[digitalradio] CQ RFSM-8000
Hi all, Is anyone in Europe interested in making tests with RFSM-8000? I am QRV some times on 14.109,5 calling CQ RFSM and in Server Mode. If anyone is interested please let know so that we can arrange a SKED. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM8000
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Had a short RFSM QSO with OH2QN. > > 73 de SV1UY > Sorry, The callsign of my QSO was OH3QN, Jarmo from Lahti. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: RFSM8000
Had a short RFSM QSO with OH2QN. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] RFSM8000
Hi, I am sending short RFSM8000 beacons right now on 14,109.5 KHZ carrier frequency. Anyone interested? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some programmer > develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and prevents me from > going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars and people. > > Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or onlookers will > be disregarded as pot-stirring. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ OK Dave, This is very extravagant example as usual. It might make an argument in a court of law when the judge is ignorant about ham radio and digital modes in particular, unless if radio waves can actually kill. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Hi all, Following this discussion I could help but notice the frontpage of this group. It mentions DIGITALRADIO GROUP International. -- DIGITALRADIO GROUP A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air activity. DigitalRadio is for ALL digital modes... JT65A PSK MFSK OLIVIA PAX CHIP64 THROB ALE DIGI SSTV DIGI VOICE RTTY PACKET DOMINOEX HELL THROB ALE PACTOR OFDM ARQ SS DATA AND MORE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Digital QSOs and experimental modes are encouraged on the DIGITALRADIO GROUP international ham radio center-of-activity frequencies: -- Really what the FCC will decide concerns the american hams not the rest of the world. If this group is only for americans then fair enough. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK Demetre, > > I will leave it run for another hour or so, before I go to bed. I > would leave it run all night, but the transceiver band switching > relays will keep me awake! Fire it up again at 1900z FB Jack, I will try again at 19.00z although probability is 1-25% because ShortPath MUF is on 12MHZ at that time but you never know. LongPath MUF is 14MHZ but really the best time for LongPath QSO between us is 07.00z - 10.00z, but you might be busy then. > > 73s Jack VK4JRC > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Demetre, > > They are DIAL frequencies, and I am running my published tones. IF > a few people want to coordinate other dial frequencies and > standardize on a different tone set, I am happy to change anything > needed. Just had to start somewhere :-) > Sadly, my antenna cannot accommodate 30 metres.. Calling you now on 21.078 Jack. I will also try your 18MHZ and 14MHZ qrgs. > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all Pactorologists! > > Sorry, the first frequency should read 14.078 NOT .087 > Hi Jack, Are these frequencies CENTER frequencies? I will try to connect you today sometime and keep trying different times until we can link. > Back to yourscheduledprogramme! > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Its all getting out of hand.........
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think these discussions about ALE who, PSK this, who hates Pactor > etc are starting to destroy this group. > We all have our favourite ideas/opinions etc. IF people feel strongly > about regulatory or operational problems in the hobby, then write to > your Ham Radio representatives, ARRL etc or FCC. > I mean, geeall I want to do is have fun playing radio :-) > Like the rest of you, I bet! Hmm I wouldn't bet on that Jack. All they want to do is create noise!!! > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC (I am off to play Pactor & Packet!) > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Demetre, you got something against lawyers? > > We lawyers LOVE digital radio. Down with anti-lawyer bigotry. He he Roger, Some people don't like pactor and some don't like lawyers!! > > de Roger W6VZV > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Hi all, Too many lawyers in USA killed PACKET RADIO. The way you are going on you are going to kill all DIGITAL RADIO too. Hey guys hold your horses. It is a hobby not a court of law. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I used the Packet network for many years, only as an operator and > 'interested party'. I did talk to some sysops, and most were people who > wanted the network to work. However, there were some who I suspected > had either become sysops because of the power that it gave them over > their fellow Radio Amateurs, or who wanted to kill the system dead. A > common ploy in the business world. > > Looking at the new systems, I'm sure they will find their users and > devotees, but, to be honest, I'm not sure that they will catch on in the > UK, or even most of Europe, to a great extent. > > The obvious rival is internet email. Love it or hate it, and argue that > it's not using Amateur Radio all you like, and that it could be knocked > out by accidents and any number of causes, but it's just too cheap, too > fast and, mostly, too reliable to send stuff over the air instead. Add > to that the need to dedicate radios and antennas to it to make it work, > which was why I did not run a BBS or an APRS node, as I prefer the > freedom to use my own antennas whenever I wanted, and the added problems > of not wanting to loose a band due to having a transmitter going on a > nearby frequency for periods of the day, and it might seem selfish but I > wasn't prepared to do that. All cudos to those that did, and paid out > to put node transceivers on towers etc., etc. but it takes alot of > organising to do it... > > There will always be the special interest groups, who will do it because > they want to prove it can be done and those that live in places where > sending email is expensive, or difficult, of course. However, as > Amateurs, it seems to me that we do seem to keep coming out with new > ideas to reinvent the wheel at times. > > Dave (G0DJA) > Hi Dave, Wise words OM. I have also seen the UK packet network first hand since I am in the UK at least twice a year for a period of 2-3 weeks each time and I know what you are talking about. Also in the UK once the aerial masts were sold to private companies many PACKET NODES died as well, as well as many voice repeater nodes. As for the Internet being the biggest competitor to PACKET RADIO and the like, yes it is the biggest competitor, but ostly radio hams got sick of the NETROM BARONS and PACKET KINGS, hi hi hi!!! I personally still like PACKET Radio and I still maintain a 19k2 link and 9k6 and 1k2 user ports along with an APRS IGATE and DIGI here in Athens. A few people still use the PACKET RADIO nodes but not many. I also use my mobile phone as a GPRS modem connected to my laptop and this does not cost me more than 3.5 EURO a month. Also my PDA when there is free WiFi access in the city since the PDA is always in my pocket. I use these when I want to surf the Internet and I am away from any fast Internet at home, but when I have radio access I like to use 9k6 or 1k2 PACKET RADIO for my Ham stuff, or my SCS-PTCII modem for PACTOR/PACKET/RTTY/PSK31 QSOs or HF radio e-mail especially when I am on holiday and I can get all the necessary rigs with me. After all I enjoy using my radio gear more than the real Internet, especially when I am away from home and away from my ADSL or WiFi backup link. Mind you people in France and Germany and Switzerland have a marvelous PACKET RADIO NETWORK and they have upgraded to 76k8 long ago so PACKET RADIO is not DEAD in Europe. I think the Germans especially and the French have done a marvelous job in PACKET RADIO NETWORK in their countries. They do not care about Internet taking over, they just try to maintain and improve their network constantly. It is not a coincidence that SCS is a German company. Also FLEXNET and DAMA are both made by German Hams and FPAC by the French Hams. These 3 are the best Network Switching Protocols in Packet Radio. So really if we are to improve our hobby and more than anything else digital modes that we all seem to care about, we should perhaps take some lessons from these guys in Germany, France, Switzerland and also in Holland where they also still have a decent Packet Network as I read in various Radio Amateur lists. I am sure that some radio amateurs that live in these places and are also members of this list can tell us much more than I said. We can definatelly take some lessons from them. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: HF BBS systems
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Once, I had a clash with a british net controller, which I regarded > as > "fascist" instantly, imposing a limit of 5 K per piece of mail sent > to > the british network. It happened that one of my users had sent a too > large piece of e-mail. Hi Jose again, I think that exactly this behaviour killed PACKET RADIO networks worldwide. Bad sysops like the one you are describing above existed in many parts of the world are responsible for this. NETROM BARONS AND PACKET KINGS!!! > > I kept on using FBB while using pactor II for the forwarding links, a > 10:1 improvement in thruput. There are still quite a few around the world that still do that and they also provide HF PACTOR to VHF/UHF PACKET RADIO GATEWAYS. > > These are some of my views, from my perspective, > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > OK, MY "other" hobby is motorcycles, specifically "off road" ones and > the remote places I ride them. I am trying to integrate my Ham hobby, > with riding in remote places. My best option for digital modes is a > TNC based system. An SCS PTC-IIex, with Icom 703, Buddipole antenna, > RS232 AA battery powered dumb terminal OR Psion 3mx palmtop allows me > to operate motorcycle portable on Amtor, Pactor, Packet, PSK31, CW. > Its a compact, portable station which allows me to also run a > "mailbox" on the motorcycle, while mobile or portable. Carrying a > laptop is not something I want to do...that leaves all the sound > card modes out. > Having just bought a bike for my expeditions in South Africa, for > riding there and to surrounding countries, and playing Ham Radio, its > gonna be a whole lot of fun! > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > Hi Jack, You surely like to combine your other nice hobby with Amateur Radio. I also do a similar thing to you, but my hobby is mountain walking and taking my ham gear in my backpack. So I always take with me my FT-817 (using an internal 2300mAh battery pack) or my RACAL PRM4031 HF military manpack radio, a buddipole or an MP-1 portable antenna, an ATX whip, the SCS-PTC-IIe modem and my trusty HP200LX palmtop DOS computer (using 2xAA Alkaline cells), for PACTOR QSOS mostly, but I can also connect to HF PACTOR to VHF/UHF PACKET Gateways/Mailboxes around the world and sometimes to HF PACKET GATEWAYS/ or mailboxes. Of course I also take my TH-D7 and a Gecko GPS for VHF/UHF comms and APRS Positioning and SMS/EMAIL. So we must try a QSO tomorrow morning at 06.00z using the LONGPATH. I will call you on 14.0795 center frequency. Please try to link to me in PACTOR II mode. If we succeed then we can try when we are portable/mobile. I have enjoyed many QSOs with many Australians and a couple of New Zealanders in the past while I was walking on the mountains here in Greece. I live next to a mountain in Athens. My best DX is ZL-land using 5 watts (and as low as 0.5 watts while still holding the QSO) and handheld antennas at both ends (more than 22000 kms via the LONGPATH). We did this consistently for many months in 2001 when the propagation was very good. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III > by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not > the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal > characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that > one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth > to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other > QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III > should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ Hi Dave, This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before transmitting. Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS etc. using PACTOR/PACKET or any other modes, work in a different way and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC > jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an > unavoidable evil... > > Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor > in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS > Z-80 Pactor Controller. > > PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in > general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA > did. > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC > jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an > unavoidable evil... > > Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor > in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS > Z-80 Pactor Controller. > > PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in > general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA > did. > > Jose, CO2JA > Hi Jose, Happy New Year to you and your family. As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with a special addon PCB so that it can take PACTOR 1 modeand I followed all the firmware upgrades up to 8.1 I think. It is now in the basement somewhere so it is not handy for me to check. But as I said before it was always a lousy PACTOR controller (probably it had a bad modem design because even in HF packet it performed badly. So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. What happened with this petition that was attempting to bring digital modes into the 19th century? Does anyone knows
