Re: [digitalradio] Re: About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused

[John Becker]

At 10:31 AM 9/7/2010, you wrote:
>There  was a  set of e-prom  up  grades  

was added

>.. my pk232 is one issue  short of the  final  build .. pactor-2 , may be 
>packtor-3 was in the  final  prom ,

Nobody but SCS has P3.


> I know I had to  add  a  daughter board  to  mod it to the pk232-mbx ..

Same here. Was sent back to AEA for it.

Re: [digitalradio] About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused

[John Becker]

Sorry for the confusion.

I had 2 TNC's up for sale. ONE of each.

I mention the wrong one here..

Again sorry.

John, W0JAB



At 02:04 PM 9/5/2010, you wrote:
>John Becker wrote:
>> Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late.
>> I already gave it away to a good home.
>> 
>> But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block.
>> No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck.
>> (see QRZ dot com profile photo)
>> 
>> John, W0JAB
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay 
>>> shipping.
>>> Dan WD5CND
>> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???

[John Becker]

Sorry Dave it's gone.


At 08:43 AM 9/5/2010, you wrote:
>> But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block.
>
>Hmm. How much?
>
>You may email direct if you don't want to discuss price here.
>
>73 de Dave, NF2G

[digitalradio] 2nd SCS TNC is gone.

[John Becker]

I found a home for it.

Tnx all.

Re: [digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???

[John Becker]

Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late.
I already gave it away to a good home.

But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block.
No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck.
(see QRZ dot com profile photo)

John, W0JAB




At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote:


>If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay shipping.
>Dan WD5CND

[digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???

[John Becker]

I have been listening to the HF bands for packet
over the last few days not hearing any.

Is it still in us?

I have 2 PK-232's not in use for sometime now and
will try to sell, give away or donate to the trash system.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!

[John Becker]

Skip
You bring up very good points.

I for one would really would like to see a world wide band plan
of CW - PHONE as well as DIGITAL all in the same part of the band.

I just have got feed up with trying to have a digital QSO on 40
while on the same freq some VE is calling CQ on phone.

At some point someone has got to give.

Still thinking about sellingEVERYTHING cheap.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John Becker]

Sorry Howard
But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor 
that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way. 

I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could
"blast" back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also.

Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pactor station at?

John

At 11:26 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote:

>Thank you, John, Sir.
>
>Howard W6IDS
>Richmond, IN EM79NV

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John Becker]

Me just thinking out loud..

Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 
on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart?

I think not.

I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem.
(by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place)
and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every,
and I think that really needs to be said again and again
that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system.

I have been QRMed many times because the other person
was thinking "oh it's just another robot. Well guess what?

But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now
on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself
before you QRM that pactor  "is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO."

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John B. Stephensen]

The ARRL response was that the final proposal retained the existing automatic 
subands. 

73,

John
KD6OZH
  - Original Message - 
  >>>When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without
  first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far
  out of proportion to their fraction of ham community.

  Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that
  it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no "phone
  band."

  >>>True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those
  who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency
  detectors are what make "regulation by bandwith" unacceptable.

  BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the
  proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction.
  it will return as we move toward a digital future.

  >>>The ARRL withdrew its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal because it had
  no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would
  greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without
  providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing
  QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM
  existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), "regulation by bandwidth"
  will become possible.

  73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice update #2 - programmers wanted - codec2 and the G3PLX modem

[John Becker]

Speaking of digital voice I had a nice but short QSO today
while driving home from a event I had been to.

I was really shocked because out of the clear blue I had been
listening to VHF when the HF radio started talking. So I just had 
to answer his DV CQ.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] speaking of digital voice

[John Becker]

At 04:34 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote:


>Can you check and repost that link?
> 
>ve3bdr




Seems to be a problem with the site for some reason
here it is..

1393d54.jpg  <>

[digitalradio] speaking of digital voice

[John Becker]

Sunday's around 11:00 Sundays is a real good time
to find some of us on 14,236 DV.

If your lucky - you may even get me mobile as I'll 
be on the move this Sunday.

see -  

http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm

for a photo of my mobile set up.

John W0JAB
in hot Missouri  - where it STILL takes only 1.5 
hours to bake a potato in a closed car..

dit dit

[digitalradio] off lineI'll be off line for a while.

[John]

I'll be off line for a while.
Seems that hughes net cant get my problem of 
getting " Authentication Failed" every time I 
try to get on-line fixed.

So I told them to come and get their dish and modem.
I refuse to go to the yahoo site every time I post.

Trying to get dial up started.

Till then 

Questions or comments IM me on the yahoo system
ID W0JAB of course. 


John

Re: [digitalradio] Re:Streetlight RFI found with AM portable

[John Gleichweit]

A trick that you might try is that when you find an offending pole, give 
it a good whack with a sledgehammer to see if the noise changes. We 
tracked down a couple of poles that were throwing some serious RFI out, 
and that's how the power company guy verified where the problem was. 
Seems that the pole was put in in the 40's, and the rest of the hardware 
was about the same age.

