Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Jack Chomley]

At 01:07 AM 1/18/2008, Danny  wrote:

See interspaced comments.

>Jack, I think I answered most of that just now, to another station.
>As long as you are setting there, and have checked that the freq is clear,
>fire away. If then you get someone coming in and connecting, you have
>already checked the frequency, so go ahead with your contact. But, if he
>hears you, transmits and then finds HE is causing interference, he should
>immediatly advise you, and quit tranmitting at his end.

By the time he has connected and this text exchange takes place, with 
a TX/RX changeover, it could be 30 secondswhich is a long time.

>Just like SSB, I
>ask if its clear, and no one comes back, I transmit a CQ. Sonmeone answers,
>but he immediately is told the freq is busy. He quickly comes back and tell
>you and the two of you then slip to another freq, where both ask if its
>clear, and if so, have your contact.

How do you ask IF the freq is clear in Pactor and expect any other 
modes, even Pactor to say "yes, freq is in use"? And get a readable response?


>Bye the way, if both of you had "busy signal" capability, his would have
>immediately told him he couldnt transmit-- but I would hope he would have
>heard it on the earphones before that, or seen it on a waterfall, or
>something. Surely all stations do check the freq before transmitting,
>keyboard to keyboard? He could then simply bypass the busy signal detect,
>and quickly advise you to QSY to  for a QSO.

A busy signal from what mode? Again, decoding who or what is there is 
not easy, Pactor hardware has no waterfall, you do not know what 
signal is there, unless your well calibrated ears interfaced to your 
brain, can understand what mode is transmitting, it may even only be 
an ALE sounding? Who knows?


>No not asking for perfection, just an attempt to get as close as possible.
>
>I know - easier said than done - but that takes place hundreds of times a
>day on CW or SSB, and is doable.

2 modes,  the ears can decode very easily, Tx with Mic or 
Keydigital modes are a little different, particularly those 
that are hardware/firmware based.
When someone comes up with a piece of software that is a simple 
decode only program for ALL digital modes, it would give listen and 
identify signal, before using freq, things may get better, but still 
not perfect as you would need a full blown laptop to run it. When 
some Pactor and Packet (some PSK31) operators can even use a dumb 
terminal to drive their Pactor/Packet/PSK31 hardware.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Jack Chomley]

At 01:14 PM 1/17/2008, Danny wrote:

>Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox
>sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes
>up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq
>(which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating).
>The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other
>ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that
>caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had
>a "busy signal" capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while
>other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and
>from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people,
>if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can
>do the same.
>
>Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as
>there is no "busy signal" detection.
>
>Danny Douglas
>N7DC
>ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
>SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
>All 2 years or more (except Novice)
>Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred,
>I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for
>those who do.

Well, even IF I am at the keyboard, I do not know IF someone is about 
to connect.until they do. When that happens, do I just switch the 
box off? Yep, I could do that and the station at the other end would 
scratch his head and wonder what is going on, like he connected and 
next minute he is cut off by me. If it was me trying to 
connect.then I would keep trying, just like he would. Looking for 
contacts in this hobby, is what its all about.
I mean, this kind of operation was done on HF Packet for many years, 
BBSs forwarded on frequencies and everyone simply got along, generally :-)
A busy signal scheme will only work while there is a signal present, 
the moment there is a break in the signal being heard, the busy 
detect would drop and.the station would fire up, unless the busy 
detect had a timer, which counted x time after loss of heard signal, 
before the station transmitted.
Danny, I think you are asking for a perfect solution, when given all 
the modes we now have..its a big ask.
Unfortunately, we have to accept some QRM at some time or another and 
thats it, in the real world.
I think the Pactor mode has been somewhat "tainted" by the WinLink 
wars, to a large degree.
I mean, I could set up a Packet Mailbox and start beaconing, looking 
for contacts :-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Jack Chomley]

>Jack Chomley wrote:
> >
> > The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet
> > mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you
> > did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my
> > hobby...
> >
> > 73s
> >
> > Jack VK4JRC

At 11:06 AM 1/17/2008, Roger wrote:

>We understand, Jack. But please remember the Three Laws of Robotics
>that govern the behavior of you Robots:
>
>1. A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human
>being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed.
>
>2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order
>does not conflict with the First Law.
>
>3. A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does
>not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
>
>So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First
>Law. Can't do that.
>
>Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor. Some of my best friends are
>Robots.
>
>de Roger W6VZV

I can't deliberately QRM anybody!  My SCS PTC-IIPro Mailbox can sit 
here active, for 100 years and do nothing, UNLESS someone tries to 
connect to it.
Once a connection is established, it lasts as long as the "connectee" 
wants to stay connected :-)
They choose when to disconnect, not the mailbox.
So.my "Robot" mailbox is controlled essentially by any people 
connecting to it. It does not just fire up by itself :-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............

[Jack Chomley]

The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet 
mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you 
did, back then too.
I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my hobby...

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] Pactor Callsign???

[Jack Chomley]

Hi All,

Someone has tried to call my system today, twice. Using MY callsign
The connect crashed both times with errors and timeout..

Dial Frequencies USB:

14.078, 14.079.5, 18.100, 18.105, 21.078, 21.093, 24.920, 24.925, 
28.105, 28.110


The scan rate is 3 seconds per frequency, and the tones are Mark 1600 
Space 1400


73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] Pactor Operations.....

[Jack Chomley]

Hi All,

Sorry, made a mess of the time in the last post. The system is on, 
from 1300z to 1200z.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] Pactor Operations.....

[Jack Chomley]

Hi All,

Pactor running from  2000z to 1900z on following freqs being scanned, 
Pactor I & II connects accepted.

Call is VK4JRC and mailbox is "on" while I am busy here at home.

Dial Frequencies USB:

14.078, 14.079.5, 18.100, 18.105, 21.078, 21.093, 24.920, 24.925, 
28.105, 28.110


The scan rate is 3 seconds per frequency, and the tones are Mark 1600 
Space 1400


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!

