into the edges of the affected area. NVIS can be achieves with two 102 whips, one front and one back, joined in the center over the vehicle, but it is better to have a support team, trained and ready, to understand propagation, MUF, general band conditions and be in emergency net operation with as many members as possible making every attempt possible to shut and listen. The net can periodically be extended by NCS (Net Control Station) calling for only stations with Good Readable to Loud and Clear copy on NCS, and in turn having them make the same call to determine the relay path. An accurate region roster and some idea of geography helps NCS to determine effectives of net and who to use for relay from deployed team members, if NCS does not have directly copy. NCS always chooses an alternate NCS, the furthest distance possible with reliable copy. This allows them to work together and achieve the broadest working net, with just 2 members to start and direct the net. The net is closed at the end of the 2 hours, and a new net is established with each oncoming NCS, which allows maintenance of the most accurate net roster. One member is appointed to track weather conditions in the path of the deployed teams, as radio station coverage is minimal at best from local broadcast stations, Major media resources are monitored to keep abreast of the fuel and power situation along the route. Having plenty of fuel in the ground is no good if the station has no electricity to pump it out of the ground. An open fuel station may clog one lane of a 4 lane divided highway as vehicles line up for miles to exit and refuel. The deployed members need to be in the proper lane, before the traffic snarl happens. They also need to be in touch with federal resources in convoy to keep them abreast, as the federal response may not be as well organized. Cellular coverage is monitored. MCS and ANCS use Skype to coordinate the net via text chat. Deployed members use Echolink where cellular coverage allows use of their air card for wireless access to an ISP. Winlink is used via aircard telnet/internet connectivity to direct messages to a single or group address, giving a little privacy if they are the first to arrive to a delicate situation and wish not to be in the clear with their Sitrep.. SHARES stations are active in the net, or on standby for direct access to federal entities. Phone Patch operators are on hand, ready to provide first access into a developing situation that may involve hazmat, mass casualty, etc. While traveling, something like a TS-2000 in cross band mode could give all members of a amateur caravan access to the HF net, if each member had something useful to report; otherwise, VHF from car to car, and one vehicle contained the team leader from each deployment group to relay the Intel back into the net for distribution. OK, How am I doing so far? Point to ponder: Anyone who deploys without prior notice has a highly technical tactical designator assigned to them - fool David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Z. Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out of VHF range? If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get back to you. Or he may be out of VHF range. HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas. HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal. I'm not sure there exists an NVIS antenna for a
RE: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
We get quite good results in the 45 to 50 mile range using VHF SSB (2M) and 5 watts with Olivia from fixed location to fixed location and low gain omni vertical antennas. From a mobile to a fixed location, I would estimate as good a signal on SSB as can be expected from the same mobile to a repeater input on FM; unless there is a tremendous height difference to offset the signal to noise gain of the SSB transmission. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Donnell Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:47 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? And further, this thought should be considered as VHF FM, or VHF SSB? In a base/mobile or mobile/mobile environment, SSB on VHF works over much greater distances. With voice communications, VHF SSB benefits from having flutter resulting in the desired signal amplitude going up and down, while the background noise level is held pretty constant, by the AGC in the receiver. FM is opposite in that regard - when the signal gets weak, the background noise level comes up, at least until the squelch closes. In my perception, I seem to be better able to fill in the gaps in syllables when the signal drops out, than when it's filled with noise. VHF SSB also has the benefit of probably not requiring the mobile station to have to take time to set up an antenna. If the mobile station is parked in a null, chances are that moving the vehicle a few inches will change a multipath situation enough to provide good copy. If there's benefit to be had by setting up a portable (v.s. mobile) antenna, putting a VHF omnidirectional stick up 10-20' is a pretty trivial task. While there can be benefit to be had by using horizontal antennas, unless you're into serious weak-signal work, it's not necessary to realize large gains in coverage, even using omni antennas on both ends, using SSB. Digital modes that are designed to work well in weak signal circumstances on HF SSB rigs will similarly work well on weal signal VHF SSB rigs, because the same linear-mode technology is involved. Probably the biggest caveat to that will be frequency accuracy and stability. Radios on a net will need to be well warmed up, or have high stability oscillators, if they are operating unattended, and expected to be able to be received by the sender. I've encouraged those that are working on upgrading our regional hospital network to use the IC-706's that they already have set up for HF pactor, to try VHF pactor using the SSB mode, as a way to gain from the more readily available spectrum, so they don't have to compete for access to the very few frequencies available on HF for digital operations. It'll be interesting to see how they do. 73, Bob, KD7NM -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Z. Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:59 PM To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out of VHF range? If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get back to you. Or he may be out of VHF range. HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas. HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal. I'm not sure there exists an NVIS antenna for a car or truck. Maybe something horizontal can be setup in the bed of a pick up truck? In general HF antennas for vehicles do not perform very well - but they are better than nothing. There are portable NVIS HF antennas available that can be setup rather quickly. Perhaps this is something to be done when he arrives at his destination, and then call the base on HF? Also keep in mind that HF radios typically cost over a thousand dollars compared to maybe two hundred for a VHF radio. Howard N3ZH --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following questions are asked to the amateur radio Emcomm community... how can we work together on this? THE TYPICAL SCENARIO It is a dark and stormy night... You are an amateur radio operator, volunteering with a relief organization, for communication to set up shelters in a hurricane disaster. There has been no power in the area for 24 hours. There is no mobile phone service, and all the VHF/UHF repeaters and digipeaters in the area are out of range or out of service. It is 3AM. You are driving in your vehicle, half-way to your first shelter destination, making your way on back roads. The main highway is flooded. You use your chain saw to pass a downed tree. The road
RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies
Another example of why ARRL turned over all long distance (HF) emergency communications to the MARS organizations and agreed that Hams were to provide only last mile (VHF/UHF) emergency communications. The Ham community showed their distaste for P3, so it has been largely moved to NTIA frequencies. Unfortunately, it set the stage for loss of confidence in the Amateur Community for Emergency Communications over a long range, unless they are self-funding the entire response.. There still are some RMS Pactor stations on the Ham spectrum, and some using P3 for Keyboard to Keyboard use. Most of them are candidates for MARS service as they continue to get the flack from the contesters. Everyone eventually gets whet they want. Some are late to realize that what they got in return wasn't actually what they wanted... Enjoy, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies Re I know that just made a lot of the anti pactor and anti wide sahck in their shoes. Deal with it, once again it worked Your blatant trolling counter has overflowed, John. Time to add a few more bits... 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Becker, WŘJAB Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies While we in this area was up to our back side with water early this year Pactor and WinLink work just fine for us. FEMA as well as SEMA Just loved that they could get updates via their blackberry. You must first understand that in the rural areas such as this there is very little cell coverage if any. If it was not for HF and WinLink a lot of info would have not gotten from point A to point B. I know that just made a lot of the anti pactor - anti wide shack in their shoes. Deal with it, once again it worked. Maybe soon something new and better will come down the line. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies
We all have out opinions. 2.4 KHz is well within the 3.0 KHz bandwidth. The desire of Hams to operate on top of another station is another reason for serious consideration of NTIA spectrum for reliable communications and the discipline necessary to conduct them. MARS still handles some MARSGRAMS also; mostly during holidays, so I see no indication of competition with the license renewal notices and birthday greetings relayed by the NTIS. Unfortunately for those who want to send everything via 500 Hz in serial format, all Federal agencies are looking for something to handle their requests in formatted binary/compressed packages. P1 and P2 can move this along in an environment that is not time critical, but, in all cases, if you want to get the info flowing in large quantity for timely delivery, you have to dedicate the bandwidth to do so. That is why we aren't using 8 bit machines running at 4.77 MHz anymore. Beginning to see a pattern here? Cheers, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Struebel Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 6:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; David Little Cc: Tom Hesler; Scott Walker; Russell T Hack jr; Rick W; Richard Krohn; Pierre Mainville; Norman Schklar; N2GJ; Mike Taylor; MICHAEL TALKINGTON; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; KW1U Marcia Forde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; KC2ANN; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John W. Tipka; John Miller; Jim Dry; Gil Follett; George Thomas; Frank Van Cleef; Frank