[digitalradio] Re: Standard sideband for digi modes?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And MFSK, Olivia, and Domino EX. They are (or can be) <=500Hz. > Leigh/WA5ZNU Thanks for letting us know Leigh. Never worked these modes OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Standard sideband for digi modes?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > And don't forget that really it does not matter if you use USB or LSB > and you can always flick the REVERSE SWITCH. This is true for all > narrow digital modes with the exception of QPSK31. [snip] > 73 de Demetre SV1UY > I forgot to mention that the REVERSE SWITCH is only present in RTTY, the other narrow modes (except QPSK31) do not care what sideband you are on. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Standard sideband for digi modes?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Today the filter is often in the software program you are running on > your computer and it no longer matters what the tones are. You move the > cursor along the waterfall to place your signal or to decode the signal > and the mark tone may be 500 Hz, 1214 Hz, 2001Hz, but it could even be > 2125 Hz if you so choose and want to tune the rig so that the tone is at > that point. But it is not necessary to do this as long as the > relationship (the shift) remains proper at 170 Hz for most cases, and > with the mark tone high, as it relates to FSK. With AFSK and using a > different sideband things are a bit reversed, but as I mentioned > earlier, the programmers have mostly standardized on leaving the rig on > USB if using AFSK and they make the tones work correctly as if you were > actually transmitting FSK with mark high. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U Sure Rick, But people should know what happened in the past, otherwise they use a soundcard mode today with their 2.4 KHZ SSB filter and they expect all the filtering to be done from the soundcard, which is impossible due to the AGC effect. Some even use the 2.4 KHZ filter to copy 20 PSK31 stations and then they complain about adjacent interference!!! Really if one wants to have a decent QSO he/she must use a marrow filter and of course must know a bit of history and how to use such a narrow filter. I think the worst thing that ever happened to digital programs was the ability to move your cursor along the waterfall and think that anyone else with a stronger signal is QRMing your QSO!!! Maybe because nobody has ever bothered to tell the newer hams how did RTTY used to be in the past. And don't forget that really it does not matter if you use USB or LSB and you can always flick the REVERSE SWITCH. This is true for all narrow digital modes with the exception of QPSK31. In spread spectrum modes only, it is important for everybody to use the same sideband, i.e. for PACTOR 3 everybody uses USB. I believe the same is true for the rest of the wide modes. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] PACTOR QSO
Hi Ned/EI5DS, Thanks for the PACTOR QSOs today. Even with S0 signals we managed the QSO thanks to PACTOR! Hope to see you tomorrow sometime. I will post to Andy's SKED PAGE and here first and hopefully we can have some more QSOs on 20m. HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and all. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] CQ PACTOR
Calling CQ PACTOR on 7.038 KHZ (center frequency). Just finished a 20 minutes QSO in PACTOR II with OZ1PMX. Despite the QRM and zero signals the link kept going right through the end. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "iam9z4cp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Demetre, > Happy New Year to you. Many thanks for your contribution. I am > listening on the frequency right now, but have no propogation to the > East. I am only hearing Olivia coming out of the US. > Maybe some other time. > > Eric 9Z4CP. > EMCOMMS Manager > The Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society Inc. > Hi Eric, Thanks, I cannot hear anyone from the US. I will continue for another few minutes and then QRT. In the morning I had a few QSOs around Greece, but no further for today I'm afraid. I will try at 18.00 - 20.00 UTC on 30 and 40 meters (10.141 KHZ and 7.038 KHZ). 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now
Hi Nick and all, Happy New Year. I am calling CQ on PACTOR right now and I will continue until 16.00 UTC. Anyone from USA interested please reply on PACTOR 1 or 2. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Standard sideband for digi modes?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Zack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. I thought that there wa something different > about RTTY. > > Zack > Hi Zak, For RTTY whoever uses the American Tones (Mark 2125Hz - Space 2295Hz) always uses LSB, whereus if you used the European Tones (Space 1275Hz - Mark 1445Hz) you have to use USB so that the 2 systems are compatible to each other. All my old homemade terminal units were using the European Tones so I always used USB. I always favoured the European Tones because they were chosen more wisely to be in the center of the passband of the crystal filter of the old transceivers that only had an SSB crystal filter and also because I liked to listen to the sound around 1360 Hz (the center of the European Tones) while tuning and and afterwards during the QSO. It is a more natural sound to me. Whenever I heard the higher tones that the american terminal units used, I always ended up with a headache. Of course f you did not follow this norm, you could always switch your tones the other way around with the REVERSE SWITCH that all terminals used to have incase someone was not using the correct combination. Is you notice at the tones I described in the first paragraph, the Americans tones are Mark-Space where the Europeans always are Space-Mark. Now with the soundcard programs usually they tell you to use 1500 HZ as a center frequency and use USB. Of course if everybody follows this protocol there is no problem. Some soundcard programs have a SOFTWARE REVERSE SWITCH so that you can change it in case there is any incompatibility in the tone pairs. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jack Chomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still use a TNC for PSK31, IF I want to run a minimalist station, > without a laptop ;-) > The SCS PTC-IIex has PSK31 built in that allows me to use a hand held > battery powered dumb terminal on it, or my Psion 3MX palmtop on AA > batteries. In addition, this TNC runs HF Packet, Robust Packet (200 > & 600Baud) VHF/UHF 1200 baud Packet, PACTOR-II, PACTOR-I, AMTOR, > NAVTEX, AMTEX, RTTY, CW, SSTV, FAX , APRS > Has a mailbox too, not super user friendly like the TNCs of old. Its > performance with DSP bits inside means it works well. The only > downside is the cost.. > I have yet to do a side by side comparison with my Tigertronics > SignaLink USB & PSK31 Deluxe, but I am happy with the TNC solution. > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > Same at this end Jack, I use my SCS PTC-IIe using an old computer battery pack with 10 supersized AA NiMH cells, an HP-200LX palmtop using 2 X AA batteries running PLUSTERM and my FT-817 with it's internal batteries. Great portable setup that fits in my backpack. This way I can operate all the modes, except SSTV with the little DOS Palmtop Computer the size of 2 cigarette boxes. Before I got the SCS PTC-IIe I did the same with a KAM TNC. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > CQing on 14.0755 Pactor ARQ FWIW... de Nick KU2A FN42dw > Hi Nick, I can be QRV tomorrow (1/1/08) between 14 and 16 UTC on that frequency if you wish. The MUF will be around 16-17 MHZ during these times so we should be OK. Is it 14.0755 MARK or CENTER FREQUENCY you are using? I sometimes hang around 14.080 KHZ Center Frequency, so if we cannot make it tomorrow you can try to call me. 73 and HAPPY PACTORING NEW YEAR to all!!! de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments > on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may > be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would > have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of > success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open > it up for cross platform use. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, For PSKmail information you can check http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and he uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's code is open and anyone can implement it in any operating system, although he has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a Linux emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just boot in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and there are already a few experimental American servers online. This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the potential of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they are going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is probably more interested in seen PSKmail progressing than his own personal glory. He is a true Radio Ham. This is unlike other code writers who although they allow everyone to use their program, they keep their code to themselves. Of course it is everyone's right to protect their code and I do not blame anyone here, I am just stating a fact. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do > > not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is > > wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did > > not mean to offend you. > > No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out > that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you > will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. > > You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You > mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for > a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are > clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several > persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. > > On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that > ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA > (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they > frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were > reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did > the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to > some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor > hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could > support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an > SCS modem. > > OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and > tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. > > de Roger W6VZV > Well Roger, Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these companies are not worth a penny. As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show any courtesy at all. Enjoy your weekend OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Well, > > > > I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen > > one. > > You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I > have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent > upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. > In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was > horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my > first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used > to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. > > Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units > lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I > mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. > > > > As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did > > that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I > > know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though > > Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company > the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I > think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than > different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that > any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight > license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants > to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken > about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. > > de Roger W6VZV > Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!!