[Jack Chomley]

At 10:01 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote:

--- In 
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>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


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


73s Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:45 PM 1/14/2008, Skip wrote:

>Jack,
>
>I use my 80m base-loaded, tophat, vertical on 30m, and it works great! 80m
>and 30m are harmonically related. 3.5 x 3 = 10.150. Similar to using a 40m
>antenna on 15m.
>
>73, Skip KH6TY

Skip,

Thanks for that. Unfortunately its a Cushcraft MA-5V 20m through 10m, 
incl WARC bands :-(
I am working on a 30m solution,  can do auto antenna switching off 
the TNC scan function, so I can run a second separate antenna, to fix 
my problem.
Another job to dosometime!

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:27 PM 1/14/2008, Demetre wrote:
>
>
>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


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..

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......amendment!

[Jack Chomley]

Hi all Pactorologists!

Sorry, the first frequency should read 14.078 NOT .087

Back to yourscheduledprogramme!

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......

[Jack Chomley]

Hi all Pactorologists!

I now have my band scanning function running (I think!) for Pactor connects.
The controller talks to my Icom 718 to scan 10  frequencies in 5 
bands, the scan delay for each frequency is 3 seconds.  My tones 
are   Mark 1600   Space 1400 with USB mode on all frequencies.
Keyboard connect call is VK4JRC, mailbox is VK4JRC-8, I am hoping to 
have the configuration correct, but its untested, you may need to 
send // to access the mailbox. Or there is a possibility NOTHING may 
work at all, anyway nothing venturednothing gained :-)
Pactor 1 connects accepted

Frequencies:

14.087
14.079.5
18.100
18.105
21.078
21.093
24.920
24.925
28.105
28.110

This fits with Region 3 Band Plan, please let me know IF it fouls up 
other Region Band Plans, or MAY step on other people's toes who are 
already running established NETs etc, on any of my chosen frequencies.
Times of operation at this stage are 1900z to 1200z daily (under 
manual control)

73s

Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] Its all getting out of hand.........

[Jack Chomley]

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!

73s

Jack VK4JRC  (I am off to play Pactor & Packet!)

Re: [digitalradio] Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)

[Jack Chomley]

Rick,
Well, its just another mode, to add to the 
pile!  You get RPR with the SCS DSP 
Tracker,  APRS is also using it and the DSP 
Tracker will send BOTH mode APRS frames out, that 
is a standard 300 baud HF Packet data frame, THEN 
the next one out is an RPR frame, alternating. 
This is so any RPR OR standard 300 baud stations 
or IGATEs will pick up the signals.
At least in this case, SCS thought of the 300 
baud HF Packet users on APRS, when they developed this TNC.
The other SCS PTC models also have the RPR mode too.
I think the mode is a good one, given it is a 
hardware based one, that can be used in a reasonable cost piece of hardware.
https://www.scs-ptc.com/controller.html

73s

Jack VK4JRC




At 06:02 AM 1/12/2008, Rick wrote:

>Andy,
>
>What I don't understand is if you already have a suite of modes, Pactor,
>Pactor 2, and Pactor 3, then why create another mode like they did?
>
>This is not compatible with existing packet, right? So you would have to
>have SCS products on both ends? Then why not use Pactor modes,
>especially the Pactor 2 mode which is of a similar bandwidth and throughput?
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> > I found the item (below) on the SCS web site. Anyone use this "new
> > class" of packet ?
> >
> >
> > Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)
> >
> > Up to now Packet-Radio over shortwave has been basically a
> > non-starter, it has even been heavily criticized because of the low
> > effective throughput and repeats. AX.25 is for shortwave not an ideal
> > protocol, but with automatic FRack-setting and a small MAXFrame value
> > the protocol should, however, function much better on a shortwave
> > channel than has previously been the case generally.
> >
> > One cannot of course expect an asynchrone protocol to reach the same
> > efficiency as a tight synchrone ARQ protocol (e.g. PACTOR), but for
> > some applications a multi-user service, with very uncritical
> > transmit/receive switching, as well as almost zero power holding up a
> > connection when no data passing, brings a real advantage that
> > outweighs the lower data throughput.
> >
> > What finally are the reasons that up to now HF-PR works so poorly, and
> > apart from "forwarding" is hardly ever used? One finds a simple
> > answer: The current modulation type for HF-PR namely uncoded 300 Bd
> > FSK is really unsuitable for normal HF channels. The symbols are much
> > too short even with moderate "Multi-Path effect" ("delay spread") to
> > work. Additionally, because no sort of error correction code is used,
> > even short troughs or "static" will destroy a many seconds long
> > Packet. Just one missing bit leads to a repeat of the whole packet.
> >
> > To help cure this problem, SCS has developed a new class of robust
> > modulations types especially for Packet-Radio. As a special feature
> > for all the variants of this "Robust PR", a completely new
> > synchronizations algorithm with "catch" properties that were not
> > possible before has been realized. Frequency deviations of ±250 Hz are
> > immediately recognized and without any loss of sensitivity
> > compensated, and this with signals that are buried deep in the noise.
> > Because of this it's possible to remove a tuning display. One can say
> > with good conscience that this is "Plug and Play" for shortwave.
> >
> > The currently available "Robust PR" modulation types have the
> > following properties:
> > Bandwidth:500 Hz @ -30 dB
> > Modulation:Pulse-Shaped OFDM (BPSK, QPSK), similar to PACTOR-III
> > Average Throughput:200 or 600 Bit/sec
> > Crestfaktor:3.0 or 4.2 dB
> > Delay-Spread:up to ±8 msec is tolerated
> > Coding:High performance convolutional code, "full-frame interleaved",
> > rate/2 or rate3/4
> >
> >

Re: [digitalradio] Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)

[Jack Chomley]

At 09:27 PM 1/11/2008, Andy  wrote:

>I found the item (below) on the SCS web site. Anyone use this "new
>class" of packet ?
>
>Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)
>
>Up to now Packet-Radio over shortwave has been basically a
>non-starter, it has even been heavily criticized because of the low
>effective throughput and repeats. AX.25 is for shortwave not an ideal
>protocol, but with automatic FRack-setting and a small MAXFrame value
>the protocol should, however, function much better on a shortwave
>channel than has previously been the case generally.
>
>One cannot of course expect an asynchrone protocol to reach the same
>efficiency as a tight synchrone ARQ protocol (e.g. PACTOR), but for
>some applications a multi-user service, with very uncritical
>transmit/receive switching, as well as almost zero power holding up a
>connection when no data passing, brings a real advantage that
>outweighs the lower data throughput.
>
>What finally are the reasons that up to now HF-PR works so poorly, and
>apart from "forwarding" is hardly ever used? One finds a simple
>answer: The current modulation type for HF-PR namely uncoded 300 Bd
>FSK is really unsuitable for normal HF channels. The symbols are much
>too short even with moderate "Multi-Path effect" ("delay spread") to
>work. Additionally, because no sort of error correction code is used,
>even short troughs or "static" will destroy a many seconds long
>Packet. Just one missing bit leads to a repeat of the whole packet.
>
>To help cure this problem, SCS has developed a new class of robust
>modulations types especially for Packet-Radio. As a special feature
>for all the variants of this "Robust PR", a completely new
>synchronizations algorithm with "catch" properties that were not
>possible before has been realized. Frequency deviations of ±250 Hz are
>immediately recognized and without any loss of sensitivity
>compensated, and this with signals that are buried deep in the noise.
>Because of this it's possible to remove a tuning display. One can say
>with good conscience that this is "Plug and Play" for shortwave.
>
>The currently available "Robust PR" modulation types have the
>following properties:
>Bandwidth:500 Hz @ -30 dB
>Modulation:Pulse-Shaped OFDM (BPSK, QPSK), similar to PACTOR-III
>Average Throughput:200 or 600 Bit/sec
>Crestfaktor:3.0 or 4.2 dB
>Delay-Spread:up to ±8 msec is tolerated
>Coding:High performance convolutional code, "full-frame interleaved",
>rate/2 or rate3/4
>
>Digipeater and APRS Gateway
>
>DB0UAL
>DialModePath
>3610.0 USBRPRAPRS DB0UAL
>14102.0 USBRPRAPRS DB0UAL
>APRS Gateway
>
>XY0XYZ
>DialModePath
>10147.3 USBRPR FSK300APXY RELAY WIDE
>14103.3 LSBRPR FSK300APXY RELAY WIDE
>
>DH1TI
>DialModePath
>10147.3 USBRPRAPRS
>
>OE3XMU-4
>DialModePath
>10147.3 USBRPR FSK300APRS
>
>OE3KJN
>DialModePath
>10147.3 USBRPRAPRS
>
>ZS1AAZ
>DialModePath
>10147.3 USBRPRAPRS
>
>Note:
>
>To use the following features you need the 
>current Firmware for the SCS DSP-TNC:
>
>Legende:
>
>Recommendation: For transmitting position data with the Tracker/DSP
>TNC, we suggest always to use the frequencies as shown in the list
>with the respective sideband. The position data can then be
>transmitted either only in RPR, or in RPR and FSK alternately (%AH =
>1). In both operating conditions all physical channels are then
>automatically set in the correct way.
>
>(In case of an alternating transmission, i.e. %AH = 1, the Tracker
>automatically uses %F = 2000 Hz, in order to set the correct interval
>of 500 Hz between RPR and FSK channels without any user intervention.)
>
>With gateways offering RPR and FSK 300 on one channel simultaneously,
>it is assumed that the center audio frequency of the FSK demodulator
>(%F-parameter) is 500 Hz higher than the center audio frequency of the
>RPR demodulator. The space between the center frequencies of a
>simultaneous FSK/RPR channel pair is always 500 Hz.
>
>Basically, gateways receiving RPR and FSK300 simultaneously can also
>be reached in FSK300 with the %F standard setting of the Tracker
>(center frequency of 1700 Hz) in LSB mode.
>
>In this case, if LSB is actually used, 3.7 kHz have to be added to the
>figure shown in USB dial frequency listings. In case of an LSB
>channel, 0.3 kHz have to be deducted from the listed frequency.
>Gateways shown in the list as 10147.3 kHz USB can hence be reached in
>LSB mode with the standard setting of the Tracker (%F = 1700 Hz, %AH =
>0) on the standard dial frequency of 10151.0 kHz. Gateways listed as
>14103.3 kHz LSB, can be reached in LSB with the default setting of the
>Tracker (%F = 1700, %AH = 0) on the standard dial frequency of 14103.0
>kHz.
>
>In case of alternating RPR and FSK transmissions (%AH = 1), the
>frequencies shown in the list and the respective side bands have to be
>programmed. For example, the dial frequencies of 10151.0 kHz LSB or
>14103.0 kHz USB MUST NOT be set, as neither the RPR, nor the FSK
>channel would be reached correctly.
>
>--
>Andy K3UK
>www.obriensweb.com
>(QSL via N

Re: [digitalradio] Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network

[Jack Chomley]

At 07:35 PM 1/9/2008, you wrote:





Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network



The State of Oregon's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) received 
$250,000 from Governor Ted Kulongoski's Strategic Reserve Fund to 
further develop and enhance a statewide Amateur Radio digital 
communications network, announced ARRL Oregon Section Manager Bonnie 
Altus, AB7ZQ.




"This network, the Oregon ARES Digital Network 
(OADN), 
http://ares.csepp.net/d3web/OADN.pdf already uses a combination of 
different radio equipment and spectrum segments, computers and the 
Internet to provide a robust backup communications system in times 
of disaster. With its enhancements, all Oregon counties will be able 
to communicate with the state OEM," she said. "In December, this 
system proved its usefulness in the storms and floods by utilizing 
Winlink http://www.winlink.org/ stations in 
Lincoln and Clatsop Counties to communicate with OEM. Early in that 
activation, the OEM's Amateur Radio Unit found they were not able to 
keep up with maintaining a complete log of communications when using 
voice communications, but Winlink activities maintained an automatic 
log for them."




According to Altus, the primary purpose of the OADN is to provide 
back-up digital communications capabilities between county Emergency 
Operations Centers and Oregon Emergency Management and other state 
agencies in Salem, in the event that normal communications systems 
fail in an emergency.