Fallon; expeditionradio; Ewald, Steve, WV1X; Earl Moore; Earl Leach (WX4J); David B. Popkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Knight; Dan Ostroy; Dale Sewell; Benson Scott; Arnold; AG2R Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies David, You have your opinion I call tell you that NTS and NTSD is going stong... Last month Eastern Area NTSD handled over 10,000 messages Regarding the distaste for P3, it is a spectrum hog at 2.4 Khz more suited to commerical applications (where there are fixed channels) rather than the narrow bandwidths used in ham radio... Although NTSD for the most part has P3 capability, we still use P1 and preferably P2 which both have a bandwidth of 500 Hz. especially since most of our operation is confined within the automatic control subbands. By the way NTS and NTSD is self funded... We do it for the love of the hobby and public service 73 Dave WB2FTX - Original Message - From: David mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Little To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies Another example of why ARRL turned over all long distance (HF) emergency communications to the MARS organizations and agreed that Hams were to provide only last mile (VHF/UHF) emergency communications. The Ham community showed their distaste for P3, so it has been largely moved to NTIA frequencies. Unfortunately, it set the stage for loss of confidence in the Amateur Community for Emergency Communications over a long range, unless they are self-funding the entire response.. There still are some RMS Pactor stations on the Ham spectrum, and some using P3 for Keyboard to Keyboard use. Most of them are candidates for MARS service as they continue to get the flack from the contesters. Everyone eventually gets whet they want. Some are late to realize that what they got in return wasn't actually what they wanted... Enjoy, David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies Re I know that just made a lot of the anti pactor and anti wide sahck in their shoes. Deal with it, once again it worked Your blatant trolling counter has overflowed, John. Time to add a few more bits... 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Becker, WŘJAB Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies While we in this area was up to our back side with water early this year Pactor and WinLink work just fine for us. FEMA as well as SEMA Just loved that they could get updates via their blackberry. You must first understand that in the rural areas such as this there is very little cell coverage if any. If it was not for HF and WinLink a lot of info would have not gotten from point A to point B. I know that just made a lot of the anti pactor - anti wide shack in their shoes. Deal with it, once again it worked. Maybe soon something new and better will come down the line. John, W0JAB _ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG
RE: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies
Rick, Andy, All, It is totally unreliable, undocumented and probably not reputable. I can't remember if it was during Huntsville or Dayton that the headshed made these assertions and small publicity came out afterwards. For the most part this discussion has always flown under the radar. It never gets too much attention, and should probably be swept under the rug as uncomfortable. After all, All amateurs can directly interface with FEMA, GEMA, TSA, EPA, and the other Agencies and Federal entities that make up the SHARES network, so there is no need for any division between use of FCC (ARRL) Spectrum and NTIA (MARS / SHARES / Federal ) spectrum. Someone has to provide ground truth reporting of the actual incident, so I guess it should be an Amateur from a few hundred miles out, rather than a local operator using last mile infrastructure. I guess it is more comfortable thinking that the converse is the rule. Think about it. If you were managing communications to save lives and property, would you rely on relay, or direct contact? Would you expect remote reporting of local conditions from hundreds of miles away, when last mile infrastructure was in place and able to do so? Would you use a group that maintained rigid net discipline and regular, daily training, or someone who shows up to an Incident Command center with a dead battery in his HT and hungry? Would you expect your ARRL AREC diplomas to allow admittance to a Incident Command site that is functioning under NIMS, or would you travel with certificates of completion of IS100, IS200, IS700 and IS800A? (MARS is considering requiring both; at present, only ICS for Billet Call holders are required.) Do you know what NIMS is; what ESF#2 is, what the National Support Framework is?. Do you know what TWIC is? (On December 2nd, you certainly will). Emergency Communications is a subject that is undergoing great flux... If wideband digital modes are what is required to send and receive an IS213 form in proper formatting, it stands to reason that any Federal response would require the medium that is capable of delivering. Anything else is inviting failure. If the mode is unwelcome on FCC governed spectrum, and has an active and efficient network on NTIA spectrum, which would you choose? As for non ARQ modes, I have used MT-63, Olivia, and even played with Contestia in 2000Hz bandwidths. Each is somewhat useful for unformatted text and forward error correction. EasyPal looks very promising and the programmers have been very responsive to tailoring it for the MARS program; because someone thought enough to ask. I hope that WinMor will be in the competition with Pactor III and other Proprietary modes, but it will all boil down to bandwidth necessary to carry compressed information. That is what the entire discussion is and has been about. At present, the only way to get the job done to the requirements of the served agencies, on a Federal Response is on NTIA spectrum, as they allow wide-band digital formats. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain; I was only kidding. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:33 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Global traffic and emergencies David, I have been a ham for many years and follow most all public service/emergency communications issues quite closely. I have never heard of your claims below from any reputable source. If you read QST and follow ARRL BOD decisions you would know that the ARRL has supported any and all public service approaches. While it is true that there is the Winlink 2000 system that uses proprietary and non-proprietary modes, there are also several non-proprietary systems to choose from with another on the way. Some of these modes are wide bandwidth but kept within an MF/HF phone band width as required under Part 97 here in the U.S. Some of the digital modes which have been around for a long time can be near to, or even more than, 2000 kHz wide. Even one of the The old MIL-STD-188-141A (often referred to as one of the ALE modes) goes back to development in the 1970's. And newer modes, e.g., MT-63, Olivia, etc. have been around for some years and are sometimes used in wide mode, depending upon conditions. Point us to some of the actual source material you found that supports your belief about what the ARRL has done. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC yahoogroup (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) David Little wrote: Another example of why ARRL turned over all long distance (HF) emergency communications to the MARS organizations and agreed that Hams were to provide only last mile (VHF/UHF) emergency communications. The Ham community showed their distaste for P3, so it has been largely moved to NTIA frequencies. Unfortunately, it set the stage for loss
RE: [digitalradio] Black Friday deals of interest to hams
On the Dell, better be sure to buy a powered USB hub for Ham use. I spent a few hours getting the sound and printer going on a new one for a relative last week. The Dell USB powered speakers, keyboard and mouse consumed 3 of the rear USB ports. A Brother color laser printer took up the fourth one. Until I was able to balance the load among the 4 USB ports in the back, there wasn't enough current available for stable voltage to get a recognition signal on the bus for Vista to identify the USB items and activate them for use. With most ham software written for Serial ports (which haven't been standard on computers for nearly a decade), the need for high enough current reserve on the USB bus is a must. Dell managed to fall below the minimal acceptance on this model, but a properly powered external USB Hub will probably solve the problem. Otherwise, it looked to be an OK computer for beginner or dedicated purpose. I don't know how the sound card would do on digital modes, but it did have front-mounted line in and headphone out jacks, and the sound applet lets you disable rear channels and special effects for straight stereo and 2 speaker operation. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 5:51 AM To: DIGITALRADIO; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [digitalradio] Black Friday deals of interest to hams Early rumors for deal of interest to hams in the USA. ... Garmin Nuvi 205 GPS - $119.99 Best Buy (and several other places) Acer 19 LCD Widescreen Monitor - $99.99 Best Buy Sandisk 8GB USB Flash Drive - $19.99 Best Buy Dell Inspiron 530 $299 (http://www.blackfri http://www.blackfriday.info/item/17442 day.info/item/17442) Lexar 4 GB FireFly USB Drive - $9.99 Office Max More in the next week or so. -- Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] MT63 Sked
I will also be listening. Dial Frequency 14106.0 USB 1KHz Bandwidth Long Interleave Center Frequency 14107.0 RX/TX Start Frequency 500 Hz RX/TX End Frequency 1500 HZ David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] MT63 Sked All, I'll be QRV on 14106.0 MT63 / 1K this evening at 2200z. Tony, K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] MT63
And Army MARS plus Air Force MARS. MT-63 takes a bit more dedication that BPSK-31, and many shy away from it. Calibrating the computer sound card is key to the successful use of MT-63. Tom, good seeing you here. It has been a long time since Wildcat BBS days. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Tcimpidis via PPC Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] MT63 As does the USCG AUX HF Contigency Comms Network. Tom, k6tgt k6cyc sysop And of course Navy MARS has been using this as the primary means for years in local/regional nets Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] com [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] com [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. _ From:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Rand Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:38 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] MT63 I think you will find more activity than most people suspect. Every Tuesday and Thursday the Mississippi Digital Net meets passing practice traffic and real traffic. It meets at 1900 local. I will have to post the freqs on another message. There is also a Michigannet, and one from Minnesotathat I am aware of. Watch for future posts with times and freqs. Don Rand KA5DON Mississippi
RE: [digitalradio] CW - last resort?