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Hi Rick, > > > > Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR > > 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR > > protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. > > Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless > I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units. > > > As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious > > american company does reverse engineering. > > AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying > degrees of success. > > de Roger W6VZV > Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though and because of the bad implementation of the above companies they decided not to do the same with PACTOR-2 and 3. Also I don't believe that in a lawful country such as USA any revers engineering would take place my serious companies unless if Kantronics, AEA, MFJ are pirate companies, which I do not believe. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually > fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that > the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to > have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems > than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem > and other manufacturers. > Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other spectrum users! hi hi hi!!! As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. > For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with > BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR. > > Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my > digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a > complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor > mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. > They tried many software updates, but nothing improved. > Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in PACTOR 1 Rick. > Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and > so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, > W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link > conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, > MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as > signals were clearly copyable by ear. Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these systems, unless if this has changed by now. Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get on it very easily. That will not keep the anti semi-automatic guys happy, but such is life I'm afraid. This is one more reason for everybody to complain against RM-11392 petition to your FCC. Unless if you want to go back to the Medieval Times for Digital communications in the Ham bands. > 73, > > Rick, KV9U 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
ould also exchange e-mails, and that the PMBOs should better connect to each other via Internet and not via HF Radio. This left the HF Radio Spectrum free only for the client connections and only for those Hams that have no other means of connecting to the system. Is this so bad? Most use VHF/UHF Packet or even Internet to collect their MAIL. They only use HF if they have to. There is no other Long Range Amateur Radio Communication System that has all these options today! If you know of any better please let me know. WiFi (a very unreliable system for ranges longer than 50 - 100 meters) and Satellite links (very expensive to buy and run) are for FULL INTERNET SURFING and they are not Radio Amateur Systems. How do you think that Radio Amateur Boaters, Radio Amateur RVers and Radio Amateurs who are on Holiday in a remote island will abandon PACTOR3 and Winlink-2000 and buy Satellite dishes to carry on their backpacks? They will continue to use Winlink-2000 because they are Radio Amateurs and because PACTOR and Winlink-2000 are Radio Amateur Systems. I always use Winlink-2000 during my Summer Vacations. It's a hobby and I personally enjoy it as much as I enjoy, RTTY, SSTV etc. > > de Roger W6VZV > 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. Finally if the petition wins in USA you will have to battle other uprising unattended operations such as PSKmail, FLARQ, ALE etc. I hope that this petition will fail because it just wants to stop any sort of advancement in the world of Amateur Radio in USA and in the rest of the world.
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II. Very few American hams ever > bought one--they never sold well here. Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my friend. Check the Winlink maps and you will see how popular Winlink is in USA, and this also gives you a great advantage for your homeland security, but you want to through it away. Are you frightened that every PACTOR modem owner would be using it every minute of the day for their Internet connection? Well this system is only used by people who are far away from home and of course during emergency tests and real emergencies. That is why you do not hear them 24/7/365 using the system. When anyone has Internet access they will not use Winlink-2000, infact they are being discouraged from doing that. > > A purely meaningless statement, my friend. I have simply pointed out, > as have others, that Winlink and Pactor stations do not listen before > transmitting, unlike essentially the entire rest of the amateur > community. Since the Winlink/Pactor people acknowledge the truth of > this point, Well we have said that many times, Winlink-2000 clients ALWAYS listen before transmission, and PMBOs never talk to other PMBOs like other automatic systems do, just because Winlink-2000 PACTOR PMBOS are semi-automatic. If the hidden transmitter syndrome exists in some cases, the file transfer that they will do is very fast because they use PACTOR 3 and very soon the frequency will be clear again. Not a big problem. Other system sit there for hours making MAIL FORWARDING but you never complain about them. Other send LONG BEACONS without listening first but you have never complained. Others think that they own the frequency and they never care if there is another QSO, but you have never complained either. So really it is that you are after PACTOR 3, nothing else. > I would hardly call it "propaganda." Now, your > characterization of this as "The Great Global Amateur Communications > System" or something like that might be rightfully characterized as > propaganda by some. > > But not by me, Demetre, not by me. Well show me another Worldwide Amateur Communication system that exists today OM. If the word "Great" makes you angry, I can stop using it, although it is a Great system really. > > de Roger W6VZV > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > > You have your opinion and I have mine. Now if you can't be bothered > > to look for PACTOR keyboard to keyboard QSOS this is your problem not > > mine. When I look I can always find some. > > You know, it may be that way in Europe. After all, SCS is there. Here > in the States there are essentially zero Pactor K-toK qsos. I **did** > look for them. For years. But none, sorry. As James Madison once > said, facts are stubborn things. > > >As for Winlink not been an > > emergency resource, I have read and still read otherwise in the > > radio amateur literature around the world. > > Yeah, I've read some of this too. Most of it is pure propaganda by > people with obvious agendas. Winlink and mailboxes are a negligible > contributor to emergency communications. Facts are stubborn things, > Demetre. > > > If you just want to spoil a Great Radio Amateur Global Communication > > System > > Well, far be it from me to spoil a (drum roll) Great Radio Amateur > Global Communication System > > Happy New Year de Roger W6VZV > Hmm OK, I hope this anti SCS thing is not going to end to being an anti-European thing Roger. I get that feeling somehow, since SCS is not an American company. Also anyone can class your claims againstt Winlink and PACTOR as pure propaganda. The stubborn fact is that Winlink2000 is still the one and only Great Radio Amateur Global Communications System available today. PSKmail is getting there slowly but surely. FLARQ is also a new system and it is also heading the same way. So it seems that many Radio Hams believe that it is worth having a system similar to Winlink2000, unlike you, and both these other 2 systems are trying really hard to get some real speed on HF and become at least similar to PACTOR 2 or even 3. But of course with people like you fighting against PROGRESS and wanting to keep the Ham Bands for theirself they will have problems. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure what HF Packet BBS's you're talking about but all my > packet tnc's had a carrier detect feature and would not transmit if > one was detected. Was it perfect, heck no! But it was available AND > it was turned on. > > Jim > WA0LYK Well Jim, The DCD mechanism of an HF TNC does not transmit when there is another PACKET signal on the frequency. When there is a voice or other signal it does not understand it and continues transmitting on top of them. Some times it might stop because it confuses the voice or other noise with DATA, but this is not how it was designed to work. Really the DCD only works with the same waveform as the TNC transmits. So in the PACKET RADIO case it should only stop at the presence of another PACKET RADIO signal, but not at the presence of a voice or CW signal. What you are referring to can only work either with the squelch turned on if your HF Radio supports it, and if anyone does it on HF they will get no chance of transmitting at all due to the constant noise. That was common on VHF before the DCD software state machine of the TNCs became more sophisticated, so people had to rely on the squelch and many LIDS started whistling on the frequency, so the PACKET station never got a chance to transmit. Now the carrier detect that you are referring to is an option in the old TNCs and nobody ever user since all the LIDS could stop their DATA transmissionwhenevr they pleased, just like some people proposed in this list using Anti-PACTOR missiles. Hi Hi Hi!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, a couple of points. > > 1. No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve > transmitting without listening. I happen to think that all such > practices are morally wrong and legally questionable. Regrettably, the > FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts. A bad > call, but there you are. > > 2. Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening > practices than anything else on the air. The Pactor community flatly > refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs > with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this. > > 3. I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is > as dead as Julius Caesar. No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor > is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes. It is now solely a mailbox > mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to > those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid. Doesn't > sound much like ham radio to me. Other commercial services are a better > provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio. > > 4. I am a yachtsman myself. I can attest that very few yachtsman use > amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications > system when at sea. > > 5. Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, > propaganda to the contrary. Having operated emergency communications in > numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a > resource. The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of > amateur-supplied communications. Simpler is better. > > de Roger W6VZV > Fine Roger, You have your opinion and I have mine. Now if you can't be bothered to look for PACTOR keyboard to keyboard QSOS this is your problem not mine. When I look I can always find some. As for Winlink not been an emergency resource, I have read and still read otherwise in the radio amateur literature around the world. It has help in numerous cases in your country and in the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean a few years ago at Christmas and if this humanitarian reason for Winlink's existance is not enough for you then I do not know what more to tell you. But it does not stop there, it can also provide free Internet e-mail for the Radio ham on the move globally (from the open seas to the bush of Australia, to the jungles of Africa, in Asia, in South and Central America and in many other parts of the "civilized" world, as we all like to call our western world today) and at the moment it is the only system that has a global network on HF and this is a great help for places with no communications infrastructure. So Winlink is not only for emergency communications, although it can be a big help in emergencies where FM/SSB and all bla bla modes cannot really help, except perhaps when you want to coordinate the fire fighters or other cases where accurate contain transfer is not necessary. If you just want to spoil a Great Radio Amateur Global Communication System just because sometimes af few ,ignorant perhaps, of it's users spoil your SSB QSO then go ahead and do it. This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world we should always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think? 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. as for automatic operations, don't forget that it is not only Winlink2000 and W1AW who do that. There are also PACKET BBSes (the real Robots where both ends have no human operator, the have Martians, there are Propnet stations, Beacons of all sorts, APRS DIGIS and many SSTV repeaters, PSKMAIL Mboxes, just to name a few, so if you tolerate their operation PLEASE do not complain about Winlink2000. Winlink2000 follows the bandplans just like all these systems do.
[digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you'd actually read any of my posts, Demetre, you'd know that my > focus is on automatic stations without busy detectors -- no matter > what protocol they are using. In fact I recently posted here that > banning Pactor III because a bunch of inconsiderate operators use it > in PMBOs would be like banning automobiles because some people drive > drunk. See > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201 > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Dear Dave Please let me know in which way do the PROPNET, ALE, HF packet BBSes, HF APRS DIGIS, W1AW Broadcasts and the rest of the unattended systems operating on the HF bands understand that there is a voice, cw, digital QSO taking place on the frequency and if they stop their transmission? As far as I know they all understand ONLY if there is another station operating in the mode they USE and NO OTHER MODE. So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM. There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming about. Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for free to the Radio Amateur community? I know why. If you did that you would not have anything to whine about!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats
Oh, I nearly forgot to ask you Dave, what's the matter with you and PACTOR-3? Has uncle Steve been bad to you recently? I can help you know!!! 73 de Demetre de SV1UY P.S. Please smile, this is only a hobby OM. MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR to all.
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You caught me, Demetre. I did rent an F-16 last weekend and got all the way > to Winlink Planetary Headquarters before realizing that the HARMs Hertz gave > me were tuned to 7.105 GHz instead of 7.105 MHz as requested. So I buzzed > the tower and flew home to beat the commuter congestion at Hanscom. > > What's your grid square? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Well our old God APOLLO will not be kind to you Dave. Propagation is not good between us right now so I guess I am saved for the time being! 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. Please have a good drink OM, you might forget about PACTOR 3. It's Christmas after all.
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is > designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a > tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the > system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies > with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford > a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry > Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies. > So are all the radios we use, ICOM, YAESU, KENWOOD, ALINCO to name a few. Are they commercial too? Noone is going to make something for nothing OM. These are all commercial radios and we like to call them Amateur because we like to use them. Same with the SCS modems. As for the rich tanned German guy, is it illegal to be rich and tanned now? Should we ban from the hobby the tanned rich Germans now? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +++ more AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" > wrote: > > >>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of > amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are > willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating > QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot > of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*". > > You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that > detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility > of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism > and the PMBOs would be rendered useless. > > This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and > hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just > admitted yourself. > > +++Demetre, an anti-radiation missile is a weapon typically used to > destroy air-defense radars by locking onto their transmitter > frequency. "Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on > a lot of Christmas lists" was a humorous way of pointing out that > PMBO QRM has generated widespread and massive frustration. Nowhere in > this message -- or any other message I have posted -- do I advocate > QRMing PMBOs. This sort of action would be as irreponsible as using > or operating a PMBO, and I have made that point here on several > occasions. > > +++I have heard the argument that WinLink can't now apply busy- > frequency detectors because the amateur radio community is so angry > at them for years of QRM that operators would camp on PMBO > frequencies just to prevent them functioning. This argument is > completely bogus - just another rationalization for continuing to > generate QRM. While a few operators might QRM a few PMBOs for a few > days, the effect would be minimal. Even the most perverse human > operator won't sit at a station continuously just to QRM an automated > station. He or she will get bored and go bother someone more likely > to provide a reaction. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > Exactly Dave, This is because of people like you. You just admitted it, so don't cry now. You know all the techniques of war it seems. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > >I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles > tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! > > >snip< > > >What about this Skip? Is this justified? > > Of course it is not justified! > > >>>Demetre completely misrepresented the content of my post, Skip. > Check the original and see for yourself: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25230 > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > He he, It takes one to know one Dave. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Demetre, > > We are looking forward to your explanation as to how an unattended PMBO, > very near to a local station (and which local station, that the far away > client cannot even detect), and running a mode other than Pactor, will > refuse to transmit over the local station's QSO if queried by the far away > client. > > It is easy to understand how this can happen on 20m where many use > directional beam antennas. The local station does not even have to very > "local" to the PMBO, but beaming in its direction for his QSO with a station > in the direction of the PMBO, so that the client is off the side of the beam > pattern. An operator at the PMBO could easily detect the beaming station, > perhaps even over S9, but the client, being off the side of the beam, > detects nothing and thinks the frequency is clear. > > This is critical to the problem of understanding how unattended stations can > mix with attended stations on shared bands, and your explanation would be > very much appreciated! > > Thanks in advance, > > Skip KH6TY > Hi Skip, I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you? What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. And just like Andy, our moderator, said previously: - Aside from Pactor, I suspect that many ALE operations are not always under full manual control. Neither are some Propnet stations that use 300 baud packet or PSK31. Many DXpeditions act like they can transmit any place they want, and then there are also the folks at W1AW who send old news automatically at predetermined times via RTTY and CW. -- And I must add, what about the numerous nets on HF that deliberately cause QRM when anyone dares to use their frequency before they start their NET? What about AX25 BBS FORWARDING that still takes place on HF? (These are really the automatic ROBOTS, not the semi-automatic PACTOR PMBOs), what about HF APRS Digis? What are you going to do about all them? Fix the HF bands first and then blame PACTOR PMBOs and automatic operations. Forget about PACTOR 3 being the problem because it isn't. 73 de Demetre SV1UY --QUOTED MESSAGE From Dave- Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of > amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are > willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating > QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot > of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*". You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism and the PMBOs would be rendered useless. This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just admitted yourself. Anyway please comment to your daddy (the FCC) as you like, although you do understand you are wrong, and if you have a PACTOR MODEM and have not understood it's use yet then I am sorry for you because nothing comes even close to PACTOR 3 for emergency comms OM. > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > 73 de Demetre SV1UY --END OF QUOTED MESSAGE-
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>QRM from PMBOs and other deaf robots spoils the enjoyment of > amateur radio for many operators Demetre. That's why so many are > willing to do practically anything to make WinLink stop generating > QRM. Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PMBO frequencies were on a lot > of Christmas lists; "Ack *this*". You see now why the PBMOs cannot install any DCD mechanism that detects QRM and they leave the busy detection to be the responsibility of the client? Because people like you would misuse such a mechanism and the PMBOs would be rendered useless. This is a VERY bad practice that you and your followers excercise and hence you should have your license revoked for this action you just admitted yourself. Anyway please comment to your daddy (the FCC) as you like, although you do understand you are wrong, and if you have a PACTOR MODEM and have not understood it's use yet then I am sorry for you because nothing comes even close to PACTOR 3 for emergency comms OM. > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not > > amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more > > expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury > > of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a viable > > role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves > > their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency, > > PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox > > that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night > > when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a > > decent 80 meters antenna > > It looks like your Internet connection to this list is working fine. Are > you using PACTOR? > I only use PACTOR regularly when I am away from home and only when I want to make test PACTOR connection OM. At home it is not very efficient to use PACTOR except for PACTOR QSOs, which are also condemned and QRMed by some LIDS in this list. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +++additional AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" > wrote: > > >>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether > or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to > detect Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other > mode. > > You said that, but the clients always listen OM. > > +++In your earlier post, Demetre, you said "Sometimes through the > night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not > have a decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or > USA on 30 or 40 meters. How about that?" > > +++So you -- the client -- are activating a PMBO in Canada or the > USA. While you can know that the frequency is clear in Europe, you > have absolutely no idea whether your activating a PMBO in Canada or > the USA will result in that PMBO QRMing an ongoing QSO. Every time > you activate one of these PMBOs, you risk QRMing a QSO. How about > that? > > After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little > QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. > You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, > if it makes you happy!!! > > +++The client is indeed behaving arrogantly and irresponsibly, but it > is not the client that is generating the QRM. Its the PMBO. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > Dear David, I have done this only a few times just for a test, to see what can be done in an emergency. I know it is a bad idea to do it regularly, so I do it for test purposes and only when I want to convince someone (including myself) how good PACTOR 3 can be in an emergency. When the communications infrastructure of a whole country has gone down, this is the only way to pass digital traffic accurately and effectively. There is no other accurate way OM. If you only had a PACTOR 3 MODEM and an open mind you would understand what am I talking about. And if you ever get a little interference from another station, if there is no other way for the traffic to be passed, please be patient. The transfer will soon finish because it is a fast mode, it will not last all day just like many ragchew QSOs do. After all what is going to happen to you? Is the PACTOR QRM going to spoil your toys? Santa is here so you might get new toys OM. Not to worry. Life is too short to complain about PACTOR QRM all day. Get a life. Have a drink and you might feel much better! hi hi hi!!! MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>Currently deployed PMBOs have no way to reliably determine whether > or not the frequency is locally clear. They may be configured to detect > Pactor signals, but they cannot detect signals in any other mode. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > You said that, but the clients always listen OM. After all we do not live in a perfect world and if there is a little QRM, you can always blame the client if this is what you are after. You can report the client to your FCC and they can pull his/her ear, if it makes you happy!!! 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well I do travel in remote portions of our South West. I carry an IC > 7000 and a VX-7. But I also have a satellite phone and an emergency > locater in addition to my normal cell phone. It is important to separate > business from a hobby. In such a situation there are not that many > scenarios where ham radio would be a better emergency solution than > those systems designed for the task. The reason I say this is that VHF > and UHF are only occasionally viable. If there is a situation where one > has a personal emergency, accident or injury, it is not really practical > to set up an HF rig. There is also the question will there be the > appropriate band conditions for the necessary communications. On a ship > there HF gear would already be installed and would be great as a last > resort, but I for one would start out with a system where I knew there > was 24 hour monitoring. > > For those who do not have an Internet connection, I have two > comments > - 1 - They would be better served with a UHF link that offers decent > band width. 2- I would question the legality of such a data link in > the > first place. > Hi again OM, First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a viable role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency, PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on 30 or 40 meters. How about that? > > That is not what other PACTOR operators have stated as recently as > today > in this thread. PACTOR stations listen for other PACTOR stations but > not > stations operating in other modes. > They have stated this many times but you were not listening. You were listening to what you wanted to hear. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email > via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the > computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too > organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot > of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some > form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes > should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if > it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now > that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a > primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to > accomplish the most with the least. > > What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection? What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel in places where not even a mobile phone can operate? Are these not Radio Hams? Not to mention emergency situations where these "Extremely Wide" HF Networking Digital Modes like PACTOR 3 might assist. (2.2 KHZ wide, less than a voice channel, hmm some width, don't you think?) . Helping in Emergencies is number ONE PRIORITY in every Amateur Service all around the World!!! From what I have read it is also number ONE in USA. QSL card collection (although I do not dislike it) is not number ONE. It is number TWO in Amateur Radio. Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless??? Everyone has the right to exercise their hobby in the Ham Radio Bands OM. And don't tell me that PACTOR 3 operators do not listen before they transmit. They always listen because they want their transmitters to stay cool, especially if this HF radio they are using is their only means of communication. Makes sense doesn't it? At least I hope it does to you!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", you > just won't admit it. > > The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode > protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) > transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally > clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should > be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems > that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway > analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and > occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed > computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ OK Dave, You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. Some people like e-mail on HF, some like chewing the rag to death, some like contests, some like exchanging pictures or faxes etc. We should all get along and be tolerant otherwise there is no hobby. And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. Merry Christmas!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", you > just won't admit it. > > The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode > protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) > transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally > clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should > be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems > that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway > analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and > occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed > computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Well, Can you admit that there are people with different points of view Dave? I'm afraid you can't. We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is acceptable in the hobby OM. Merry Christmas and a Happy New year and smile a bit OM! Winlink, PACKET RADIO or e-mail, etc. are not evil! They are just another form of DIGITAL MODES which you might not like but others like them so there!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Well, > > > > Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw > > qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual > > wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys > > pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency > > arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off > > for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When > > human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower > > priority. > > > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY > > The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham > radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, > without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham > radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. > > de Roger W6VZV > OK Roger, To you it might be a bad idea sending e-mails over the air, but to many others it is a good idea. It is a good as having a voice QSO, a CW QSO, a contest, chewing the rag, etc. Any form of communication that uses Ham Radio equipment and the Ham radio bands to allow radio amateurs to communicate with each other is Ham Radio (being WINLINK, PSKMAIL, FLARQ, TCP/IP over PACKET RADIO, AX25 over PACKET RADIO, APRS, etc. does it matter?)!!! Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! "Merry Christmas everyone" 73 de Demetre - SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It can also clog up our bands. > > For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has been on > going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go through is > titled: > > > Do we really need 262Kb emails like this on HF Well, Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower priority. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QEX Article on HF Digital Propagation
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rud Merriam wrote: > > After a comment off list from Demeter I checked the Pactor specifications. > > It uses DBPSK or DQPSK. > > > > Why do the reports about Pactor indicate it is more robust than the QEX > > article would indicate? > > > > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > Rud, > > If you go back to the DCC presentation of KN6KB of a few years back on his new > software modem...he measured the robustness of Pactor, MT63 and several other > modes and Pactor wasn't that much more robust than MT63 at a -5 dB SNR. > > If I invested a $K Buck or so in Pactor III and WinLink, I'd claim it was the > best thing since sliced bread...woudln't you? > > 73, > > Wa;t/K5YFW > Hi Walt, Actually it is better if not many amateurs get a PTC-II modem since this way I and othe PACTOR 3 users have a better chance of connecting to a Winlink2000 PMBO and download our e-mail! Never thought about that have you? hi hi hi!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Interesting article from STXARES
This is what I fished yesterday. I dedicate it to this list. == From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 04:59 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [STXARES] Why Is a PIO Important? Posted by: "Bill Rimmer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] n5lyg1 Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:38 am (PST) Allen G Pitts, W1AGP ARRL Media & PR Manager During the month of September 2007, there were many positive articles in the media about Amateur Radio. But, there were also a few which did major damage to the public perception of our Service. Unfortunately they were in large metropolitan newspapers and, by the time an ARRL PIO learned about them, it was too late to change things. These articles were proclaiming the "death of Amateur Radio", that it was antique and an anachronism to the 21st century, full of ancient grumpy men and that the hams themselves were not friendly nor welcoming. The real tragedy of this is that the reporters were quoting their community's own local hams! None of the articles had numbers or empirical data to show the true trends underlying the present state of amateur radio. None looked beyond the personal opinions voiced by their local club or they might see the recent gains following February 2007. None of them saw the larger picture around the country or the work being done in schools, scouting, ARISS, digital work, ARES and other EmComm actions. But they had their quotes, and that was enough to hurt us. While not all areas of the country are motivated by the same approaches, there really is a lot of new growth in important areas. In some places, emergency operations and EmComm is indeed a BIG deal. We are gaining many new hams entering the field because they want to be part of a response operation. That is part of this year's PR push on EmComm. In other areas, it may not be EmComm that is the big draw. It could be the hobby side of the Service. For them, the "Hello!" materials are still available and timely. If that fits your area, then use them there. In some other places or situations, it will be the technical side of Amateur Radio that is of interest. The ARRL is working on a coordinated program for that to come out in 2008. It will be the hardest of the three to create, but plans are already well along. These three, Hobby, EmComm and Technical activities are the motivational keystones of the Service. No one thing is going to attract "the general population." We encourage you to look at your own local situation. Which type of motivator works best in your area? Use that one. In the meantime, our importance in EmComm is a motivator in antenna issues, spectrum defense and other political situations. Are we "dying" out? Not really. Amateur Radio never was, nor will be, a "mainstream" activity. But recent numbers are up and, just as important, the percentage of hams who actually get on the air or go on to higher class licenses is up. With the 10 year license-lag, most who are dropping out seem never to have been active to begin with. We also see trends which follow the solar cycles -- currently at a low. To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Over the past two months the national PR Committee has seen far too many articles quoting their local hams saying we are all dying out! With attitudes like that, is it any wonder the reporters print it? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why we need informed, active PIOs and hams need to defer media responses to them. Anytime you or a ham in your area is contacted by the media, steer them to your local PIO. If you don't have one nearby, steer them to your section's PIC. These professionals are trained in showing the best that amateur radio has to offer to the public and to prospective licensees. Fifteen minutes of individual fame is not worth the damage your personal opinions could cause to us all. Post by (NOT WRITTEN BY): Bill Rimmer, N5LYG EC Northwest Harris County A.R.E.S. = 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Need new emergency communications mode: Project Management