During the December storms, Amateur Radio operators were there to 
help. After a visit to one of the severely affected towns, Governor 
Kulongoski said, "I'm going to tell you who the heroes were from the 
very beginning of this...the ham radio operators. These people just 
came in and actually provided a tremendous communication link to 
us." Oregon's OEM said the radio operators were "tireless in their 
efforts to keep the systems connected. When even state police had 
difficulty reaching some of their own troops, ham radio worked, 
setting up networks so emergency officials could communicate and 
relaying lists of supplies needed in stricken areas."




Through an Intergovernmental Agreement between the individual county 
Emergency Mangers and Oregon's Office of Emergency Management, 
ARES/RACES groups in each county will be responsible for 
installation, maintenance and operation the network.



Mlooks like enough money to "buy" some dedicated 
commercial frequencies, to move WinLink off the Ham bands :-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions. now PSKmail!

[Jack Chomley]

Quite simply, I just see better range and performance using low power 
radios, on narrower bands.
DominoEx would be fine :-)
With all this mode advancement looking for MORE speed? Why?  I get 
the impression some people would like to stream Hi Res Video over HF :-)
I have to say I really appreciate the effort that software developers 
put into their work, just so other Hams can enjoy their hobby more, 
many of the programs for no cost, or small cost.
I don't want to think what you would need to pay, in the commercial 
world for some of these programs.


73s

Jack VK4JRC


At 09:02 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:
>Jack,
>
>yes, pskmail will work with PSK31 as well, in fact it will work with 
>any mode that transports
>the complete set of ASCII characters (I am working on incorporating 
>RTTY as well).
>
>But you will find PSK63 almost as good as PSK31, and a bit less 
>sensitive to frequency stability.
>
>I am sure any of the server ops will open a PSK63 channel for you if 
>you need it. We can also
>run modes like DominoEx if you need it.
>
>I know what you mean with the PSION, I used a PSION 3a, and I wrote 
>a CW contest keyer and a
>contest log program for it. (Does not work for the 5MX).
>
>73,
>
>Rein Pa0R

[digitalradio] For the HF Packet Baggers out there :-)

[Jack Chomley]

The statistics say it all :-)  HF Packet on APRS works fine. Have a 
look at today's logs. The radio only puts out 8 watts. I had good 
results with this setup all through 2007, so its no fluke.

It was standard 300 baud HF Packet, Robust Packet was not used.

http://www.radiotelemetry.net/html/radio_stuff_.html

http://www.db0anf.de/app/aprs/stations/mobile-VK4JRC-15

http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=vk4jrc-15&terra=4

http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=VK4JRC-15

Goes to prove you don't need lotsa wotz on HF Packet, to get out :-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC








At 08:48 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:


Rein, I did finally get your Puppy ISO to work on my laptop, it was
your latest Ham Puppy version I downloaded today , Fldigi fired up
ok, with the Tigertronics SL USB interface.
Question...Can PSKmail use PSK31 mode? My reason is that I only have
a 10 watt ICOM 703 radio, for my portable ops. So..signals are
not strong, and I have no need for higher data rates of PSK250.
The reason for all this is that I am going on a motorcycle trip in
South Africa, where there are not many stations, so I will probably
be communicating to others outside the country, IF there are any
PSKmail operators I can hear :-)
My reasoning for trying to get around PSKmail was to try and avoid
carrying a laptop. With the old type TNCs, you can use an AA battery
powered RS232 terminal to drive them. I have one of these, works
great on Packet TNCs. Also on Amtor, Pactor and PSK31 with SCS PTC-IIEx TNC

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Psion_Workabout_Mx__5378172

Also the Psion 3MX too

http://www.bioeddie.co.uk/models/psion-series-3mx.htm

With these units, I just use the on board Comms Program.
IF I use my Palm IIIx, I have the "On Line" comms program (now
discontinued) from Mark Space in the U.S.
It has macros and a few other features too.
NONE of the above can use soundcard software. The good thing about
them all is that they run on AA or AAA batteries :-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC

At 08:06 PM 1/7/2008, Rein wrote:
>Wrong again...
>
>* Every pskmail server has a local mailbox, so you can operate it
>without the internet connection.
>E,g, in some countries it is still forbidden to connect a radio to
>the internet, those are the countries
>which allow SSB on 30 mtrs by the way. For them the local mbox is
>the only solution.
>Just send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>* Pskmail also includes file transfer client-to-client
>
>73,
>
>Rein PA0R
>
> > narrow band modes. The requirement to communicate with a server
> to pass mail is
> > not quite what I am looking for.
> > No, just a standalone mailbox that someone can connect to, and leave
> > a msg or, connect to and pickup a msg. Yes, PSKmail is close, but
> > needs the server connection.
> >
> > 73s
> >
> > Jack VK4JRC


<> 

Re: [digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions. now PSKmail!

[Jack Chomley]

Rein, I did finally get your Puppy ISO to work on my laptop, it was 
your latest Ham Puppy version I downloaded today , Fldigi fired up 
ok, with the Tigertronics SL USB interface.
Question...Can PSKmail use PSK31 mode? My reason is that I only have 
a 10 watt ICOM 703 radio, for my portable ops. So..signals are 
not strong, and I have no need for higher data rates of PSK250.
The reason for all this is that I am going on a motorcycle trip in 
South Africa, where there are not many stations, so I will probably 
be communicating to others outside the country, IF there are any 
PSKmail operators I can hear :-)
My reasoning for trying to get around PSKmail was to try and avoid 
carrying a laptop. With the old type TNCs, you can use an AA battery 
powered RS232 terminal to drive them. I have one of these, works 
great on Packet TNCs. Also on Amtor, Pactor and PSK31 with SCS PTC-IIEx TNC

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Psion_Workabout_Mx__5378172

Also the Psion 3MX too

http://www.bioeddie.co.uk/models/psion-series-3mx.htm

With these units, I just use the on board Comms Program.
IF I use my Palm IIIx, I have the "On Line" comms program (now 
discontinued)  from Mark Space in the U.S.
It has macros and a few other features too.
NONE of the above can use soundcard software. The good thing about 
them all is that they run on AA or AAA batteries :-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC







At 08:06 PM 1/7/2008, Rein wrote:
>Wrong again...
>
>* Every pskmail server has a local mailbox, so you can operate it 
>without the internet connection.
>E,g, in some countries it is still forbidden to connect a radio to 
>the internet, those are the countries
>which allow SSB on 30 mtrs by the way. For them the local mbox is 
>the only solution.
>Just send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>* Pskmail also includes file transfer client-to-client
>
>73,
>
>Rein PA0R
>
> > narrow band modes. The requirement to communicate with a server 
> to pass mail is
> > not quite what I am looking for.
> > No, just a standalone mailbox that someone can connect to, and leave
> > a msg or, connect to and pickup a msg. Yes, PSKmail is close, but
> > needs the server connection.
> >
> > 73s
> >
> > Jack VK4JRC

[digitalradio] My Dream Hardware....wanted :-)

[Jack Chomley]

This is what I would like
Portable, compact mobile/portable operations capable TNC with APRS, 
HF or VHF Packet, Robust HF 200/600 baud Packet.
OK we already have it, its the SCS DSP 
Tracker  http://www.scs-ptc.com/controller.html

The big features of this are:

This DSP modem can simultaneously decode multiple signals in a
bandwith of up to plus/minus 400Hz around an adjustable center
frequency, e.g. all signals with a 800Hz bandpass will be decoded.
When connected in AX25 to two stations at same time, the tnc will
even adjust its own transmitted qrgs according to the two partners
and their individual offset automatically.
As posted elsewhere by Mike, OE3MZC
Add the Robust Packet mode and it becomes a serious performer.

Now the "dream" bit :-)
Since it has a USB only interface (apart from the GPS port) and NO 
Mailbox on board, its applications have been a bit limited.
What I see as a good add on is, an external interface box which has a 
USB port to connect to the TNC, an RS232 Port to connect either a PC 
running an older style comms program, or even connect a dumb terminal
to it. The "box" to have an onboard mailbox, maildrop, PBBS what ever 
you want to call it, along the lines of the old PK232/KAM/Paccom 
units. The "dream" box could be a keyboard to keyboard Robust Packet 
communicator, or a Robust Packet mailbox.
Given the DSP tuning capability of this unit and being able to 
resolve off frequency signals means its ideally suited to this kind 
of operation. The performance would be superior to the vagaries of 
300 baud HF Packet and the unit would offer portability and low 
current consumption.
Who.would like to make the "dream" interface box, with features 
above;-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] A weekend of NBEMS: Some questions.

[Jack Chomley]

At 11:53 AM 1/7/2008, Skip  wrote:

>Please don't hang out looking for email! If you are a served agency that
>assigns someone to monitor the band for traffic, or meet a sked, when normal
>communications are available, NBEMS is useful, but why clutter up the
>airwaves with email or messaging? The ham bands are primarily for amateur
>radio hobbiests to talk to other amateur radio hobbiests, not as a slow
>replacement for the Internet or text messaging.

I would like to see a mailbox system, like the Packet TNCs of old, 
but with modern
narrow band modes. The requirement to communicate with a server to pass mail is
not quite what I am looking for.
No, just a standalone mailbox that someone can connect to, and leave 
a msg or, connect to and pickup a msg. Yes, PSKmail is close, but 
needs the server connection.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:33 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:



>Hi Dave CW id is not universally understood..i for one have 
>a hearing problem and CW is very difficult for me to hear let alone 
>decode...also what about those who are deaf...we do have a number of 
>them around the world... most are now using digital modesi have 
>worked a deaf op on PSK31 and i wouldnt have known he was deaf until 
>he told me...
>today there are also many new hams who havent had to learn CW as it 
>is no longer a requirement for a HF licence in most countries...
>
>73 David VK4BDJ

You are right David. Sorry, I forgot your aspect.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 08:18 AM 1/7/2008, you wrote:

IDing in CW has the benefits that its universally understood, 
requires no decoding software, and is trivial to implement.


73,

Dave, AA6YQ



OK, ask ALL software developers to bury that function in their 
program.so it can't be switched OFF and IDs at fixed agreed 
intervals. ID fixed at program reg time (cannot be edited) ALL 
programs registered, or they don't work. Developers to keep databases 
of registration.

Won't fix a thingpeople would simply keep using old versions of software.
No, it all comes with a mode awareness campaign and some dedicated 
software, to work as a decoder.

So...how MANY modes are there?

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M

[Jack Chomley]

At 04:57 AM 1/7/2008, Rick wrote:

>I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than
>exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem.
>
>Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400
>around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our
>frequency.
>
>It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just
>plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The
>Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that
>station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time
>before that happened.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U

I bet that guy did not have a clue, he has a hardware box that can 
only use Amtor/Pactor. probably PSK31 and a couple of other 
modes.most of which he can't, or has never used. He has probably 
never been on any Internet forums or newsgroups, so he has not a clue 
what is going on in the digital world of Ham Radio, nor does he probably care.
I would cite a lack of knowledge of modes and bandwidths etc on his 
part, maybe he thinks the various digital modes all have retrys and 
error correction..so it will just sort itself out and all modes 
will simply "share" frequencies!
Yesterday, I was on 20m and I heard a stack of signals which were not 
Pactor (I had a Pactor sked setup) I switched to PSK31 on my hardware 
boxno go. I fired up HRD on my SLUSB, still no go :-(  I was not 
sure what signals they were, to be able to try and resolve them, 
being just interested in what they were. Being a little tone deaf and 
not having an intimate knowledge of all the modes and what they sound 
like, did not help me.
Were they MT63? PSK250? I don't know If you run Digipan, 
you have no hope!
With the increasing number of new modes being developed, the problem 
will get worse :-( Add the coming of improved propagation and this 
will become a spectrum quagmire in which no one will be able to 
operate easily.
We have all helped create the mess we have. A gazillion software 
programs, all doing their "own thing" some with many modes and 
expanding more modes, nearly daily, others that don't have so many modes.
No software that I know of has a decoder function, with an "identify 
signal" menu.  Unless the software guys can come up with something 
like that as an integrated or standalone solution, the schemozzle 
will get worse.
IF people can identify a signal, with callsigns, they will be less 
inclined to interfere with it, if a operator can't resolve a 
signal.they probably care a lot less about any interference to it.
Sadly, only soundcard software solutions can be given this signal 
decoder ability, hardware boxes are a different deal. You need 
operator digital modes knowledge too, many people do not know what 
all the modes sound like, I know I don't, even though I have a 
recording of mode sounds that someone on the group was good enough to post!
Now, this is not bagging all the good people, who do software 
development for the benefit of Hams, for little or no cost BUT.. 
Someone bright enough to do it...is going to have to write that 
"signal decoder" program very soon.otherwise this whole 
problem will get worse.  Fixing the WinLink problem is another deal altogether.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?