On 8/21/2010 1:09 PM, Tony wrote:
>
>
> Paul,
>
> That's a nice rig to have. I understand it's capable of AM mode as well
> - add a small hand held 2 meter Yagi and you'll have one FB direction
> finding RFI detector.
>
> Tony -K2MO
>
>
>> I live near the Atlantic Ocean in "Slower Lower" Delaware. Our problem
>> here is that during dry weather, we get salt spray on the power lines
>> and transformers, leading to all sorts of noise. A good rain helps.
>>
>> I have a small Yaesu VR-500 wide band receiver. It works very well for
>> tracking down RFI/EMI around the house as well. Good way to find
>> offending "wall warts," and the like
>>
>> /paul W3FIs

[digitalradio] off line for a while

[John]

I'll be off line for a while - having a big problem
getting my email program to work with Hughes net.

And I almost have to fix it myself since I CAN"T 
understand what the tech support guy in New Delhi India
is telling my. No speak that broken whatever it is.

John, W0JAB

[digitalradio] WSPR

[John Bradley]

The current version of WSPR seems to randomly fail , and I get the usual
“this program has encountered an error and must close”

 

Any suggestions as to how I can get it to run for more than ½ hour?

 

John

VE5MU

Re: [digitalradio] SCS PTC-II and regular digital modes

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I have one and would not think about parting with it.
It does a really good job on all modes. If you get it with 
the Pactor 3 you will not be disappointed. There is also 
a very good size of users hanging out on a 20M freq
while not in use. 

The thing seems to still be able to copy a signal 2db
under ESP.

I can not speak for the sound card modes that it has 
since my shack computer has now sound card but
it's my understanding it does fair there.

John, W0JAB






At 04:31 PM 8/6/2010, you wrote:
>I have been wondering about getting an SCS multimode controller, the PTC-II 
>USB. Primarily I am interested in getting the best performance for HF APRS 
>which is what my radio does most of the time while I am otherwise engaged.
>
>I have no interest in Winlink but am interested in trying Pactor-II which 
>people have said can hold QSOs even under very difficult conditions. Is there 
>much activity on the mode?
>
>I don't want to deny myself the opportunity to use PSK31 or RTTY but the SCS 
>would plug into the rear audio connections of my transceiver and I don't want 
>to have to grope around the back changing plugs just to use soundcard modes. I 
>understand these controllers can do PSK and RTTY as well but I don't see how 
>this works with the programs I am familiar with.
>
>I'm also unsure how the transceiver control works. I currently have a separate 
>serial cable to my K3 for this.
>
>If any users of the SCS controllers could pass on their experiences to a 
>prospective user I would be extremely grateful.
>
>Julian, G4ILO
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
>Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY parts

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 10:08 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote:

>Do you have a list?

No I don't.

Sorry

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:42 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote (in part):
>I was thinking about this while walking the dog - 

Now that's a new one.
Bets the last number one answer to the age old "thinking" question..

[digitalradio] RTTY parts

[John Becker, WØJAB]

A large number of RTTY parts have been put up for sale.
If anyone is looking for anything please ask.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri

[digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment

[John Becker, WØJAB]

After thinking about a for a while -
I'm going to part with all my RTTY equipment.

It's all going.

John, W0JAB

Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote:
>Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move 
>to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? 

Trevor,
We in the USA have been down this path before.
And every time the FCC has said the same thing.

I really don't know just where you are trying to go 
but it seems that it is again an "anti wide" rant.

If it is you can save the rest of us from it.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John Becker, WØJAB]

The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?

John, W0JAB

At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:


>What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back 
>up and look at what is being said??  Your all acting like this is life or 
>death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, 
>NO KGB..  You  are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross 
>all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if 
>its been done.. 
>And ANYONE who puts "Our Freedom" and "Absurd" in the same sentence needs to 
>move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! 
> 
>Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
<>

Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise

[John Becker, WØJAB]

One of 2 things come to mind.

1) a very weak station trying to get into the repeater.
2) strong RF.



At 11:18 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
>[Attachment(s) from Mike Liller included below] 
>
>Hi all,
>I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is?  
>We are getting this interfeafence on one of our repaeters on the input 
>(144.850) and whatever it is, it opens the PL (123.0) and floods the repeater.
> 
>73 de Mike
>N7NMS
>
>- Forwarded Message 
>From: "Terry Bolinger, Jr." 
>To: Mike Liller 
>Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM
>Subject: 
>
>sample attached
>
>
>Attachment(s) from Mike Liller 
>
>1 of 1 File(s) 
>e1d337.jpg
>interference1.wav
>
>
<><>

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I'm not in anyway saying that what happened was OK but
after all it was a contest. Not like it happens all the time.

But look at the good side. Lucky it was not a CW contest.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri
EM49lk

Pike county for the county hunters.



At 10:56 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
>I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last 
>night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. 
>
>And, BTW, I know for damn sure they could see and hear my signal as I switched 
>to RTTY at 50w on all stations and repeated "the frequency is in use" until 
>the moved. 
>
>I don't think anyone should suggest limiting to contests to fixed frequencies, 
>but it damn sure would be nice if some of the mindless RTTY contesters would 
>start showing some common courtesy by listening a second or two before 
>stomping on QSO's in progress. 
>
>-Dave, KB3FXI

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 08:19 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote:


>I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for 
>the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll 
>paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB.