Isn't this just precious. . The move is divisive, and obviously geared toward attrition. Navy seems to be leading the charge Chief NAVMARMARS managed to honor tradition, and managed to make policy move back toward the stone age. Nice tantrum. What a comfort. I will sleep better at night. For those that haven't followed the media campaign, MARS is moving toward a Customer-Based Emergency Communications organization. Since they are now involved directly with TSA and other Gov't ESFs, it seems only logical that they should try to pass their customer's traffic in CW. After all, it is more common than Latin, and all of their customers will certainly be able to copy. Further note, I don't think he really views CW as a last resort. . David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sholto Fisher Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] CW - last resort? Here's some food for thought for digimode only ops. DE NNN0ASA ZUJ CMB06-08: RR NOALL DE NNN0ASA 050 R 292200Z MAY 2008 FM CHNAVMARCORMARS WILLIAMSBURG VA TO ALNAVMARCORMARS INFO ZEN/CHIEF ARMY MARS FT HUACHUCA AZ ZEN/CHIEF AIR FORCE MARS SCOTT AFB IL BT UNCLAS SUBJ: CHNAVMARCORMARS BCST 06-08 A. DRAFT RADIOTELEGRAPH PROCEDURES 1. WHEN I ASSUMED THE CHIEF, NAVMARCORMARS POSITION IN NOVEMBER, 1997, WE WERE MORE THAN A YEAR INTO THE DOD MANDATED BAN ON CW ON MARS FREQUENCIES. A. SINCE THAT TIME THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS, IN STEPS, ELIMINATED THE MORSE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR AN AMATEUR LICENSE. ALL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATORS KNOW THAT WHEN VOICE AND OTHER DIGITAL MODES SLOW TO A CRAWL OR BECOME UNUSABLE, CW CAN STILL BE USED. B. I REMEMBER THE NORTHEAST ICE STORM SHORTLY AFTER I BECAME CHIEF AND THE UNNECESSARILY LENGTHY EFFORT BY ALL OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TO RECEIVE ONE VOICE EEI FROM A NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND MEMBER WHOSE ANTENNA WAS COVERED IN ICE AND LYING ON THE GROUND. IT TOOK OVER AN HOUR WHEN CW COULD HAVE HANDLED IT IN A FEW MINUTES. C. AS MORE AND MORE OF OUR MEMBERS ENTER MARS WITH NO MORSE CODE EXPERIENCE, I AM AFRAID THAT WE WILL SOON LOSE THAT SKILL SET IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, AREA AND REGION DIRECTORS ARE AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH CW TRAINING AND TRAFFIC NETS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS AND REGIONS. ALL STATE DIRECTORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO BEGIN CONDUCTING TRAINING IN CW ON THEIR TRAFFIC AND TRAINING NETS. 3. SINCE THE RADIOTELEGRAPH PROCEDURES WERE ELIMINATED BEFORE TEH PUBLICATION OF NTP 8(C), REF A WILL BE POSTED UNDER THE DOCUMENTS TAB ON THE NATIONAL WEB PAGE SOON. USE THESE DRAFT PROCEDURES UNTIL A FINAL TRI-SERVICE MARS PROCEDURE FOR RADIOTELEGRAPH IS DEVELOPED AND PROMULGATED. 4. MARS: TOGETHER WE CAN ACHIEVE ANYTHING. BT DE NNN0ASA QRU AR (taken from a post by K4OSO on the FISTS reflector) 73 Sholto KE7HPV.