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My web site, see signature, is for the development of such a network. Anyone > who wants to work collaboratively on a network is invited to let me know of > their interest. > > There is another mailing list where I have discussed the development of a > network. They say managing software developers is like trying to herd cats. > Getting a bunch of hams to agree on network issues is even worse. I do not > think development can be accomplished in a totally open venue, although I am > willing to participate if that is the only way of working. Instead, I think > a group needs to work privately and then suffer the slings and arrows of the > "Why didn't you do XYZ?" that will come later. > > Rud, I wish you good luck with your effort if they let you build an HF network, hi hi hi!!! I will be watching your WEB SITE closely for announcements. > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre: > > "In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap". > You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend! > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of course > not, Demetre; that would be a violation of the rules governing > amateur radio operation here. > > How does your question relate to the discussion? Then why you should transmit any other mode in the wide digital subbands and complain that you have been QRMed by wide digital modes? > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be > interpreted one way: "our traffic is more important than your > traffic; if we QRM you, too bad". Or to paraphrase Demetre, "stay off > our highway". > Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands Dave? I'd love to see you doing that! >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude. > I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a lot since then. > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>In the land of HF, the hiking paths and highways overlap. Thus, > your "simple and logical solution" simply doesn't work. We need > polite drivers. OK go and take a hike at the highway then and hope for the best. I wouldn't! > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" wrote: > > > > >>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the > > initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing > > QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds > > clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station > > in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator > > cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her > > station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to > > the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't. > > There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything > else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in > their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands. > > 73 de SV1UY > Correction, Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the wide digital subbands. The wide modes don't usually have a problem. This way your narrow QSOs will be in their own subbabd and you will not be crying when a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you. Just like you never take a hike in the highway because the fast cars will run over you. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the > initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing > QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds > clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station > in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator > cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her > station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to > the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't. There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > >>>There are some who claim that email messages should not be > conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical > operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe > there's any merit to this claim. I don't see the point of you mentioning it then. > > >>>The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, > is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying > that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of > 97.101(d), which states "No amateur operator shall willfully or > maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio > communication or signal." A PMBO's transmission is not malicious, > but its definitely willful. > Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you keep coming back at it over and over. Any interference caused in Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is not the PMBO's fault but the initiator's fault who is responsible for any QRM because he has to listen for a while before he transmits, and he should also keep listening when in session with the PMBO. Myself and many others do this i n every session, even when in QSO using PSK31. Whoever does not do this does not follow good radio amateur practices, full stop. Automatic operation is only what F6FBB BBSes do in PACKET radio when they start MAIL FORWARDING. Winlink2000 PMBOs use only the Internet for exchanging traffic among them. Winlink2000 PMBOs don't even transmit beacons on HF every so often, like other systems do on HF. They only respond if and when they are called by a client and the client is responsible for the QRM they cause. So any claims that they cause willful interference is not true. > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
e who decides about our hobby then. > > As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with > my > equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good > as > MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I > have > tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I > have > used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am > sorry to > report that, because I really thought that I would like it, > considering > the intense hype about Linux. Well keep using Microsoft then (a closed and proprietary system, just like an SCS modem) and stop complaining and preaching about open systems. I like to use both Linux and Microsoft even if I had to pay for Microsoft, just as I had to pay for my SCS modem, my HF radio etc, and even if Linux is more difficult, although I find UBUNTU and KUBUNTU a breeze to setup and use. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. and please keep those never ending complains. Maybe someone will write a soundcard modem one day in the distant future that outperforms PACTOR 2 and even 3 and he will let us have it for free. I'd love to see this happening, but I guess by the time this happens the guys at SCS will have invented PACTOR 4 which will be much faster than anything else and we will have the same arguments! You see they don't stop either. Unfortunately money is what makes the world go round Rick. I wish it was love but it isn't!
[digitalradio] Re: Complete Bozo's Guide to ALE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Peter G. Viscarola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Here is a snippet from page one, the intro > > > > Gosh... I can't wait to hear how it all ends! Does the German tourist > enjoy his visit to Kata Tjuta National Park? Do Bruce and Dolly become > friends with benefits, or does Dolly encounter the barbie? Does Sheila > manage to remove the Devil's Marbles brochure from her jeep, and thus > avoid suspicion from Bruce? > > These are the sorts of things that keep you up at night... > > de Peter K1PGV > Oh no Peter and I thought it was digital modes that do that! hi hi hi!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] New HF bandplans for REGION II
Hi all, Has anyone noticed that there is a new HF bandplan for REGION II effective January 1st 2008? You can check it at http://www.iaru-regionii.org/ You can download the new HF bandplans as a PDF file here: http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf Automatic mailboxes and wideband digital modes have their own place. Good reading everyone. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Tests in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just for curiosity. I wonder if the digital experts out there would > care to speculate how all these new "wonder modes" would perform in > the din of this contest? Would ALE work at all? Would these modes be > able to exchange the contents of 2000 contacts as the bigger RTTY > stations do in a weekend in the din? Even with a 300HZ filter, RTTY > stations are wall to wall 14065-14125 with almost complete overlap. > > Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests > that what these "wonder modes" want and or need is channelized, clear > channel frequencies, with no human factor strengths added. Is that > realistic to expect on the ham bands? > > 73 de Brian/K3KO I'm afraid that only PACTOR 2 or 3 has any chance of making it through these conditions OM. Everything else fails. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Atari Portfolio PACKET?
Hi all, Has anyone got the Atari Portfolio PACKET Radio Program that enables an Atari Portfolio to work PACKET Radio with the HB9ZCJ Baycom Modem? I have lost the program from a battery low condition in my Atari Portfolio and I cannot locate the original floppy disks anywhere. I have looked in the Web but the program is nowhere to be seen. There are a lot of references about it, but no TNC.COM etc anywhere to be downloaded. Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or here if you have it. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
Hi Steinar, Just finished calling. One of these days we'll make it. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
OK Steinar, I can hear you but maybe I am doing something wrong with my MultiPSK. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Arggg, I had you Demetre, but my wife come and disturbed me :( . and now > you are gone.. > > [20h14m05.41s] [14 109,500] [COMMAND] [20h14m05s] [FAE NAK-01-n=16] > [20h14m06s] CQ SV1UY>LA5VNA [20h14m06.11s] [CRC OK] > [20h14m13.42s] [14 109,500] [End of TX] 15 char.-01-CQ DE LA5VNA > [20h14m15.31s] [14 109,500] [COMMAND] [20h14m15s] [FAE NAK-01-n=16] > [20h14m16s] CQ SV1UY>LA5VNA [20h14m16.30s] [CRC OK] > [20h14m23.61s] [14 109,500] [End of TX] 15 char.-01-CQ DE LA5VNA > [20h14m25.53s] [14 109,500] [COMMAND] [20h14m25s] [FAE NAK-01-n=16] > [20h14m26s] CQ SV1UY>LA5VNA [20h14m26.50s] [CRC OK] > [20h14m33.83s] [14 109,500] [End of TX] 15 char.-01-CQ DE LA5VNA > [20h14m35.72s] [14 109,500] [COMMAND] [20h14m35s] [FAE NAK-01-n=16] > [20h14m36s] CQ SV1UY>LA5VNA [20h14m36.42s] [CRC OK] > > > OK Still here, I've put my wife in bed! hi hi hi!!! She is a good one! hi hi hi!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. all of a sudden my mouse was dissappearing, I had to put 2 ferrite rings on each end. Now it works.
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > QSY 14.109,5. I have a better antenna for 20m > > la5vna Steinar OK Steinar I am there now, But 40m is the best band for this time of the day. SF=67 which is too low. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Demetre, > > I heard you but you was to weak. > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Had we used PACTOR 3 Steinar we would have managed to have a QSO. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. Going QRT now.