Now that an Idea for income since I have 3 of them. (1, 28 RO & 2, 28ASR's) and 
still 
use them all. 

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote:


>And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free.
> 
>73 Buddy WB4M


Thanks buddy, and yes,  a life member

Do I need to do anything or is this an "automatic" happens thing they do?


John, W0JAB
HOT & STICKY Missouri.

Q  " How do you know it's summer in Missouri"
A  "the blacktop melts"

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been
truthful about it the first place? 

That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons)
was just about it for me. 

John, W0JAB 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

[John Becker, WØJAB]

If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program
later try to post?

It seems that this is the main concern of many?

John, W0JAB
EM49lk

Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[John Becker, WØJAB]

On 7/12/2010 12:28:28 PM, KH6TY wrote:

> Lester, The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, 
> and
> so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago
> to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would
> keep private, and be done with it. He replied that,  . . .

If I had to bet money on this - I really would have to put it on Skip.

You really need to see this on a band pass scope. Leave no questions
about it.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Testing Confirms ROS Autospot Behaviour

[John Becker, WØJAB]

The other day after making a comment about ROS
I got a note (direct) just saying - 

"makes one wonder what else the program is doing.
 Do you have your banking information on that computer ?"

RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 01:44 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>John,
>
>Who is Andy, K3UK?

Andy is the list owner.


And yes anyone can discuss ROS at any point and time.

And many are still looking for an answer of why
some (at one point or another) was banned from using
the program. 

Now you seem to be a spokesperson for Jose on
ROS so why no answer?

John, W0JAB

RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I think many would like to have a answer once and for all
on this issue if some have been "banned" from using the 
software.

John, W0JAB
digitalradio co moderator

At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? 
>
>I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick
>please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the
>rehashing.) 
>
>Andy??
>
> 
> - 73 - 
>Rud Merriam K5RUD 
>http://mysticlakesoftware.com/

Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

After loading a "updated" version as he said that everyone
needed to do. After entering my call it would not work.

Just like others have posted that they could no longer use it.
I have not tried it again and will not try it.

Touch a hot stove and get burned one will not touch it again.

I will never try ROS again.

I did not try it on the XYL's and will not.


At 12:43 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote:
>OK John.
>
>Understood.
>
>Did it work on your computer?
>Did it work on the xyl's computer?
>
>( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.)
>
>If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should 
>use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic.
>
>
>73 Rein W6SZ

Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Sorry Rein -

Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time
computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails.

what was that my "final question" again.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 08:58 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote:

>  extremely wicked; "nefarious schemes"; "a villainous plot"; "a villainous 
> band of thieves"

Rein are you trying to tell us that NONE of this never happened ?
The list of banned, and other thing that have been posted that this
program has been said to do.

This program is doing a lot more then we have been told.
And it seems to me (as well as others)  the we may never
know just what it is doing.

The HAM community dose need this.

Re: [digitalradio] How ROS is auto-spotting to the Cluster.

[John Becker, WØJAB]

>> What other surprises are hidden in this software?


None !

program has been removed.
firewall settings changed to block anything
that may still be imbedded.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:18 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote:


>Hi John,
>
>
>That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to the 
>list of clusters to be served by ROS users. 
>Amateur radio is a global hobby.
>
>73 Rein W6SZ

Oh I agree about the being "global" but I would much rather do it myself.
Seems that every time I read a post about ROS I (and others) find yet another 
not
to us it.


John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 02:28 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Rain
>
>You have absolutely right . ROS are sending data from your PC to the
>cluster. Try to type the IP address  90.225.73.203:8000 into your
>browser and you get this:

Why would it telnet to an IP address in Sweden?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:04 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote in part:

>UH OH.now I've done it.  Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less 
>be able
>to use ROS any time soon   I'm down in the dingy cellar now with 
>the
>likes of John W0JAB!
>
>Howard W6IDS
>Richmond, IN EM79NV


Come on down. The beer is cold and the NASCAR race is about to start  [HI HI]

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:46 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:


>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" 
> wrote:
><..>
>> Ros is programmed for low power qrppp experiments . with a few watt and a
>> groundplane for a 16000 km path .. But there are users thinking more power
>> is better . and using ros the wrong way ..  With lots of power and a beam .
>> so to give others a better chance there are 3 qrg on 20m . that's all
>> 
>
>That's all? That's the problem!
>
>When i asked José Nieto about it, 


While you was at it should have ask him about the small
group that can't use the program.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

If I download a new version I will   "NOT"   be able to use
the program. For a unknown reason I was one of the people 
that Jose has seen unfit to use it.

That was the reason I had to "beg" for a earlier venison of it.

But thanks for your reply.

At 03:50 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote:


>If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in the 
>software
>
>You CAN use it with rig control and set the right qrg via serial port & but 
>you can also use a rig without cat and tune in by hand
>
>The qrg of ALL bands can be found in the soft in the frequency tab
>
>Dg9bfc
>
>Sigi
>
>Ps in the qrg tab you see also the mode being used (example bw 0k5 on 30m etc)

[digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters?
World like to play with it a bit.