[Jack Chomley]

At 07:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote:



Right here -

As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be
for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet
appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It
is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit
"test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to
the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes."

Should that not read  " appear to be illegal operations if they are being run
unattended "

I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station.

John



So..you can't leave your APRS turned on, when your leave your car 
to go into a shop, or parked in your driveway?? You can't leave your 
digipeater function turned on in your TNC, in case someone uses it 
for a link, or even leave you Packet Station turned on, in case 
someone connects to its mailbox, while you are outside, mowing the lawn :-)
You can't put up a dedicated digipeater anywhere, even for test 
purposeswithout being in attendance?
WHAT rock has the ARRL been sleeping under, not to move with the 
times and petition the FCC?

OR have I got this all wrong...

73s

Jack VK4JRC (In a country where auto and unattended is allowed)

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[Jack Chomley]

At 11:45 AM 1/5/2008, Howard  wrote:


>Hey Charles!
>
>Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here.
>
>Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said
>that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit
>like everyone else.
>
>You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't
>climb on board this innocent proposal because they're constantly
>being QRMed by PACTOR lids and for that reason, the Packet
>operators want nothing to do with anything that remotely touches
>PACTOR.
>
>That isn't fair to me, and any number of other folks who like the
>PACTOR I mode and are kindling a small surge of rebirth in the
>mode's interest. I've always followed the rules as they have, I'm
>sure. Individual PACTOR I operations cannot possibly be linked
>to BOTS, Winlink or whatever. I'm sure that Jack has been a
>considerate and law-abiding Ham for all his licensed life and
>means no ill-will towards anyone, least of all disrespect.
>
>I bet you and the others don't even know Jack and doubt you
>have ever been deliberately interferred with by him. I doubt
>he'd like to be included in any association with Winlink and
>the BOTS any more than I would.
>
>That message you quoted was a friendly, enthusiastic idea that
>came about from some ideas that have been bantered about
>offline amongst myself and some others who want to use our
>TNCs and PACTOR I again, just because.
>
>Seriously, this business about Winlink and BOTS is getting
>just a bit hysterical I think, to the point of irrationality. I say
>that simply because of your reaction and you're not alone at
>all. AND...it's understandable for sure.
>
>But, jeez, Charles. Aren't you being a bit harsh to the point
>that you're taking a swipe at everyone? That's exactly what
>the Packet operators don't want for themselves.
>
>I was on last night running my PK232 through its paces and
>getting reacquainted with it. I even made a couple of contacts
>with it using PACTOR I during Sunday and it was fun! Surely,
>you're not going to call me a lid simply because of using the
>PACTOR mode, alledged to being mis-used by others
>alledged to have a totally selfish agenda are you?
>
>Just my polite $ .02 worth.
>
>Howard W6IDS
>Richmond, IN

All modes have their good and bad features, AND operators!  I am sure 
most Hams respect their resource and its use, needing to share with 
others. There will always be some who through ignorance or having a 
bad hair day, will crash someone's QSO. Just like someone driving the 
highway crashes your lane, wile jibbering on a cell phone, reading 
the paper, doing their hair, emailing on their Blackberry etc.
The responsibility for decent operating rests with the operator, themselves.
Relying on the FCC, TUV,ACMA and other regulatory organisations to 
solve problems in our hobby, does not often provide the results we 
would like. These regulators are sick of us.believe me. The money 
they get from Ham licencing? We are a liability to them.
Having said that, its really up to the like of the ARRL, RSGB, WIA 
and other organisations in the World to play more of a part in the 
hobby regulating itself and promoting good band plans that reflect 
harmonious operating in the hobby.
The Pactor 3 problem?  There are many other considerations too, ALE, 
Propnet, APRS and the list goes on growing..
Many of the these modes use a form of beacons for their 
operations.  They are all entitled to some consideration in trying to 
work within band plans, some of which maybe need changing?
The major part of these problems is the political agendas that seem 
to always screwup the potential of anything good, that can benefit 
the majority of people, when there is a decision making process going on.
Yep, thats life as a Human Being on this Earth :-)
You all may think, OK what goes here? I have been on this board all 
of 5 minutes, so people are thinking.what's my agenda?
You're right, I DO have an agenda, its carrying out 
experiments/operation on HF 300 baud Packet, HF Robust 200/600 baud 
Packet, compared to Amtor, Pactor 1 & II along with some PSK31 etc.
Now you want to know WHY?
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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Jack Chomley]

At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave 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


Its not hard to stop the SCS Modem from using 
Pactor 3. You just set MYLevel parameter to 2, 
modem will then only operate Pactor 1 or 2. Pactor 3 is locked out.
Problem is SCS have the default set for use of 
Pactor 3 comms if desired, which works for the 
first 20 connects, after that you buy the licence 
from SCS and its coded to the modem serial 
number, where I believe originally it was coded to your callsign.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?

[Jack Chomley]

At 10:56 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:

>My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does
>it have to be unmaned to be a beacon.
>For me my beacon has not be on the air without being
>here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a
>spot up on 10m.
>
>Russell NC5O
>
>=
>IN GOD WE TRUST !
>=
>Russell Blair NC5O
>Skype-Russell Blair
>Hell Field #300
>DRCC #55

Some software has an Auto CQ. As far as I am concerned, I use that 
function while I am in attendance of my station location, that is the 
room where my equipment is. I would call it a CQ beacon, as soon as I 
leave the room, whilst it is still running. But what would I know? I 
ain't a lawyer :-)

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor3

[Jack Chomley]

At 09:01 AM 1/5/2008, Sholto wrote:


Hi Simon,

I was wondering if you had thought about including Patrick's Reed Solomon
detection feature in DM780?
I realize DM780 doesn't have all the modes MultiPSK has, and DM780 has
Throb-X 4 baud which MultiPSK doesn't - but if you just had the recognition
part for the modes in common I think it would help a lot of beginners to the
digi modes understand what they are seeing/hearing.

73 Sholto
KE7HPV.

- Original Message -
From: "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:56 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor3

Can anyone point me at a page or reference to programmers / other hams not
being allowed to add Pactor 3 to their software?

This is a serious request, part of an attempt to remove Pactor 3 from our
bands on the basis of it being a 'closed system'.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV


Maybe an add on module to a program that is a decoder, for signal 
mode identification purposes only.
Remove Pactor 3?  Whilst it maybe a good idea, I see another WinLink 
skirmish coming.;-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[Jack Chomley]

At 12:44 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote:


Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from
Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally
will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.

The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a
god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97
and The Amateur's Code.

- When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that
is...

Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. -
http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm

73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-


So, you are saying ALL Pactor operators crash the Packet guys?  I 
thought the problem was with WinLink PMBO's on Pactor 3?
I don't think too many individual people would have licenced Pactor 
3, I certainly have not, and don't need to.
Since part of this idea is to announce our Pactor/Packet skeds via 
Sholto's & Andy's spot pages, it may revive things a little, is there 
anything wrong with that? Those looking for contacts, have places to 
help them coordinate skeds. Oh yes, how about trying 600 baud Robust 
Packet ;-)
Pactor may be deadbut whats wrong with trying to get it 
going? Like, Ham Radio IS a hobby? Why not all enjoy it for what it 
is, with what ever mode we want to use. :-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] 6000 Users of ALE Channel ZERO in 2007

[Jack Chomley]

At 09:43 PM 1/3/2008, you wrote:


6000 Users of ALE Channel ZERO in 2007

The ALE Channel ZERO website went on the air in August 2007, with 
reception reporting of ham radio ALE activity worldwide and a chat 
room for ALE operators.


Its sure would be good to have a page like Channel Zero...setup 
for Pactor & Packet ;-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Frequency accurracy tolerance tnc? main problem for HF-APRS shortwave ?

[Jack Chomley]

from K3UK's HF-APRS YahooGroup.

-- Forwarded message --
From: oe3mzc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 18, 2007 4:22 AM
Subject: [HF-APRS] Frequency accurracy tolerance tnc? main problem for
HF-APRS shortwave ?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

many tncs for 300baud FSk packet radio used for APRS on hf only
decode within a very narrow frequency window of abt. +-30Hz.
(KAM, MixW, AGWPE, PK232,SCS PTC-2,TNC-2 etc..)
This is very difficult to adjust and represents the main reason for
failure in decoding hf-aprs signals.

To my knowledge there is only one hardware that could cope with
frequency drift in a much better way: a DSP-TNC from SCS
see:
http://www.scs-ptc.com/datasheets/scs_datasheet_tracker_english.pdf

This DSP modem can simultaneously decode multiple signals in a
bandwith of up to plus/minus 400Hz around an adjustable center
frequency, e.g. all signals with a 800Hz bandpass will be decoded.
When connected in AX25 to two stations at same time, the tnc will
even adjust its own transmitted qrgs according to the two partners
and their individual offset automatically.

The most helpful feature however is the frequency readout.
the comand  %M  will display a Mheard list with offset
frequencies. This can be used to for tuning.
example from 30m APRS channel in Europe:
* %m
*
DIRECTLY RECEIVED HF-PR STATIONS:
WIDE3 -15 Hz, DM5LW +25 Hz, OE3MZC-9 -25 Hz, OE3XMU -25 Hz
DF5WXF-2 +25 Hz, F4CKT +25 Hz, F6KPH-4 +18 Hz, DF4FO -25 Hz
DF4FO-3 -25 Hz, SR3NWY -25 Hz, DB0CHV +0 Hz, SL5ZL -25 Hz
F5ZQC-4 +25 Hz, WIDE5 -25 Hz, G0JXN-10 -3 Hz, RA3IM -6 Hz
F5LEB +0 Hz, TRACE3 +0 Hz, F6KCF-10 +0 Hz, TRACE2 +0 Hz
EA6XQ -6 Hz, EA6XQ-5 +25 Hz, RELAY -6 Hz, UA1WCF -28 Hz
HB9CGH-4 +0 Hz, UA1WCF-2 -25 Hz, WIDE7 +25 Hz, F5KCN-3 +25 Hz
WIDE2 +0 Hz, G7EOB-7 +0 Hz, G0IQK-10 -25 Hz, MB7UJ +0 Hz *
AA1XD -25 Hz, W1JMC -50 Hz *OZ4DX -43 Hz, W1ON -6 Hz,
EA6AFM +0 Hz, OK2PEN -28 Hz, EC2A-1 +25 Hz, EB2EMZ-8 +25 Hz,

73 de Mike, OE3MZC



I use this very same TNC to transmit my 30 metre HF APRS signals via 
an Icom 703, from my motorcycle mobile.
Have found no trouble for Igates to receive my signals and most of 
them are using older TNCs. The real good part of this TNC is it can 
transmit in SCS Robust Packet mode, which is better than ordinary 300 
baud HF Packet. The other things with this TNC are, it only has a USB 
interface, which limits connectivity for many Packet programs. There 
is NO on board mailbox either, like TNCs of old.
I have been looking for software that has inbuilt Mail box facilities 
that works with the USB of this TNC.
As Mike points out in his post, the freq tracking of this TNC is 
awesome and its a good product, just needs a few design changes to 
make it more appealing  ;-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Jack Chomley]

At 01:49 PM 1/2/2008, you wrote:

>John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> >
> > At 08:34 PM 1/1/2008, you wrote:
> > > John, you might ask yourself if your above comment is worthy of
> > > your personal level of maturity.
> >
> > Roger please, I'm not the one that can't fine a pactor QSO.
> >
>Yes, John, a terrible moral failing, I know... 8-)
>
>_

Maybe its time to make a list of all those who 
are QRV on Pactor and what freqs etc they are on. 
Time to give Pactor, mouth to mouth resuscitation 
:-) While we are at it, try some HF Packet too!

73s

Jack VK4JRC

RE: [digitalradio] Dead HF Packet Group??

[Jack Chomley]

At 12:20 PM 1/2/2008, you wrote:


 AX.25 Packet is (IMHO) useless as an HF mode..

ICK!!
--
Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons
WA6UBE / AAR9JA
http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube



Mmmm, its a good mode :-) HF Packet is my only link to a BBS, over 
1300 kilometres away, I can log on fine, each day on 40 metres, 
so.HF Packet works fine!
I might add, have you tried the newer Robust Packet mode at 200 baud, 
which under reasonable conditions can run to 600 baud?  Whilst I like 
sound card modes too, there is nothing like a self contained TNC that 
does not need a fancy PC and software to drive it 8-)


73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[Jack Chomley]

At 05:28 PM 31/12/2007,Roger wrote:



>I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of
>years, roughly 1989-2003 or so. Pactor was quite popular until the
>early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez. This ushered
>in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a
>TNC unnecessary to work these new modes. This was a good thing because
>prior to this only a limited number of hams bothered with the digital
>modes (indeed most hams did not know what Amtor and Pactor were) due to
>the cost of the TNC, which was several hundred dollars. When this
>happened I owned the top-of-the-line TNC at that time, the SCS PTC-II.
>Before that I had owned a PK232 (a good unit for what it was), and for a
>brief time, the Kantronics Kam Plus (not a good unit). Within a year
>after the debut of PSK31, Pactor K-to-K activity dropped to almost nil.
>Oh, for a while you could scare up a contact now and then, but it was
>hard going. At some point I threw in the towel, my PTC-II went into the
>junk drawer, and not long ago I sold it to a boater. Since the early
>2000s period, I don't think I have heard a Pactor FEC signal one single
>time, which indicates that no one is calling CQ for Pactor contacts any
>more, and thus whatever Pactor you hear is mailbox robot activity, or,
>less likely, people calling each other on schedule.
>
>I have gotten a couple of private emails this weekend, including one
>from a European ham, which emails confirm that Pactor is now dead other
>than for mailbox use both in North America and in Europe.
>
>Your PK232 is quite obsolete because it cannot even do Pactor II, and
>cannot be modified to do so. If you do what most people did, you will
>pitch it. Other than Pactor 1, your computer sound card or higher-end
>units such as the Navigator or the Signal-Link units will do far more
>than any TNC will do if you are simply interested in ordinary amateur
>radio contacts, i.e. QSOs.
>
>de Roger W6VZV

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

Re: [digitalradio] Shameless promotion of FAE 400

[Jack Chomley]

At 12:35 AM 1/01/2008, Rick wrote:

>Hi Jack,
>
>In the later part of the message I mentioned that with the last station,
>we tried another mode and I suggested DEX 4 (Domino EX 4 baud) which we
>went to as a comparison. It is quite slow compared to the speed of FAE
>400 but it performed moderately well but with some hits on my end. The
>other station was copying me 100%.


Sorry Rick, my bad! I have tried DominoEx 11 baud with ZL1BPU between 
NZ & VK and it worked very well, amongst the noise on 80m. Whilst I 
was using a Tigertronics SignaLink USB, I sometimes wonder just how 
much the soundcard modes performance can vary, dependent on the brand 
of the soundcard,  itself.
Must admit, I have never used a PC's internal card, on soundcard modes.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

Re: [digitalradio] Shameless promotion of FAE 400

[Jack Chomley]

At 12:18 PM 31/12/2007,Rick wrote:

>I had an FAE 400 QSO (barely) with a station on 20 meters earlier today.
>We did eventually lose the link, but there were times that we got some
>reasonable throughput. I increased power to about 50 watts and was able
>to get through to his end fairly well for much of the time (about 40
>wpm). I was just barely able to copy him on the waterfall and just
>barely hear him in the noise. If this had been another sound card
>digital mode, I am not sure how well we would have been able to get
>accurate communications. As you can guess the biggest plus for FAE 400
>is the ability to wait out severe QSB, one of the banes of low power
>operation. Oh I did not mention that the other station was running QRP
>at 5 watts.
>Snip>


Rick, have you ever used Domino Ex?  Just wondering how FAE 400 
compares with it?

73s

Jack VK4JRC

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

[Jack Chomley]

At 09:13 PM 29/12/2007, Rodger wrote:

>Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word "many."
>In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European
>digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That
>was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2
>Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and
>SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons
>I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license
>Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some
>success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2.
>(The HAL attempts to implement "P-Mode" were a failure, it appeared to
>me.) This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where
>KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at
>least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is
>these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that
>Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this
>reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in
>Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre?
>
>It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators)
>to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more
>or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since
>probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC
>vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by
>interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from
>Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor
>buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes.
>
>There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the
>need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of
>this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment
>of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art.
>
>Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the
>mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get
>access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the
>horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access
>via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi
>Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will
>likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor.
>
>de Roger W6VZV

I am trying to set up my HF Packet PBBS system to operate 
mobile/portable on a motorcycle. I figure that IF I operate in the 
right band allocation, I should be sharing with like mode stations, 
which means there should be no major problems.  Yes, its an automated 
system that has been around for years...so, what is the problem 
now? Have the bands been swamped with Packet stations operating 
outside the suggested freq ranges? I meanI guess I should not 
worry too much, as the FCC can't make rules for me...:-)

73

Jack VK4JRC