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Demetre, > > I heard you but you was to weak. > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > OK still calling but now on 100 Watts. Will stop in 1 minute. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: QSO in ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am calling CQ in ARQ FAE mode on 10.136,5 now. > > Please answer if you hear me :) > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > OK I am calling you now. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] ARQ FAE QSO
Hi Steinar, If you are still at your PC can we try 10MHZ? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Demetre, > > Care for trying on 14.109,5 now ? > > LA5VNA Steinar > OK Steinar, trying now 20:43 UTC 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Off list, to avoid clutter. Hi Jose, A little history doesn't hurt anyone, and if it is about DIGITAL MODES all the better. > Now I have a FT-757, a Swan 700 and a PRM-4021. Excellent little radio. > Is the workhorse nowadays. > It is a pity I could not get a 4031, the same thing, all band ,with > WARC > bands included. I'm very happy with my RACAL. I often take it to the mountains as a backpack radio with it' 2.5 meter whip. See http://sv1uy.ampr.org/~sv1uy > PTC-II since 1998 too, and P III license > since 2004. Best modem man. We should arrange a sked in PACTOR in the weekend. > Here, it is a bit more difficult to get radios and parts, requieres > quite a bit more per$everance. It was similar in Greece when I was an SWL, but then gradually we can get many things. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > PS: There are at least two ways to do the same thing: The american > way > and the european way. > ex: Cadillac-Citroen > PK232 - Hamcom + Baycom > etc, etc, etc. Well PACTOR is European and as a European you can guess which way I prefer to do things. PACTOR and a QRP rig is the best combination IMO. > -- > MSc. José A Amador 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Demetre, > > >Please let me know, the frequency you mentioned is it display frequency and are you going to > >use LSB or USB? > It is the display frequency (3617 KHz) on your XCVR and in USB. > > Note: you can also send files without errors (but small files except if you are very patient). > > 73 > Patrick Hi Patrick, I heard nothing unfortunately. Have you had any luck with Steinar? Perhaps we should try 40 meters next time. My aerial is not very efficient on 80. I have a question, Why my TX/RX tones are on 1625Hz when I am on ARQ FAE mode? I have setup 1500 Hz in the config window and when I am on any other mode it is indeed 1500 Hz. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I used TERMAN93 with a homebrew FSK modem and my PC in 1997 was a > 386 at > 25 MHz with 20 MB RAM. I had to tweak the too simple dot clock > oscillator to shift it from 14.312 MHz to the correct frequency of > 14.318181MHz. > > I never knew about G4BMK Multi. But My PTC-II does that and more, > too. > And coincidentally, mine rarely goes to 3600, usually the highest > speed > attained is 2700. > > Jose, CO2JA Hi Jose, Those were the days Jose, when we had to make our own TERMINAL UNITS for RTTY. I really started on RTTY in 1984 with my ZX-81 personal computer, G4IDE RTTY EPROM, a Homemade Terminal Unit, an 81 LED Matrix as an RTTY TUNING SCOPE where I could see the MARK and SPACE TUNING CROSS, a GREEN MONITOR and my Homemade 5 watts SSB transmitter with a YAESU FRG-7700 receiver. The aerials (20-10 meters 2 element CUBICAL QUAD and 80-10 dipole) were homemade too. I made thousands of QSOs this way. After a few years I made a better TERMINAL UNIT and used my DOS computer with the BMK-Multi program (by G4BMK) which supported RTTY, AMTOR and PACTOR 1. They used to call it PACTOR these days. Great setup. Had many QSOs with it. I still have the above TERMINAL UNITS, ZX-81, and DOS PC. Then in 1998 I got a PTC-II and shortly after a PTC-IIe for my portable HF operations. I use my PTC-IIe with my FT-817 or RACAL PRM- 4031 or FT897D. I use PLUSTERM 2.3 and a small DOS palmtop HP-200LX with my PTC-IIe and FT-817 or RACAL when I go for a mountain hike. Extremely light setup. The PTC-IIe controller in PACTOR mode keeps me in QSO even when I cannot hear the other guy's tones and error free because of the ARQ and really flies when I have good signals. I am extremely happy with the way PACTOR 2 & 3 operate and also with all the other modes my 2 PTC-II controllers support, being RTTY, PSK31, AMTOR, PACTOR, NAVTEX, FAX, SSTV. I can even exchange DIGITAL SSTV pictures in PACTOR 3 mode and error free. Of course I also like SSTV (I'm not mad about DXing and card collecting) and I have built my own Hardware SSTV controller, not with a P7 cathode ray tube but with TTLs, RAMS, etc, but this is analogue SSTV and I am not sure if it is in topic with this group since analogue SSTV is not a digital mode, despite of what other might say. Thanks for letting me know your experiences with PACTOR 3. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > > - > > > > So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an > > SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex. > > > > 73 de SV1UY > > > Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for > my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3). I quit using it years > ago. Don't know if I still have it or not. There is next to zero > Pactor QSO activity, and the PSK implementation is inferior to what you > get with MixW, not to mention it doesn't support most of the other > soundcard modes. > > de Roger W6VZV > Hi Roger, Do you sell your PTC-II modem? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Steinar, > > OK for 18h30 to 19h00 UTC to-morrow evening. > > Note: you must have a stable frequency to avoid drift (in ALE you are supposed to have a fixed frequency), so one hour of working before the QSO will be good. > > 73 > Patrick Hi again Patrick and Steinar, I have installed MULTIPSK 4.4 and it works FB. Please let me know, the frequency you mentioned is it display frequency and are you going to use LSB or USB? Please don't go away at 19.00 UTC, give us 10 extra minutes since I will arrive at home at 19.00 UTC tonight. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is a Pactor III modem worth considering for general ham radio > applications. If I spend a $1000 on a modem , what do I get? Is it a > thousand dollars superior to Olivia or MT63? Will I be able to have > reliable QSOs where other modes fail ? > > > > -- > Andy K3UK > www.obriensweb.com > Hi Andy, It depends what you want to do with it. For $1000 you get a very good modem that allows you to do digital filetransfers on HF up to 5200 bps when conditions are good, but still manage to keep the link when conditions are lousy, without having to revert to other modes and most important of all, filetransfers will be ERROR FREE because it uses ARQ. Not a single character will be transfered erroneous. You can also use it for picture transfer (with a free part of the program SIMPLE) that works in a way that SSTV works, but in PACTOR 3 mode. Of course you can make error free QSOS with other PACTOR users (1, 2, 3) but you will not find many on the air these days, much less than PSK31 and RTTY users anyway. Here in Europe I occasionally hit someone calling CQ on PACTOR but not very often and this might be due to it's price (600 EUR) in Europe for a PACTOR 2 SCS-PTCIIex modem, the cheapest of it's series. You need another 170 EUROS for the PACTOR 3 license. Or perhaps because of the flamewars against Winlink2000 and consequently against PACTOR because people tend to think that PACTOR is WINLINK2000 because there is a lot of misinformation on the net against PACTOR and against WINLINK2000. You also get superior PSK31, AMTOR, RTTY, 9k6 and 1k2 PACKET and NAVTEX capability by using a free terminal program or a more sophisticated but still freeware called NCWINPTC. You also get FAX but I think you must bye a program (shareware for around 50 EUROS). All the above modes, except FAX I use at least once a week and they work better than the equivalent soundcard modes. You even get analogue SSTV (but you also have to pay an extra 60 EUROs for JVcomm32 and I am not impressed with it for SSTV with the SCS-MODEM). For SSTV I use a soundcard program called ChromaPIX which according to many SSTVers is the best soundcard SSTV program. It gives you the best SSTV reception but again as many good things in this life it costs 120 dollars. So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the basic ALE multitone waveform is always x3, although there > are others much more expert than I on this list. Note that if FEC is > being used, the 375 bps would be the "raw" rate, not the end-to-end > throughput rate. Hi Robert, But isn't 375 bps too little for 2khz width? Pactor 3 does 5200 bps for 2.4 khz width and 1200 bps for 0.5 khz width. I think that if PACTOR 3 can do it, there has to be a way for ARQ-FAE to do a bit better than 375 bps. OF course I'm no expert but 375 bps? Unless there is some misunderstanding somewhere. But 2 Khz for 375 bps is a wast of bandwidth I think. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just a note... 125 baud is not always 125 bits per second, since the > modulation unit may contain multiple bits of data. An example: An > eight-tone modem might have each tone represent one of the 8 > different three-bit patterns. Thus the bps rate is actually 3 times > the baud rate. > OK Robert, Is it always 125X3 then? in which case the throughput will be 375 bps? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Steinar, > > We can plan a sked saturday if you want. > > You can also beacon APRS positions in FAE (non ARQ in that case), for test. > > To Demetre, the speed is 125 bauds as the other ALE modes. > > 73 > Patrick Hi again Patrick, How difficult is it to make 125 bauds faster, say 800 - 1200 bps so that it can at least compete with PACTOR II? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" wrote: > > Some like to argue on internet than get on the air!!! > > >>>Some try to avoid inconvenient facts by attacking the messenger. > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > Dave, Cheer up man. At least some do not end up in name calling as you and someone else did a few messages ago. You seem to forget that radio amateurs should show "some" courtesy. It doesn't hurt you know. This is the most important aspect of Amateur Radio, at least this is what I was taught when I sat for my Radio Amateur Examination in this country. We all like to do our hobby, if you are only interested to bully people and not get on the air, it's your choice, but reverting in name calling will never resolve the busy detector issue, nor will it stop Winlink, ale or whatever you see as threatening you! You need to talk , have an open mind and try to convince the other guy with facts and not by telling him/her to medicate. Perhaps you need that. Because you hate seen messaging systems (semiautomatic) on HF does not give you the right to stop others using them. If you want to have a constructive discussion by all means you are welcome, but name calling is no good. It has a negative effect. Back to digital amateur radio now. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: [hflink] ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Steinar, > > We can plan a sked saturday if you want. > > You can also beacon APRS positions in FAE (non ARQ in that case), for test. > > To Demetre, the speed is 125 bauds as the other ALE modes. > > 73 > Patrick Thanks Patrick, I will try to participate in your skeds. Please let me know when are you going to be on. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How many times is a QSO busted because neither the attended or unattended > stations could hear the QSO? > > I suspect this happens more frequently than most like to consider. It is > easier to get aggravated. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD Hi Rud, Some like to argue on internet than get on the air!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: ARQ FAE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Rick > > Calling on 14.109 now > > LA5VNA Steinar Hi Steinar, What is the effective speed of ARQ FAE please? 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Hi, I am QRV now and until 15.00z at 14.105 KHZ (center frequency) on PACTOR1, 2 or 3. I plan to do the same every Sunday from now on. You are all invited for a QSO. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
Hi Jose and all, --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With packet forwarding, there was noone even attempting to park on a > HF > forwarding frequency. Common sense prevailed (even when a few crazy > contesters sometimes attempted to overpower the BBS forwarding, > specially on CW and RTTY contests. Nobody even whined about it). Common sense is what seems to have being lost nowadays I'm afraid Jose. > > As I remember, packet BBS's were not so few. Quite a few could be > found > between 14090 and 14115, just to remember the 20 meters activity. I > have > been a BBS sysop using only radio links since 1991 (three FBB/JNOS > BBS's > and multiband nodes, and cooperated in setting up another three) and > operated in several bands in different seasons. Indeed a big portion of 20m digital subband was full of them. There are still a few around. > > Jose, CO2JA > > PS: Doing whatever is interesting, fun or novel in ham radio since 1972. OK Jose, I have been a licensed radio ham since 1983 and an SWL since 1970. > Also, hoping this day is not the start of another anti-Winlink rant > flood campaign on digitalradio. Please, spare us the undeserved > suffering...this is not an appropiate forum for that anti-Winlink > whining. Most of us on this list are NOT Winlink 2K MBO operators. > It shouldn't start anything since this is really an argument about PACTOR 2 or 3 versus soundcard modes and not about Winlink2000. If anyone wants to argue against Winlink2000, he will start arguing very soon about PSKmail, ALE or any other messaging system that might be developed because they are very similar systems. Arguing against a system one cannot understand, use or does not like, does not promote digital and amateur radio at all. There are many others who want to use messaging systems. After all amateur radio is not only about voice QSOs, RTTY, PSK and all the variants, it has many aspects, many modes and we should all be a bit more tolerant since we are only doing a hobby here and if sometimes we cannot avoid the hidden transmitter syndrome (which by the way does not cause problems all that often) and cause some QRM to each other it is not the end of the world. Some seem to forget the most important Radio Amateur Rule about "Courtesy". 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Best digital modes for portable QRP
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > CW. > > No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large > number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP > station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of > stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as > well leave the rig and computer at home. > > 73 de Brian/K3KO Ha ha ha, That's a good one. We might even invent a new mode, telepathy! Some people are probably doing it already on the 20 nanometer band and we don't know yet. No problems with PACTOR operators that do not listen before they transmit and spoil PSK QSOs there I guess. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre, the problem is not the bandwidth, but as Skip Teller, KH6TY > try to point out: "The number of times PACTOR stations override PSK31, > PSK63, or CW communications is so great that the probability is that > they seldom, if ever, "listen first" in their passion to use the ham > bands as an automatic gateway to send and receive email to and from the > Internet.". > > I have experienced this myself many times on 20m, and because of its > "great" capability to "keep the link", it never give up but squeeze you > out. You will have this pitiful meeting with pactor almost all over the > digital segment of 20m, from 14.065 to 14.120 with some small gaps.. > > I have no trouble understanding those who call this a "pest". > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Then you can report these stations Steinar. There are lids in every mode. I always listen before I transmit, whether I use CW, SSB, SSTV, PSK31 or PACTOR. Because some PACTOR operators are lids, it does not mean that we are all like that. I can only understand the necessity to transmit without listening only in an emergency situation. This is a hobby and it should be kept like it. Let's all try and educate whoever is a lid. But let's not condemn PACTOR 3 because of some lids. I can tell you thousands of lid stories especially among contesters. This does not make contests and the rest of the contesters bad. They like contests, let them have them. We can all share our bands happily. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All good points, Demetre, > [snip] > Thank you for the information on RFSM2400, as many of us suspected that > it would require a very good signal to work well. Once you reach a > threshold of adequate S/N, it probably works as they claim, but that may > be well above zero dB. The need we have is to send ARQ data at moderate > speeds above zero dB, say 1000 wpm or so, and yet have a fall back to a > 100 wpm or even a bit less as the S/N deteriorates. As we found out the > hard way, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF bands. > Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for > SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U OK Rick, First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good cause. Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in this case you canreport them to FCC. I think that this is called semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was it OK then and it is not OK now? What about all the contesters that transmit wherever they want without even asking if the frequency is on use? Do they own the frequency? PACTOR MBOs and maybe ALE systems are just lurking there and if the frequency is clear and someone calls them they respond. The way I use WINLINK PACTOR MBOs is to first listen for a while, make sure the frequency is not busy and the call. If the frequency is busy I QSY and try to contact another MBO, the same way as before. If all the frequencies that PACTOR MBOs are available are busy then I wait. It is not the end of the world if I do not get through to them straight away. But if my life or someone else's life is in danger, then I will use the most available power and QRM anyone who is in the same frequency. I think this is fair. As for your last comment, I also wish there was a soundcard mode or a system of combined soundcard modes that can do what PACTOR 3 can do. There isn't any though. There isn't any soundcard mode that can do even what PACTOR 2 can do. It is either impossible to develop as a soundcard mode (which is the most likely to be true), or programmers are too lazy to do it (which I don't believe so much), or programmers want to make some money if they ever find the time to develop such a beast. SCAMP is a perfect example of what cannot happen on HF. It was good only when there was no noise. It lost the link at the slightest noise. I followed this experiment all the way until it was abandoned, and I don't believe that WINLINK people are paid agents of SCS 'cause this is a story that has been mentioned as well by ignorant people in many mailing lists. I don't think you do either. In any case I am back to PACTOR 3 any day. I am not wasting my time with PSK in a soundcard because I could be wishing and waiting until 2050 or later, if I'm still alive then! hi hi hi!!! I still like PSK31 for a QSO because this is way to make DX though but not for filetransfers, e-mail etc over HF channels. And remember PACTOR 3 is not WINLINK. Winlink uses PACTOR 3 (it is not the only system that uses it) and if some think that they do not use it correctly, well it is a matter of opinion. Life is too short man, enjoy it while you can. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a "pactor > pest" or a "plague". > > Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/ > > Have a nice day. > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Hi Steinar, With all due respect it is a matter of preference. If you are serious about digital filetransfer, e-mail networking etc, then PACTOR 3 is the way to go at the moment. If you want Digital QSOs then PSK31 is OK. I use both, but I never call any mode a pest. After all Pactor 3 is in the in wideband portion of the band now. PACTOR 2 is where all the other DIGITAL modes are. RFSM2400 is in the wideband portion of the band too. Is this a Pest too? Is SSTV a pest too? Is DIGSSTV a pest too? Is FAX a pest too? Is Contesting a pest too? Is SSB voice a pest too? Don't tell me about the Winlink Mboxes that do not listen before they transmit because the SCS controllers have the option to listen before transmit. It is the Winlink people that have decided not to use it. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -
e heard that the military modes that some have implemented to work with soundcards perform in the same way more or less because all the above need a good signal to work. Now if I have to buy a 1 KW linear amplifier, a 3 element Yagi, a tower and an expensive rotator in order to make the soundcard modes work, thanks very much. I might save $1000 from the SCS modem but I would have to pay at least $5000 for a decent linear and a Yagi/tower/rotator combo. This makes the PACTOR 3 modem really cheap because I can work PACTOR 3 and send/receive e-mail or make a filetransfer on HF with my FT-817 and a piece of wire tossed at a nearby tree or to a fishing pole if there are no trees around, and use a dead cheap secondhand laptop. If this is not cheap for a decent HF Digital ARQ mode then I do not know what it is. Nevertheless I would happily get rid of my PACTOR 3 controllers if I saw something that can do half as good as PACTOR 3 and it can perform well with a low power portable radio, and of course if it manages to transfer intact files on HF, not half intact as pure FEC systems can. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