John

RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I am all for busy detect.

That being said what do you do with someone that has so much
hate for Pactor (like KC7GNM ) that they turn to QRM'ing jamming 
or what ever you would like to call it any time they hear it?

Right now the "only" tools that I have for busy detect for others 
modes is my ears and the LED's on the TNC.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Winmor throughput

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Well Andy,

I have that $1K modem.
but in order to run WINMOR I would have to putout for a 
new faster computer. 

So what better? hen in hand or the one in the bush?

At 12:56 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote:
>Just a reminder..when Winmor first stated, the idea was to establish a
>mode that did not need a $1000 modem, and could at least achieve
>Pactor 2 speeds.  While it still can be a "finicky" mode,  it appears
>to be able to do what was first desired.

RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 12:52 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote:
>This has generated enormous frustration over the years, to the point where 
>some operators now intentionally QRM such servers. This intentional QRM is as 
>disgusting as running a server without a busy frequency detector, and provides 
>a convenient excuse for server operators to continue avoiding or disabling 
>busy frequency detectors.


So so true !

But not only severs.

Many times I have come up on a clear freq for a keyboard to keyboard
on  time QSO just to be QRM'ed because it was pactor.

Way to many have this thinking  it's a MBO   *just*   because it's pactor.

Wish I knew a way to help those with that thinking.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] QRM maker on 14.078 CF

[John Becker, WØJAB]

For what it's worth :

I have been very close to that freq waiting for any pactor
connect. I have not noticed anything. 

Must be just outside of what I can hear.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Over the course of my work as a 2way radio tech I have looked
at a lot of circuits for one project or another your's being one of them
Very interesting how you made that puppy. Also just about an hour
ago my radio went off. 

John, W0JAB

At 10:13 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote:


>John,
>
>I have written up a short story of how the weather alert radio industry began. 
>You can read it at this link: 
><http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm>http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm
>
>73, Skip KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:36 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote:


>Hi Patrick,
>
>Wonder if you happen to know that I created the original (very first) Weather 
>Radio Alert in 1974, 


I did and I do thank you for your afford.
Here in the center of Tornado Alley there is one on
every headboard (or should be) .

Sometime I would like to hear how it all started.
Bet you could write a book on that.

John, W0JAB 

Re: [digitalradio] Feld Hell "LEO" Sprint this Saturday 2000z - 2200z

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:29 AM 6/15/2010, you wrote:
>LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer.  For this Sprint, if you are or were a 
>law enforcement officer in any country (police, border patrol, customs, prison 
>guard, etc...) you will indicate so in your QSO exchange with "LEO."  (ex: 
>WB2HTO de N3LFC ur 599 PA FH002 LEO") Winner will have worked the most LEOs.  
>Extra bonus for contacts made on 10 meters.

I think next time it would be better to spell it out.
The AMSAT part of me say it's "low earth orbit"
when I first saw the post.

John, W0JAB, AMSAT life member

RE: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing

[John Becker, WØJAB]

By the same thinking (that being that a commercial company)  is making 
any money should you not put kenwood and yaesu into the same? 
Or how about that mean money making company that made your sound card interface.
or microsoft.

John, W0JAB



At 10:12 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote:


>You can of course protect your intellectual property. But such a commercial 
>format  belongs on commercial frequencies. That is, it has no place as a 
>format used for amateur radio.  

Re: [digitalradio] source coding,

[John Becker, WØJAB]

>
>I just do not believe amateur operators should use
>such protocols on the amateur bands.

Such protocols ?
What makes you say that?

Re: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing, outer FEC, Inner FEC, coding to symbol, modulation of symbol(s)

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 03:22 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: (in part)
>In the end, systems like ROS, Clover, PACKTOR-XXX, etc, where there is not
>full published trasparency in the encoding process, are not suitable for
>legal amateur use, in my humble opinion.

In other words, no one has the right to make money from their 
hard work and what could have been $$$ millions spent on research
and development as would have been the case with Pactor 3. Or the 
right to protect it.

Re: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Jeremy

Maybe the fact that it was 10 bucks may have something to
do with it.




At 02:24 PM 6/5/2010, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>When purchasing a new radio this last week I decided to also set my 
>computer up how it should have been long ago. I purchased a sound card 
>to dedicate it to digital modes. The sound card purchased was:
>
>http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854
>
>It was $9.99... I wasn't asking for the world, but I didn't think I 
>would get this. I am curious as to what you think? Here's the synario. I 
>connect the line out to my rig blaster and when I transmit I get this:
>
>http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav
>
>This was recorded from my mom's station that is 8 miles away. Obvious 
>problem. I then simply moved the line out cable from my new sound card 
>to my old sound card that is built into my mother board. No other 
>changes. I do not have a recording of it, but it's beautiful, exactly 
>how a feldhell signal should sound.
>
>Now, the most obvious thing would be is my sound settings wrong, i.e. 
>way overdriving with the new sound card or something. I set them up the 
>same. Looking at my ALC meter, I transmit into a dummy load, turn the 
>line out volume up until I get ALC movement, then turn it back down 
>until I cannot notice any ALC movement.
>
>Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a 
>dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a 
>Signalink as I already have a nice setup, all wired and working, I just 
>need to get this squared away. Until then, I'm working off my sound card 
>built into the motherboard.
>
>Thanks for any help,
>
>Jeremy
>KB8LFA
>
>
>
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
>Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I think that is what I said below now in RED
By my call I mean  W0JAB


At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote:

>- Original Message - 
>> But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and
>> gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think even Ray Charles could see that.
>>
>>
>> Jose,  if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to
>> jump in here and make any needed corrections.
>
>I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current 
>version.  Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the 
>program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the 
>program and not any other random call?
>
>--
>Dave
>AF6AS

Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[John Becker, WØJAB]

No need to worry from being banned from this list from me.
That's not my style of moderating.

Yes I can no longer use ROS for some reason.
I did ask but that went unanswered.

All I know is that he posted a updated version and when ask for my call 
the program would shut down if I recall. Never did go back to it.

But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and
gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine.

What do you think?

I think even Ray Charles could see that.


Jose,  if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to 
jump in here and make any needed corrections.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Rein

Really don't know what to say at this point.
Still trying to understand why my call was added to
the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program.

But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things 
other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this 
has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago.

Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood
something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason
but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have 
been banned from using the program will never know.

It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I 
found out that I could no longer us it. Like others.

But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick 
that I could use on the other computer if needed.

Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is
not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Rein

Don't take it personal.
For some reason even I got on his bad list.
I did ask but never got an answer.

Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him.
Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not 
or it was misunderstood.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Digitalradio: Facebook change. [a word about facebook]

[John Becker, WØJAB]

No can do.

facebook is one of those sites that "read" "write"
and otherwise do things that most don't like to have done 
to their system. It would take me the better part of 1/2 hour
to get past the "site is reading" or  "writing" or trying whatever.
Just to get to it.

And I think I have told you in the past that any mail from a web based
(yahoo, g-mail, hotmail) is deleted from the sever without me even seeing
it.

Sorry to say that facebook is on the top of the list that like to do just that.
Do they really need to know who is in my address book? Or what sites
I have been on?

If there is something that you feel that I really need to know you better
post it on the list.

Re: [digitalradio] Change of Email Address

[John Becker, WØJAB]

As moderator of a number of yahoo list I can tell you first
hand you have to make the change yourself. No one here can
do it for you.



At 12:40 PM 5/23/2010, you wrote:


>We are changing our email address  from 
>laz...@earthlink.net 
>to laz...@charter.net  
>The new address is effective immediately and the old address
>will be in service for at least a month to take care of any problems 
>in the transition.
> 
> 
>LELAND ZANTESON
>laz...@earthlink.net
>EarthLink Revolves Around You.
> 

Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I was wondering what that noise was.
Guess the pactor did not bother you.

[digitalradio] Another WINMOR protocol speaker in the works

[John K Scoggin Jr (W3JKS/AAT3BF)]

Maiko, VE4KLM, is working on interfacing the WINMOR TNC code into JNOS 2.0,
which also supports a number of different TNCs.

 

http://www.langelaar.net/projects/jnos2/

 

Looks pretty interesting - it will also perform B2F attachment forwarding to
Winlink 2000.

 

73,

john

 

_

 

John K Scoggin, Jr. W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAA9SL
US Army Military Auxiliary Radio System 
Delaware Gateway Station AAB3DE
Special Consultant - Technology

Emergency Operations Officer - Delaware
"Old RADEF Officers never die, they simply decay exponentially."
 

Chief Engineer
Mobile Communications Unit 37 (AAT3CAD/W3MCU)

http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/MCU <http://www.armymars.net/> 
 

ARRL Assistant Section Manager - Delaware
Email: aat...@armymars.net
Telephone: (302) 451-5000

 

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Sorry to both of you.
In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with 
my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he
thinks that it may have return.  But to answer both. No it is not needed. 
And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things
a lot faster. 

I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to 
keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY?
It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz
wider that a PSK signal.

Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning.
But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago.



John, W0JAB

At 03:09 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote:


>John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( 
>
>Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's 
>benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less 
>so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of 
>Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes.
>
>If you don't comment, you might wish you had!
>
>73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>John Becker, WØJAB wrote: 
>>  
>>
>>At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: 
>>>Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for 
>>>live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III 
>>>question, but that one also never got answered.
>>
>>Jim to answer that I really would have to say that 
>>for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using
>>P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation.
>>
>>Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's
>>so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
>
>
>
<>

Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Just a cable.
232 in and out. BD9 on one end USB on the other
Sorry for any confusion.



At 11:42 AM 5/11/2010, you wrote:
>On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:52:15AM -0500, "John Becker, WJAB" wrote:
>> Anyone know of a source?
>
>It would help to hear more about the application, John. 
>
>I suspect you want a USB-Serial converter, rather than just a patch
>cable. There are dozens of the out there, some working better than
>others. The best I've found so far has been the no-longer-sold Radio
>Shack converter, but I've had others that were tolerable. All require
>drivers to be installed; Microsoft knows about some and installs them
>automagically, others require the CD or other softcopy files. 
>
>I use two Radio Shack USB-Serial converters in my shack. One connects
>the shack PC to my RigBlaster Pro; the other connects the shack PC to
>the Yaesu FT-897D. 
>
>The Radio Shack drivers aren't officially supported on Windows XP, but
>only through Windows 2000. I had to resort to some trickery to get them
>to install. 
>
>Very 73, de
>
>-- 
>Mike Andrews, W5EGO
>mi...@mikea.ath.cx
>Tired old sysadmin 
>
>
>
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "spots" all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Anyone know of a source?

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: 
>Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for 
>live keyboard to keyboard QSOs.  I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, 
>but that one also never got answered.

Jim to answer that I really would have to say that 
for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using
P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation.

Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's
so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 05:18 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>Yes,
>
>14.075 was the Pactor "calling freq", don't know who decided that.   I have 
>not heard any ARQ Pactor in a long time, is it still used by anyone?
>
>73 Buddy WB4M

Yes it still is but it has been driven to the coat room by 
all the sound card user. Seems that anything that needs 
hardware is not worthy of mention.

You can no longer talk about it but just like using pot, it still
happens.

but that is just my option and you know what they say about options.

-.-

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I don't know Skip.
Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone.

after thinking about that, don't tell us.
I really don't care what you are others think about pactor.

I like it and will operate it.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:


>John,
>
>I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, 
>not Pactor-II or Pactor I.

Skip, just because you are anyone else "can't" copy
P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens !

most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. 
Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO


>> As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past.
>
>How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without 
>typing?

ESP - There is a difference between typing and "touch" typing.
Google it.


>73 - Skip KH6TY
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 02:51 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor 
>and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it !
>I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my 
>contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used 
>to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor.
>
>There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, 

And just where may that be Mel?

>its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only 
>frequency used by PSK operators. 

Same question again. (freq wise)
I think that you may be speaking about 14,075. If so that was the 
autostart freq for RTTY when I first got on RTTY in the early 70's.
Way way before any squeaking sounding sound card mode came along.

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Often, very often. All pactor modes.
As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past.
At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:


>John,
>
>How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard?
>
>How fast do you touch type?

RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly 
after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what 
orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no
guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me 
time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was 
the last time I sent a CW ID after a nice QSO.

That tells me  TWO  things -

1. The person *can* copy CW.

2. Can't copy any PACTOR .

So does the source of the pactor "really" matter?
I don't think so. I really do not think seven out of ten
can even copy P-1. 

Maybe that's reason they don't like is it *because* 
the CAN'T copy it with their sound card.

I really don't care what it is. You know what they say about
the porch and the big dog's. 

So my friend I do think WINLINK  has a lot to do with it 
when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls
from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all.
I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state
has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer
has a land line. Thank you  AT&T  

Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book.

But to answer that question -
"Why does the ARRL continue to push for  Pactor III "
because it works, and works well.


John, W0JAB



At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote:
> >>>It's an "anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection" rant, John.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ 

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations!!!

[John Becker, WØJAB]

For what it's worth

As a WINLINK user I did some checking and could *only* find
2 (two) station within the winlink network using anything
close to 10,147. that would be a KL7 and ON0 station using 
a center freq of 10,147.700. and it has been days since either 
has been  (more like weeks)   since either has been seen.

If it was Pactor it had to be a keyboard to keyboard QSO.
I'm in *no way* saying it was not Pactor but I'am saying likelihood
of it being a winlink stations are very low.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] TAPR Digital Activities at Dayton Hamvention, May 15-16, 2010

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I cant speak for others but I just got this very same message 
23 times.

I have banned him from *EVERY* list that I own.

Andy I sure hope you do also. And I'm sure others

will say the same thing.

I ONLY need to see it once not 23 damn times.



John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] 3rd Generation Digital radio

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I can't think back this far. What came first -
Packer or Amtor  (ARQ mode to boot) .


At 12:03 PM 4/19/2010, you wrote:
>If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation 
>Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star.  D-Star brought 
>everything together along with digital voice.  While D-Star is great, its 
>technology is already dated.

Re: [digitalradio] RSID Query

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Only works with sound card modes?

That a question not a comment.
I really have no clue.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I understand what you are saying Skip.
But the bottom line is that most can't copy it
and therefore don't understand it.

I have gotten phone calls and email from my CW ID after
a person to person QSO telling me what a lid I was
for operating pactor. I love the ARQ modes (pactor
amtor) and at this time dont think I'll be giving them 
up soon. It's a bit hard to even talk to someone like
that after their mind is already made up. So I just gave
up. 

Unlike some I will not burn a hole if the freq is busy
and most of the time even if I can hear anything.
I know that P-3 can at times get very wide.

When people started complaining even if they hear
a signal they can't decode with their sound card
something is wrong.

I just tell most what they can do with their sound card.
If you can read between the lines. I no longer care or give 
a hoot. 

I guess that is why this is a non-sound card station. Thats
right not a one. In fact the sack computer is an old 8088
running DOS. Does real well with pactor and amtor as well
as just a few others.

need I say more?

John, W0JAB
w0...@big-river.net
573-754-4715

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Dave 

right now I dont have the time to plug the holes
in your comments.

But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see.
Would there be a problem if they only used SSB
and not data mode?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:
>A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated 
>traffic stations to use the World Wide Web.  The web is faster, less likely to 
>be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham 
>radio operators.

Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever
you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO*
end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor.

Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of 
the band.

I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic
that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking
just for that very same type of traffic.

Take a look at this map.

http://www.winlink.org/userPositions

did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call?

Just because *some* don't use the mode does  not mean it's a junk mode.
And it would   *really*  be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the
mode before bad talking it.

So please let's not get this started once again.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri
pactor 1,2 & 3   24/7/365
in the center of fly over country

Re: [digitalradio] "evil Bonnie"..

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:57 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:


>John 
> 
>i have been there too  Remember wide band digital on 6 and 2 meters ?

I was removed by her from one list for asking questions that 2nd guessed
her. The list was the yahoo VX1700 list. That is a Vertex radio. I have retired
after 40 years working as a 2 way radio tech at (you will love this) a Vertex 
dealer. But that's OK I was not there to "learn" I was there to "help" others.

You can look at it this way - Bonny is in here own little world. She not going
to come out and nobody is getting. 

She is a    A Legend in her Own Mind !

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri.

Re: [digitalradio] "evil Bonnie"..

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I for one can tell you first hand what happens 
if for any reason you should disagree with her.

[digitalradio]

[John Becker, WØJAB]

try this list

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pactor_packet/

RE: [digitalradio] RTTY event tonight

[John Becker, WØJAB]

About 7ish (CDST) 

At 02:52 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:


>What hours??
>
> 
>
>Bob, W5XR
>
> 

[digitalradio] RTTY event tonight

[John Becker, WØJAB]

playing tonight only

I will be on 40 meters tonight with the Kenwood 520
and the 28ASR,  ST-6  TU. 

Why? Because I can !

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 01:01 PM 3/25/2010, you wrote:
>That seems a bit theoretical to me. If you have a mode that is very wide but 
>gets its information across in short bursts, it could be said to be very 
>efficient, but in practise it is efficient only if others are able to make use 
>of the gaps between transmissions. If that mode needs that frequency to itself 
>and cannot exist with other modes then it really makes no difference if it 
>transmits on a 100% duty cycle or a 1% duty cycle it is preventing users of 
>another mode from using the same spectrum. 

Just * how many * modes would like to put on one
frequency at a time? If the frequency is in use then
find another.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I and many others will never touch ALE because of
just one woman.

It at this time has a bad name among many.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: SDR-IQ for sale

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Guess I better Google it to see just what 
it is. Right now I have no clue.

Re: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze.

[John Gleichweit]

Thank you for your interest in our services. In order to assist you in your 
endeavour, you are required to submit the standard retainer fee of US$1,000,000 
(One million US Dollars) into our company bank account. Please contact us 
directly via email to unit...@hotmail.com for further instructions on how to 
complete this deposit transaction. 

 -- 
John "Smokey Behr" Gleichweit FF1/EMT, CCNA, MCSE
IPN-CAL023 N6FOG UP Fresno Sub MP183.5 ECV1852
List Owner x10, Moderator x9 CalEMA 51-507
http://smokeybehr.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/smokeybehr


>
>From: Alex Eze 
>Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 11:20:31 PM
>Subject: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze.
>
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze,
>MD/CEO Financial Consultant,
>Federal Republic Of Nigeria.
> 
> 
>ATTN:
> 
>I have interest of investing in your country as such I decided to establish 
>contact with you for assistance as soon as I am able to transfer my funds for 
>this investment, which is already with a security company in Europe.There are 
>two basic things i would want you to assist me in;
> 
> 
>(1)Helping by traveling to europe as a front collect these funds from the 
>security company in Europe. 
>This is because of my inability to travel out of the country which i am taking 
>refuge at the moment with my wife and children which i will explain better to 
>you upon the receipt of your acceptance.
> 
> 
>(2)Helping me to carry out feasibility study on areas/choice of investment you 
>deem best for me.I retired as financial consultant and was the last personal 
>financial adviser to the ex- head of state before his demise and have no 
>intention of carrying out any further investment programme in my country for 
>security reasons.
> 
> 
>Enclosing your telephone and fax numbers, including your full names.
> 
> 
>Thanks, Please send your reply to (alexoffice2...@yahoo.com.hk)
> 
>Yours sincerely,
>Alex Eze >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97

[John B. Stephensen]

I assumed that people kept using FSK because paths to Europe can have 20-30 Hz 
of Doppler spread.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 19:08 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from 
Part 97


It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for 
contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most 
transceivers have FSK built in these days.

  That is my best guess anyway.

73 - Skip KH6TY
 

Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum

[John B. Stephensen]

The HSMM working group never proposed the use of spread spectrum. It was 
interested in getting the maximum data rate into limited bandwidths. SS does 
the opposite of what the HSMM WG was interested in. It spreads limited amounts 
of data over the maximum bandwidth.

The actual proposal was to create small segments in the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter 
bands for emissions up to 16 kHz wide -- matching what existed in the 10 meter 
band but on a much smaller scale. Many of us wanted that limited to 9 kHz -- 
the same as the ARRL allowed for AM. The goal was to preserve the priveledges 
that currently exist in the phone/image segments  (AM equivalent bandwidth) as 
the ARRL was shrinking bandwidths in the RTTY/data segments (currently 
unlimited bandwidth).

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 14:01 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum

  The other possible problem is "wide-spreading" spread spectrum. There was a 
failed attempt about 5 years ago by the ARRL HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media) 
proponents to allow spread spectrum on the HF bands with the argument that the 
signal is spread so widely, each carrier appears at any given frequency only a 
short time, so it would not significantly interfere with other users of the 
frequency, and could, for example, be allowed to cover the entire 20m band. 

Re: [digitalradio] What is SS?

[John B. Stephensen]

The document that the author of ROS originally published, "Introduction to ROS: 
The Spread Spectrum", contains a good description of frequency-hopping 
spread-spectrum (FHSS) techniques. Section 4 describes taking a 250 Hz wide 
mode (MFSK16) and spreading it over 2 kHz by shifting the center frequency in a 
pseuorandom sequence. The receiver changes frequencies in the same sequence and 
the logic used to detect a special tone sequence to obtain synchronization is 
described in section 5. The amount of spectrum occupied increases by a factor 
of 8. FHSS is one way to minimize the effects of multipath spread but there are 
also other techniques that occupy less spectrum.

Note that the author of ROS published a second doucument,"ROS Technical 
Description", that contains elements of the original but does not mention FHSS 
and omits any description of how data is mapped to tones. Users comparing the 
original and later versions of the code haven't seen a difference in the 
transmitted spectrum. 

73,

John
KD6OZH
  - Original Message - 
  From: Rein A 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 19:16 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] What is SS?

  Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines
  the core quite well.

  I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust
  though.

  -

  > -Original Message-
  > >From: n4qlb 
  > >Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM
  > >To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com
  > >Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Re: How do you like ROS Now?
  > >
  > >Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread 
spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies)are designated 
between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to 
facilitate a clear Transmisson. The Transmitter actually signals the Receiver 
to Hop from one frequency to another. A good example is a 900mhz digital 
cordless telephone or a 800Mhz digital radio truncking system. (Motorla Astro). 
A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros does not signal a 
receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore it is not SS and is 
just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio service. The ease of 
obtaining a License in the U.S. by people that are not technically qualified to 
hold one is the main culprit regarding the controversy over new modes such as 
ROS. I am confident that all variations of ROS are perfectly legal in the U.S.
  > >
  > 

[digitalradio] ROS controversy

[John]

Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the 
discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other 
frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is 
unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that 
is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it 
is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word 
"characterization" has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same 
individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations 
himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by 
Skip, and his own desire to be "the authority", yet he consistently ignores 
certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including 
myself. 

You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to 
protect your agenda. I am outta here 

73
John
KE5HAM

Re: [digitalradio] ROS update

[Bob John]

Amateur radio technology must not advance and we must continue to use only old 
modes. Make sure we keep ham radio stagnant and only hope commercial businesses 
move forward and kill our hobby
Bob, AA8X
. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave Ackrill 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS update



  KH6TY wrote:
  > Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally 
  > described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams 
  > below 222MHz. :-(

  I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal 
  in the USA.

  I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of 
  speech on the subject seems to be curtailed.

  Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of 
  free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want 
  to vet my posts to this group?

  My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by 
  reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were 
  allowed to be posted.

  I wonder if this will be allowed?

  Dave (G0DJA)


  

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[John B. Stephensen]

I had no doubt that it would once the document that the FCC requires was 
published. Since European hams don't normally read FCC regulations, it might 
be useful for the IARU or RSGB to publish an article about U.S. regulations 
so this doesn't happen again.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU" 
To: 
Cc: "Andy obrien" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 02:53 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS


> On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote:
>
> Thank goodness sanity has prevailed!





Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 
21073,24923, 28123 .  Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Jose

has K3TL said anything about his action?

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote:


>The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, 

It has?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[John B. Stephensen]

The portions that are causing problems here aren't in the regulations in other 
countries.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: W2XJ 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 01:14 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when 
idling



  A good portion of the FCC rules is almost cut and paste from ITU standards 
which apply worldwide.





--
  From: "John B. Stephensen" 
  Reply-To: 
  Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:02:44 -
  To: 
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when 
idling

    
  The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a 
specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the 
licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask 
for help in this forum when something is not clear.

  .
   
  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[John B. Stephensen]

The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a 
specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the 
licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask 
for help in this forum when something is not clear.

73,

John
KD6OZH
  - Original Message - 
W2XJ wrote:
  > Skip
  > 
  > An FCC staff member told an interested group at
  > Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have
  > the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for
  > themselves. 

  That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well.

  The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to 
  tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.