RE: [digitalradio] ARRL Introduces Fifth Pillar at Dayton HamventionR
Too bad all the potential hams that wanted to hear this 20 years ago are now top Cell Phone engineers, WiFi Gurus, running Satellite Radio stations, etc. Paragraph 4 is the affirmation of this and the effect from the cause. It could have read that professional technical minds have always gravitated toward Amateur Radio as a means of expanding their understanding. But, thanks to the league, they chose to take their talent elsewhere. The league spoklesperson forgot to include the identifier senior hams attribute their affininty to Amateur Radio as launching their professional careers. Somehow, the league's steerage has driven the wheels of the concept of keeping up with technology; until now (Wink, Wink - Nudge, Nudge). I sure hope they didn't miss the chance to break this earth shattering decision to the world on a CW broadcast. Oh. Wait a minute; I have erred. That should have read a RTTY broadcast - After all, this is the 21st century. The league of exceptional shortcomings in foresight has spoken again. Don't tell these guys about USB or Firewire interfaces - it might confuse them... David KD4NUE ***- ARRL Introduces Fifth Pillar at Dayton HamventionR On Saturday, May 17 at the Dayton Hamvention, ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN, plans to announce that the League will expand its identity program to include greater emphasis on technology. Harrison explained that Ham radio operators, and particularly ARRL members, closely identify with current and emerging radio technology. Today, we are naming 'technology' as ARRL's new fifth pillar. ARRL's other four pillars, the underpinnings of the organization, are Public Service, Advocacy, Education and Membership. For hams, expanding the four pillars to include technology will reinforce one of the organization's guiding principles -- that ham radio is state-of-the-art, innovative and relevant, he said. Radio amateurs have entered a new era. More than a dozen Amateur Radio satellites are presently in orbit with more to come. Software is expanding the capabilities of their radio hardware and communication by digital voice and data is expanding rapidly among hams, Harrison said. In addition to the new fifth pillar, the ARRL has launched a year-long ham radio recruitment campaign emphasizing the Amateur Radio Service as a scientific national resource. The campaign invites newcomers to discover ham radio in the 21st Century -- where hams are using science, technology and experimentation to explore the radio spectrum. For more than 90 years, the ARRL has been at the forefront of technology, encouraging experimentation and education through its license training resources, publications and periodicals. ARRL provides its members with top-notch technical information services, trusted product reviews and radio spectrum advocacy, Harrison said. The ARRL Laboratory is a centerpiece of ham radio technology, contributing to radio electronics experimentation, spectrum development and advocacy, and radio frequency engineering. Harrison also noted that many hams attribute their affinity to Amateur Radio as launching their professional careers in radio engineering, satellite communications, computer science and wireless communications. This is less about defining a new course for Amateur Radio, but simply recognizing a course that has always been a precept of radio amateurs and the ARRL, he said. Referring to the federal rules and regulations for Amateur Radio, Harrison explained that one of the defining principles of the Service's very creation by the government is the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. Harrison remarked, Today's technology is nothing new to ham radio! Page last modified: 03:06 PM, 16 May 2008 ET Page author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright C 2008, American Radio Relay League, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
RE: [digitalradio] Someone else with no JASON tones
Are wave and master volume both being adjusted on the sound mixer applet? I am not familar with this mode/protocol, but the wave volume is often overlooked David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:02 PM To: DIGITALRADIO Subject: [digitalradio] Someone else with no JASON tones I saw this today... K0MVJ Yes I copied you fine. Can't seem to transmit back though. No tones out NC5O Well Andy has the same trouble, I'm on VOX on the Kenwood TS450s Anyone have any idea why JASON generates no audio at all for some people? -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode
One more consideration is AGC recovery time. Slow AGC and static crashes are not a good combo in many of the digital modes. No AGC or Fast AGC will make a difference in that situation. This may not apply to PSK-31 as much as more complex digital modes, but a point worth considering. DSP filtering of signals above and below the signal you are trying to copy are also a great help; if your rig will allow that narrow of a passband. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kh6ty Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:13 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 10 Tips for the PSK31 Digital Mode There is no difference between an RF gain control and AGC. AGC is just Auotmatic Gain control instead of manual gain control. The only way to copy a weak signal adjacent to a strong one is to prevent the strong signal from affecting the AGC, and the only way to do that is by using a narrrow filter or notch filter (at IF, not audio) to attenuate the strong signal. You can use a wide (SSB) filter to see all the stations in the passband, and then use Passband Tuning or IF Shift, or a narrow filter (at IF, not audio!) to narrow in on the station you want to work if it is one of the weaker ones. You do not need to do anything for the strong signal unless it is overloading your front end and then you can switch in attenuation and switch it out again when you are finished. Many people have experienced a weak PSK31 signal disappearing or waterfall darkening when a strong signal comes on. This is because the strong signal is reducing the gain (and therefore the noise background), just the same as if you manually reduced the gain, and generally the only cure for this is using narrow filtering. Some receivers, designed specifically for PSK31, such as our latest PSK-20, do not use AGC, but distribute gain in such as way that it can copy weak signals adjacent to strong ones, without distorting the last IF stage or detector, but few transceivers can do this. A dual-loop AGC system may help and some high-end transceivers have this. 73, Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms
It is interesting , isn't it? MARS doesn't hold contests. MARS doesn't allow stations to intentionally interfere with other stations. MARS doesn't promote awards for the number of contacts you can make in a minute and not say anything. MARS doesn't get their panties wadded up when information is exchanged without being interfered by contesters, QRN or jammers. Army MARS offers training during 90% of it's net operations. MARS has requirements for membership. MARS promotes discipline and efficient operation. MARS gets to play on NTIA spectrum and doesn't have to subject itself to the bonfire of vanities experienced on ham frequencies. Kid of sets a precedent, doesn't it. This probably goes as far as any other single example to explain why the ARRL relegated the Amateur Radio community to the realm of last mile (VHF) communications in support of emergency communications and abdicated the HF realm to the Tri Service MARS organizations. Bread and Circuses has worked since Roman times; why should this be any different. The ARRL knew when to throw in the towel, and had a pretty good idea about the quality of their members; as well as their devotion level to do the tasks traditionally required of the Amateur Radio Service in exchange for the spectrum they enjoy. The operation has been a success; the patient is definitely dying Pactor III is probably more effective than CW ever was as a 'filter to determine the dedication level of emergency communicators. But, you have to consider that there is not a HF rig less than $500.00 new, and entry level for a HF rig that utilizes the best of 20th century technology starts around $1200.00 With that said, you can begin to appreciate that the $900.00 cost of a Pactor III controller (taking advantage of the 10% discount for Emergency Communicators) will deliver the mail, with the cheapest HF rig. A PTC-IIex controller connected to an Icom IC-718 cost about what an IC-7000 or a little less than a TS-2000 costs; in a field of choices that can cost up to $15,000.00 for a HF rig alone. The Contest Grade of transceivers that go north of ten grand will clog up the airwaves and render them unusable by others far more often than Pactor III and WL2K. Anyone saying that frequency usage during a contest is less adversely affected than by WL2K transmissions using Pactor III is sadly being less than truthful with their self and others, and there is simply no room for discussion to the contrary. A little intellectual honesty will trump knee jerk reaction every time Emergency Preparedness in our county in Glynn County, GA currently includes 8 SCS Pactor III controllers. At least 4 more are scheduled for purchase prior to Hurricane season. The reason for this is that nothing else will come close to the throughput and devotion of the WL2K system when other infrastructure is down. The county services have now learned the importance of owning their own amateur radio equipment and promoting operators from within their ranks to be able to have the additional layer of communications infrastructure available and in play during time of emergency. I would say this is a wake-up call, but, sadly, wake-up calls concerning the Amateur Radio Service are a small spot in the rear-view mirror. So, it is entirely predictable that the Amateur community would resist WL2k and Pactor III. It does what they no longer have the devotion to do. I continue to refine my ear, and ability to work voice under less than optimal conditions. I continue to refine my station(s); fixed, mobile and portable in an attempt to be prepared to do the job required to retain the Amateur Radio Spectrum. Pactor III is a tool that I use very sparingly. I am very fortunate to be able to use it freely on the NTIA spectrum, and, given a choice, it is a no-brainer which service will handle the most traffic during an emergency situation. To a T, the amateur radio community will continue to resist, until they have no ground under their feet. Spectrum refarming is very lucrative for funding . The FCC may seem slow, but they do have a little more will to survive than others under their blanket seem to... All in all, it is progress. The direction it is taking isn't pretty, but the outcome will include Pactor III, I am not too sure it will include Amateur Radio... Laughing last will be a hollow victory in this case David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Moore Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 3:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms What I found even more interesting than the article on QRZ was the comments on it. To a T everyone commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur bands. Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues
