[digitalradio] DXLab running under MS Vista
With help from Dave, AA6YQ, I have been able to load and run DXLab Launcher, Commander and DXKeeper under Vista. I expect that any of the DXLab suite modules will work under Vista but I have not tried them. Perhaps some other group members have done this and can update us. Because of the greatly increased security of Vista, you can no longer manipulate executables as easily as you could in the past. You must have root privileges which Vista calls Administrator. You may find that a program just will not install. For example, I was unable to even extract the zip files initially. Here is the procedure that I used: Right Click on the file you want to extract Select Properties from the sub menu Select the Compatibility tab Go to the last item - Privilege Level Check the box run this program as an administrator This allows you to have root control over the file. I am not sure why other files I have extracted do not need this but I am sure we will find out such things as we use the OS more. Because of the greatly increased security of Vista, it just will not let programs (malicious or not) have the privileges that were possible under the previous, more unsecure versions of MS OS, so it does take a bit of getting used to. But it will become second nature after a while and it also makes you realize that when you manipulate files (even moving them) you are doing things that you don't want some rogue program doing as used to be the case. When you enter into a root privilege the screen mostly darkens except for the User Account Control window that opens up and is highlighted. You can not miss the fact that you are doing some thing at the root level. One offshoot of this increased security is that everytime you boot DXLab's Launcher module, you will have to give it permission to run. Perhaps there is, or will eventually be, a method to let Vista know that this program is OK to run anytime. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] New user assistance
I might mention that upon looking at the Donner's website, they had a USB to COM serial adapter but they were not sure if it worked with MS Vista. I contacted them recently and had several e-mail exchanges with Mrs. Donner since she wanted to know about my experiences with Vista and I shared some of the pros and cons. Their adapter is the same as sold by other suppliers such as Newegg. It is a no name kind of product and based upon the picture and mini CD disk and packaging almost has to be the same product. Not only does this interface work with Vista, the drivers are already in Vista so you just plug it in and it works. Although Vista has some downsides, I am beginning to see that the positives well outweigh the negatives, especially for average and/or non-technical users. I like stuff that just works for a change. Especially for digital radio purposes. Since DX Lab Commander works well with Multipsk, this continues to be my digital software choice. One simplification I have recently tried is to use wxLogbook in place of the DX Lab logging program which I have not been able to get to work with Vista (although others claim they have had no problem). wxLogbook seems to work just fine with Vista. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Milburn wrote: Have you tried opening up the Donner interface? There is a limited amount of reduction by adjusting the control inside the box. Also, what software are you using? MixW has a control built into the software that will reduce the output and probably some of the other software programs have such a configuration control as well. 73 Mark KQ0I Des Moines, Iowa
Re: [digitalradio] Alabama MARS has changed to MT63
Bill, What other digital modes did you compare it to and why did you find MT-63 superior? 73, Rick, KV9U Bill Ayer wrote: That's correct. Alabama Navy MARS for some years now, and many other states both Army and Navy use MT-63 for net traffic. It is far superior to any other method we've found. Bill KB4IJ
Re: [digitalradio] DominoEX mode
I have not heard many comments about DEX, other than the ones that I have made. Has anyone being having some testing experiences? Good or bad? When I first tested it against other modes some time back, I was very disappointed in the performance. I suppose this is due in part to the expectation that if a new mode is created, it should be better in at least some ways to the existing modes. When Patrick employed FEC, this did make the mode perform better for my testing as long as the QRN levels were not too severe. Of course the speed was cut in half so that speeds much slower than 11 baud were not optimum for keyboarding. I really had high hopes that this was going to be a good general purpose mode as it is also easy to tune in and not too wide and has many speed choices. My recent experiments were again disappointing because it does not seem to perform well on the lower bands with high QRN plus severe static crashes. I wonder if we could develop some guidelines for which digital modes work best with different conditions? I like to think I have a feel for many of these modes, but I probably don't have a very accurate picture since there are so many variables. Or maybe there is something available that is more recent than the excellent UK critique that was made of several modes a few year ago? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: Would you like to see DominoEX in MIXW? * We need an experienced Windows sound card programmer capable of working with Microsoft MFC and the free Microsoft C compiler in order to build a definitive DominoEX DLL for MIXW. * We can offer all documentation and source code for a fully working program (ZL2AFP's version), as well as source and compiled DLL for a preliminary (limited but semi-working) DLL written by Denis UU9JDR of the MIXW team. You can expect support from ZL1BPU, ZL2AFP and UU9JDR. The FEC details are available from F6CTE - the FEC coding technique is identical to MFSK16. * If you believe you have the skills and are prepared to build an open source freely available DLL compatible with MIXW, please contact ZL1BPU. http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/DOMINO/Index.htm
Re: [digitalradio] Digital mode interfaces, which ones ?
One thing that confused me a bit was that the different claims of each interface make them appear to be quite good but they may neglect to mention that the interface only does part of what you may want. The main issues are: 1) Rig control through some kind of interface specific to that brand or model. Examples would be RS-232 that some rigs can connect to directly (but now need an USB to COM adapter for most computers), or for ICOM, CI-V control. 2) Switching the PTT either via the above, done through the interface, if it can support that, or via a separate PTT keying circuit. Some use the presence of audio out to trigger a circuit that can then, in turn, key the PTT, e.g., Tigertronics Signalink. Some can use the audio itself to key the radio through VOX, which I have done with older Kenwood and also Ten Tec rigs. Not possible with ICOM, unless using the microphone connector on the front panel. 3) Isolation of the audio lines, typically the Line In and Line Out. Most sound card outputs seem to be line level speaker outputs, but to actually drive a speaker would need to be amplified, thus they are actually a line level output and ideal for radio interfacing levels. Sometimes there is no Line In so you have to use Microphone In and this may require padding down the signal (example: notebook computers). 4) Keying of CW or FSK through special circuits. This is mostly available on the more expensive interfaces. The only units that combine the software control, the audio line isolation, and also the keying of CW and FSK, tend to be the more expensive units such as the microham. The price is very high at $300 or more and lately they seem to have increased a bit from the recent past. Not all interfaces always isolate both audio lines, e.g., some Rigblasters. There are some very low cost and simple interfaces for some rigs such as the ICOM or older Ten Tec rigs that use the CI-V, but you still have to come up with separate audio isolation and separate keying if you want CW or FSK and I find it difficult at times to sift and winnow through the advertising hype. The first thing to do would be to take stock of your rig(s) and determine what kind of interfacing is really required and go from there. I don't think that I have seen any low cost interfaces that can do both rig control and audio line isolation. Most of the lower cost ones will control PTT and isolate the audio lines. But your rig may not need a special interface for rig control if it can use an RS-232 serial connection. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I wonder if we can get some general updates about the commercially available digital mode interfaces available today? Microham, Rigblaster, and SignaLink are among the best known but I wonder what is available at the low end? If a new ham wanted a simple one, one that was well isolated and performed basic rig control only ( no internal soundcards, no Winkey chips, etc) , what is out there? Is there anything under 40 Euros? I'm happy with mine but I am a little out of date on this topic.
Re: [digitalradio] Alabama MARS has changed to MT63
As a heavy user of AMTOR, mostly ARQ mode though, twenty years ago, I would have to say that this mode is not very robust. There were many times that the signals were still pretty good, but the mode would begin to allow errors to come through (it had a mediocre quality ARQ), or would completely stop any further throughput. The FEC mode is not that good either, but I suppose you wanted it for unconnected broadcasts. And it does not have upper and lower case ASCII code characters. BPSK is not very robust at all but works well under weak conditions if there is not too many difficulties with the ionosphere. I have had poor results with MT-63 working through severe QRN, but maybe we will have to revisit that mode again to do another comparison. I don't think that we tried the narrow 500 Hz version of MT-63. Maybe that would compete well against MFSK16/8 which so far has worked the best for us, even though a pain to get it tuned in. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill Ayer wrote: Rick, We had previously used AMTOR FEC for net traffic. We tried BPSK MFSK as I remember, and probably some others. More recently also Olivia. MT-63 seldom fails even under noisy conditions. I can copy it on my mobile radio with laptop sitting on the seat with no wire connections at alland my old Explorer generates considerable RF and road noise of it's own. Under fair to good conditions we use 2000 Hz bandwidth (not a problem on MARS channels) which is about four times faster and more much more reliable than AMTOR. For broadcast messages our standard is 1000Hz bandwidth. When things get too bad for voice communication, 500 Hz will still generally get through. Bill KB4IJ - Original Message - *From:* kv9u mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, April 06, 2007 7:59 AM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Alabama MARS has changed to MT63 Bill, What other digital modes did you compare it to and why did you find MT-63 superior? 73, Rick, KV9U Bill Ayer wrote: That's correct. Alabama Navy MARS for some years now, and many other states both Army and Navy use MT-63 for net traffic. It is far superior to any other method we've found. Bill KB4IJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Best mode for severe QRN?
We tested that some time ago and it was one of the least effective modes against noise. Which makes sense when you look at the minimum tolerable S/N ratio which is around -5 dB at the 1000 Hz bandwidth. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill McLaughlin wrote: Hello Rick, Try MT63 under heavy QRN conditions; alot of downsides but for bucking qrn/qrm have found this about the bestCHIP modes also seem to do well in high qrn environmentsboth are wide bandwidth (relatively) so this may well be a part of it all.. 73, Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] OLIVIA Re: Best mode for severe QRN?
I like to use the narrowest possible bandwidth mode possible, but sometimes conditions are so bad, and there are unlikely to be many other stations that going to a wide bandwidth 1000 or even 2000 Hz mode I think it can be justified. So far, the consensus seems to be that Olivia will beat all other digital modes assuming you don't consider the bandwidth. While I consider 1000/32 Olivia, with its ~24 wpm to be too slow for practical keyboard use, I can see where it is better than not getting anything through at all. Olivia 500/16, at under 20 wpm, is even slower than 1000/32 and 500/8 is just under 30 wpm so while relatively slow, it is a little faster than the other two mentioned modes. The first two use 31.25 baud vs. the 62.5 baud for the 500/8 which may be pushing the limit for multipath. It would have been interesting if we could have gotten one of the Olivia modes to work better than CW which was extremely difficult and I was not able to copy much better than 70% or so. When conditions deteriorate like they did, it was not possible to communicate what alternative mode to switch over to. But, again, the problems that we are up against on the lower bands during warm weather are primarily the unrelenting QRN static crashes that blend into a continuous roar with a few spikes even higher than that. Except for a very few SSB stations, running full power, you don't hear that much on the lower bands with these conditions, without specialized antennas to improve S/N ratios, (beverage, flag, pennants, etc.) It is a lot to expect any non-ARQ mode to handle this kind of environment since even if you have signals usually above the lowest S/N ratio of AWGN for that mode, since the QRN is not AWGN and the spikes will often cause hits that I doubt can be repaired by any of the modes, and that includes modes that spread out and make the data redundant. There is a limit to how much QRN is too much, and I think that I have already found that limit. We will have to try some of the Olivia modes again, even though they are slower when compared to DEX and MFSK. From previous tests I recall that MFSK typically outperformed Olivia but maybe my memory is faulty? I do like the more forgiving tuning accuracy with Olivia. The other station likes Hell modes, although I do not really care for this mode either, and it is also very slow at 25 wpm, but maybe we would be able to decode better than the machine? I would like to hear of other experiences for those who have tested the various modes and found what worked best for them under extreme QRN conditions. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: 1000/32 would blow all the QRN away, methinks John VE5MU Hi John, Yes, I agree, Olivia 1000/32 is excellent, it decodes at -13dB SNR. Olivia 500/16 is about 1dB better than 1000/32. Olivia 250/8 is about 2dB better than 1000/32. Here is a chart (courtesy of Patrick F6CTE) http://www.hflink.com/olivia/#formats I've noticed that going from PSK31 to Olivia 500/16 is like turning on a kilowatt amp. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Best mode for severe QRN?
Well, tonight my experimenter friend and I got taken out by QRN when it came to digital modes. We often run a Tuesday night sked. We started on MFSK16 and then tried to go to the ALE 141A mode and no luck with that or FAE. It just could not handle that much QRN. We then went back to MFSK and decided to try DEX11/FEC which I was hoping would work as well as it has been during quieter times. No luck. Hardly any print so dropped down to 8 baud and still no good. What a disappointment. Back to MFSK, but even that was getting more and more spotty with lots of hits and even long stretches of no print at all. The QRN levels were at or exceeding 50 microvolts (S9 on my calibrated S-meter). The signals seemed to have deteriorated as well and actually appeared to get much weaker. I don't think it was just the S/N ratio causing this but was a combination of weaker signals and stronger QRN. In fact, I got so desperate for any kind of mode that I switched to CW and eventually I moved up a bit and he realized that I was sending CW in his passband. Even then, the communications were extremely difficult with the CW tones being chopped up badly by the QRN which were at the serious popcorn level. Increasing filters did not really help much. It did increase the S/N ratio but the noise bursts tend to block the signal, making it more difficult to copy than with a wider filter. Of all the sound card modes we have now, I would like to hear some opinions of what you think is the best one for these kinds of conditions. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Announcement
Although Bruce may have been joking, he probably reflects the feeling of a very substantial number of hams. And something to consider, is that perhaps the majority of hams, based on the very low membership percentages of the ARRL. Telling others to shut up, is highly counter productive, and causes one to lose credibility with such comments (assuming they consider you to have credibility). It might be better to accept that there are many different viewpoints, or ask what can be done to better things. This reminds of a recent experience I had on one of the Linuxham groups where some of the fanatical proponents insisted that if a widescreen monitor did not work with Linux, it was the fault of the equipment. Never mind that it worked perfectly with Windows XP with a driver that accompanied the monitor, or that it worked out of the box with MS Vista. When I pointed this out the kook response was perhaps predictable, but very sad, and shows how one group misunderstands the market place (some blocking of inappropriate words follows): You stupid, ignorant, duplicitous, pompous $$$. Shut up. Go lick Bill Gates $$$ or whatever it is you do to demonstrate your technical skills. No one disagreed with his assessment, but in the long run he and the other group members did more damage to Linux than anything that Bill Gates could ever do. And he had NO idea how to solve the problem! No idea at all. Just a knee jerk attack the messenger. There seem to be an unusually large number of folks who post on the internet who need a Dale Carnegie course on how to win friends and influence people. Unless, they really are trying to act counter to what they want for an outcome. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Bruce, Knock off the generalized attacks, OK. If that is the best you can do, then please shut up. Thanks, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Announcement Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Well they would feel right at home ... Leadership at the ARRL can be described as a BUNCH OF FLAKES Your question Will the ARRL move to Battle Creek?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: VISTA and PSK
Martin, The newest version of Multipsk works well with Vista as the only change was to have it look for the newly renamed sound card driver. If you use DX Lab Commander, which does rig control, you should be able to handle most any rig. The Linux software may not be as good as MS OS Windows for ham radio, but it is getting better. However, I would not be willing to give up the DX Lab suite of programs and Multipsk any time soon. 73, Rick, KV9U martin beekhuis wrote: Hello all This is my first post here because now I have a problem. My wife got me a new laptop with, of course Vista installed. None of the PSK software I have tried and used on my old 2000 system will work because they can't find the sound card. Any solution? Any PSK/RTTY software already Vista compatable? When my wive gives me a Vista box I thinks she hates me. try UBUNTU and fldigi. Not so beautiful but stable as a rock. 73 martin pa3dsc
Re: [digitalradio] VISTA and PSK
Jerry, Multipsk has been updated to look for either the old sound driver for XP or the new one for Vista. I have not found any other problems working under Vista. Dave Bernstein's DX Commander program works under Vista and can control Multipsk with most rigs. I have my ICOM running under CI-V control, including PTT. There is no other program available that can do what Multipsk can do at this time, so it may be a good choice for you if you like the newer technology. I was not too happy with Vista at first, but I am warming up to it a bit more. Especially, since I have not been able to run Linux well enough on my wide resolution Samsung LCD monitor to be of practical use at this time. So I have been concentrating more on Vista and I have to admit that MS is finally getting things right with some pretty strong security, including DEP (Data Execution Prevention). They do not dare turn on all the security features since that will break too many programs, but we can expect a further move in the security direction over the next few years. DEP is a bit spooky when you try to do things that used to be routine and now the program not only warns you, but causes the display to drastically dim and alert you to something that you need to pay close attention to. Kind of hard to miss:) 73, Rick, KV9U jerloch wrote: Hello all This is my first post here because now I have a problem. My wife got me a new laptop with, of course Vista installed. None of the PSK software I have tried and used on my old 2000 system will work because they can't find the sound card. Any solution? Any PSK/RTTY software already Vista compatable? Thanks for any help. Jerry KT5TT
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
This number is really quite large. I would not concur that there are 500K active hams though. Not even half of the licensed hams are really very active. And the great majority of hams are Technician class and not as concerned about anything that might affect HF, so they would not even understand or respond to the issues. It is actually quite rare to get anyone to write their congress person. Normally, you take a written comment and multiply it by at least 25 to get a feel for to actual number of people with similarly held views. That is why 1471 responses is such a significant number with such a small population of hams. 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF? If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might listen. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall
Walt, These numbers are completely unrealistic. Even as someone who is politically active with ham issues, I rarely send any comments to my division director and never the president. And not even the FCC. So someone is sending these messages, but they are doing it to the FCC because that is who makes the rules. The one thing that probably surprised a number of us was the power that an individual petitioner had relative to the the ARRL. It seemed it was almost equal status at times. The FCC picked and chose what they wanted as the outcome and selected from the various proposals and comments. Even quoting certain hams comments as factual studies of frequency useage. The overwhelming majority of hams are not ARRL members. In fact, the number is very low, around 20% from what I have heard. Those 80% of hams do not have a voice at ARRL. But they do have a voice at the FCC, and as they recently found out, it is quite a strong one. The ARRL has to be very careful with their decisions and policy as most leadership does not want to disconnect from their members too far. In the latest FCC rule decisions, I have seen people attack the ARRL as if they had asked the FCC to make certain decisions. In fact, the FCC made decisions contrary to the ARRL's recommendations. 73, Rick, KV9U DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: However, I do know that if 5,000 or 10,000 thoughful responses were sent to the ARRL Division Directors with a Cc to the ARRL President, then I believe that you would see a change. If 10% of a Divisions ARRL membership want to vote their current Director out of office, they could because if I remember from the last numbers in QST, Division directors are elected by less than 10,000 votes. Its not easy to get 10,000 division votes...but it can be done if a couple dozen hams in a division put their mind to it. Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?
Bob, Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station operating under DRM. OK, I turned on the rig here and that is what it almost surely is. Very similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider. 73, Rick, KV9U Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote: On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this noise is about? It sounds almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
There is a fairly significant difference between PSKmail and Winlink2000. Assuming that an individual even supports the concept of internet connections via radio, it would be nearly impossible to substitute one system for the other and have a similar outcome. PSKmail: ultra narrow bandwidth (with current protocol), low interference potential to other stations. Only runs on Linux OS which 95% of hams in the U.S. do not use or have any current interest in using so can never become popular here, but other areas may be better. Very slow transmission rate impractical for long messages. Servers can be set up by anyone and at any location. Basically free or very low cost system. Winlink2000: has potential for relatively fast transmission rates (for radio link speeds) on both HF and VHF, but with extremely wide bandwidth modes. Practical system for casual users who travel, due to centralized system, making it possible to retrieve messages through different connections. HF Servers very limited in location and location decided by the controllers of the system. Extremely expensive to set up. Both systems use the internet for most of the pathway. Winlink 2000 tends to be more fragile due to the many different server configurations that it must work through, but makes it more convenient because it doesn't matter which server you use. There would have to be a MS OS system developed in order to compete with the existing Winlink 2000 system here in the U.S. Also, the system would have to use a much faster protocol than PSKmail to be practical. In practical terms, it seems that Winlink 2000 is ideal for the traveling ham who wants a commercial access point to the internet for casual e-mail and that it doesn't matter which access point is used, the addressee still gets the mail . A MS OS, higher speed version of PSKmail would likely work better for a direct link into the internet from a user who is at a fixed location or not moving too much, and can access the same server each time. It could be via VHF, but more likely it would be more successful using HF if the distance is very far. In my area, that might be 20 miles or so:( 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: Dave, In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board Meeting, there was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink was doing. And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink. So if everyone hates WinLink, why don't we see hundreds of PSKMail servers on line in the U.S. confronting WinLink? And spare me the well its not MS because one could just as well have written a PSKMail type applications for MS. Rein just felt comfortable in using Linux. And if MS can't support an applications such as PSKMail, then use WinLink or change to Linux. This is of course a hard line to sell and to agree with...but when it comes down to the bottom line, if you don't like a mode or applications, find another or pay or beg someone to create/write the applications you want. I didn't have to beg Rein, PSKMail just fell out of the sky like a welcome rain on a parched land. The thing that I hope all of remember is that amateur radio is a past-time/ hobby/adversion but one of great capabilities and responsibility. We each need to do what we are capable of doing to afford the greater group the best of capabilities. In some cases it might be only a well done or thanks. But I am sure that those who are doing the in the trenches work really appreciate being told that they ARE appreciated. And thanks for your effort in amateur radio.
Re: [digitalradio] What's the roar?
Bob, Without even listening, I would have guessed it is a SWBC station operating under DRM. OK, I turned on the rig here and I can still hear it. Very similar to ham DRM, except, of course, much wider. 73, Rick, KV9U Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote: On 7147 KHz at about 14:00 UTC today there was a 10~12 KHz wide digital signal that was booming in. It's still there 2 hours later but only S-5 now. Can anyone tell me what this noise is about? It sounds almost at bad as the old Russian jamming signals from years gone by. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
If this is true, wouldn't it be a major reversal from past FCC recommendations? My understanding was that some time back (decade or so) the FCC wanted to regulate by bandwidth, rather than mode, and the ARRL strongly opposed it at that time and the idea was dropped. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Erik, I think you hit the nail on the head... The FCC doesn't buy the approah of reg by BW! At least not for HF. Just my guess.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Leigh, Within the automatic sub bands, they would not have to have any detection and would still be legal. When the rules were drawn up, the technology had not been invented to have busy frequency detection, at least not for amateur radio. But that all changed a couple years ago when Rick, KN6KB invented the technique. When they are outside the automatic sub bands, it is my view that they must take great care to insure that the automatic station is not transmitting over other stations. The one good thing is that the wider Pactor 3 mode can not be used automatically when outside the automatic area. However, the P2 mode (500 Hz or less) can be used anywhere in the text data portions of the bands when sending text data. One thing that has come to my attention is that Winlink 2000 claims to be handling FAX transmission for weather. Does anyone know if this is really true? It would definitely not be legal to do this with Pactor 3 in the text data area under the current rules here in the U.S.. It only recently became legal here on the narrow (500 Hz and less) to send analog or digital FAX in the text data portions of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote: The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
There was no detection available when the rules were implemented (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use the old Winlink software), and for AX.25 store and forward. Winlink 2000 no longer has any fully automatic stations where both sides of the communication are done with no human monitoring. In fact, the Winlink 2000 folks recommended a prohibition against fully automatic stations, but eventually withdrew that after creating quite a firestorm with the automatic forwarding community who were using amateur radio to forward the messages. They only use semi-automatic (one side human, one side machine) and that is permitted any place in the text data sub bands as long as it is under 500 Hz. There is no rule requirement for busy frequency detection at this time. The viewpoint at the time was that hopefully there would not be too much of a problem with hidden transmitters. However, as a compromise, the wider P3 mode requires it to be placed within the automatic sub bands. Winlink 2000 then moved the traffic off of amateur radio and put it prmarily on the internet. And that includes 100% of all the autoforwarding. There is no HF autoforwarding capability in Winlink 2000 under its current design, but that may someday change. The positive outcome is that this drastically reduced the communications load of HF store and forward and drastically increased the delivery speed. This works well for casual traffic such as RV'ers sending e-mail from remote sites. It is NOT a serious emergency tool, even though they push this incessantly! It is a very fragile system that requires many things to work perfectly or it does not work at all. I could not imagine using it as a major communications method if I was using it for blue water boating or other fairly dangerous activities. I could see it used as a secondary or tertiary backup for other systems. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: As long as cw, rtty, and data are allowed on all freqs, it would still be illegal for them to transmit on top of a known QSO no matter what portion of the band they are in, including the area where they are only allowed to transmit. (NOT only they). Thus the need for detection everywhere they transmit.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
The FCC has been saying until recently that the narrow modes belong in the text data area, but then they recently made a big change in reinterpreting what narrow band means in order to include Pactor 3 type modes which are similar to the passband of a standard SSB signal. The change to include image transmission in the text data area (as long as it does not exceed 500 Hz) , does blur things a little more, but then I am in favor of that. HF digital voice can operate anyplace that you are licensed for that permits voice (except 60 meters). Anyone listening to the data sound of such a transmission would have no way of knowing if you were sending a picture, FAX, talking to another ham, or even sending text or a mixture of content. It all sounds the same with an OFDM modulation scheme. It seems reasonable to me that eventually the FCC is going to allow any content as long as the mode is of a certain width. It may require narrower modes to stay in the narrow area (except CW), although the ARRL proposal from some time again did not specifically say that. There would be band plans to help keep things from getting too far out of hand. And, yes, bandplans can apparently be used in enforcement actions in terms of meeting good amateur practice. The amount of space needed for CW is going to continue to decrease over the next decade since there just are not that many new hams that are going to be involved with CW to replace the older hams who will become SK's. And the amount of space needed for PSK31 seems miniscule. Perhaps the peak use of these very narrow modes has stabilized and often they can all be accomodated within the passband of an SSB signal width. 73, Rick, KV9U n6vl wrote: John, I would be perfectly content to leave things in the status quo. If the ARRL really wants wider digital signals on HF, then I would prefer they not penalize those of us who operate narrower modes such as many in the digitalradio group. I would prefer they move up higher in each HF band. After hitting the send button, I realized many ssb operators would not like my proposal. It would make more sense for wide bandwidth digital to share spectrum with the new HF digital voice users than to share it with narrow band modes. The recent changes to allow pictures to be transmitted with MFSK16 is a case in point. Images and data are segregated under the current rules. SSTV transmits images and has traditional been in the phone sections. Yet now SSTV is evolving into digital which is an image assembled into data. That is why I think these wider digital signals belong up with digital voice. They have more in common. I am undecided if wide bandwidth digital even belongs in HF anyway. There is a lot more room in VHF/UHF for such things. As frequency is increased, a given bandwidth is a lower percentage of the operating frequency. That is why bands above 30 MHz have much larger allocations. I have been a long time ssb operator on HF since the 70s. It has only been since 2000 that I actively started using HF digital modes. OK I used AMTOR briefly in the late 80s even TOR modes were still keyboard to keyboard. I jumped on the PSK31 bandwagon and then MFSK16 and Oliva. Being apartment bound at the time, I wanted an efficient narrow band mode for the little guy who did not want to mess with CW. The narrow modes speak to these kinds of operators. I don't want to see them squashed. In the past six months I have tried CW for the first time in my ham career. I am not that good at it, maybe 13 wpm tops. I wanted an efficient mode that did not require a computer to use it. It is a fun mode and not for everyone. I am not that upset over the dropping of morse testing. But I am disturbed by the reduction in spectrum for CW and other narrow band modes, especially PSK31. These modes need a safe haven. My initial comments were based on compromise and not my ideal. My ideal would be to leave the rules alone. My compromise would be to allow wide band HF digital modes to mingle among the HF digital voice users. The ARRL has not proposed a compromise. They have proposed hardships on narrow band users. 73, Steve N6VL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
Do you really feel that there is a consensus on this group to support division by bandwith? Based upon many comments, there also appears to be a significant number who are uncomfortable with that approach and who favor keeping mode types separated. And I would be surprised if the majority was in favor of having greater bandwidths than what is now what a typical SSB transceiver uses. The whole idea being that these are shared frequencies and there are a lot of us and some very limited places to fit our signal in at times. If the ARRL has really reversed its earlier change from what I had thought was 3.5 kHz and now is recommending 3.0 kHz, then doesn't that suggest there must be some kind of board policy change from several years ago? 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: Bonnie, I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several years. I truly believe that to just say we need more bandwidth without showing why we have not case or change to change the League's position. Show then in as simple terms as possible why more bandwidth is needed or why 3 kHz bandwidth will not support their interest and that of amateur radio. If this group could come up with a number of reasons, and each U.S. amateur wrote their individual Division Director supporting our position(s), or even their own valid reasons needing/wanting more bandwidth, they I think the League would move on the action. Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL Board members is that they get few messages from their division amateur radio operators on most of the ideas that the League proposes. Thanks for you concern and what you do for Amateur Radio. 73, Walt/K5YFW expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from supporters of regulation by bandwidth. 73, John KD6OZH Hi John, Several years ago, I attempted to correspond with all the ARRL staff and directors about bandwidth-based spectrum management. I got nearly zero response. Perhaps the time is ripe now. Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U
These numbers seem very much what others have reported as well. A difference of 3 or 4 dB lower is highly significant, even with AWGN tests. When we were testing SCAMP, which used the RDFT protocol, there was nothing so frustrating as to watch the mode time itself out even though signals were more than adequate to carry on a solid SSB voice contact. Which, of course we could not do because we were in the data portion of the band. But just a few dB improvement in the protocol would have meant the difference between success and no success at all, even if it had to run a bit slower. But it was either good speed or no speed. And this is the difference between digital data and digital voice. With voice you have a threshold that you really can not go below or else the quality becomes unusable. With data, you can have fall back positions, albeit at a slower speed. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick... I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? For what it's worth, I did some path simulator tests with WinDRM and the SNR decode threshold seemed to be around 8db. It was about 3 to 4db lower with DVDRM. These were AGWN tests without any simulated ionospheric disturbance added in. Keep in mind that the modes might start to decode at these levels, but being right at the threshold, any QSB or selective fading would cause the signal to drop out. I think 10db is a more realistic figure for reliable copy. maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? I think it does. The audio quality is that internet sound Yes, it does sound digitized to some extent, but I think the near zero noise floor makes the user forget about the robot-like characteristics! It's fun to use... Tony KT2Q - Original Message - From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U Hi Tony, I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10, and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT based software and moving toward the OFDM type as found in WinDRM. I am not sure how RDFT works either, maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? The audio quality is that internet sound that we used to get with low quality dial up speeds and is not unlike some cell phone connections. I am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick, WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so it's usually not an issue there. On 40 meters and below it seems that DVDRM mode does a better job coping with QRN. It's not exactly hi-fi as you say, but it's interesting to note that the decoded audio has a range of about 4khz (see attached). The lows dip way down and the high-end is slightly above 4000 hertz. I guess you could say audio response is pretty good when you consider the RF bandwidth is the same as used for SSB! You'd need 4khz to duplicate this with analog. Mel and I have fooled around with EQ a bit and you can enhance the DV audio to sound terrific, but the problem is getting software EQ's to work simultaniously with WinDRM. An outboard unit would work fine. Check with Mel about the DVDRM mode info... 73, Tony KT2Q Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: This was just posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is stepping on another QSO. and the response was: Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including the release of the code coming from a GPL source. Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was just casually listening if the frequency was clear. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, it fuels conspiracy theories. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to Regulation by Bandwidth
It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5? Or is it now that they want to limit the text data area to a similar BW which currently has no limits? I support that and have lobbied hard for it with Division Director and other decision makers, but I now some of you would like to see very wide modes on the HF bands and if this came to pass, it would not be possible to get that changed for a very long time. 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice to 3 kHz. 73, John KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] Re: [WinDRM] Re: Digital voice now
I was able to listen for a little bit when several stations were running WinDRM tests in the past week, especially Jason, N1SU, and another station who I heard fairly well on DV, but K0PFX was only copyable when on analog SSB since he was too weak to decode. The sample you have sounds pretty to me. None of the DV audio quality is really all that hi fi, but it does get rid of the noise if the signal strength is sufficient to allow it to work. I did not find any information on DRMDV on Jason's site, which surprised me as he usually seems to have all the latest info on DV stuff. Is there a web site for DRMDV? 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Sergio, To KT2Q: What do you mean for DRMDV? 73, EA3DU The DRMDV software is a variant of WinDRM. It has the ability to work with a lower S/N than WinDRM. The trade-off is that the voice quality is somewhat less. The MELP 1400bps mode sounds pretty good if you ask me... Have a listen to the attached clip. 73 Tony KT2Q
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DVDRM KV9U
Hi Tony, I got the impression in talking to the WinDRM users on 7173 SSTV group, that it worked with lower than +10 dB S/N. Maybe around 7 dB? The older programs used the RDFT protocol which did require around +10, and that is at least part of the reason for so rapidly abandoning RDFT based software and moving toward the OFDM type as found in WinDRM. I am not sure how RDFT works either, maybe it has a similar modulation scheme to OFDM? The audio quality is that internet sound that we used to get with low quality dial up speeds and is not unlike some cell phone connections. I am assuming this has a lot to do with the number of dropped packets. 73, Rick, KV9U KT2Q wrote: Rick, WinDRM does need a fairly good SNR. The threshold seems to be around 10db. Of course it's much easier to achieve that on the upper HF bands so it's usually not an issue there. On 40 meters and below it seems that DVDRM mode does a better job coping with QRN. It's not exactly hi-fi as you say, but it's interesting to note that the decoded audio has a range of about 4khz (see attached). The lows dip way down and the high-end is slightly above 4000 hertz. I guess you could say audio response is pretty good when you consider the RF bandwidth is the same as used for SSB! You'd need 4khz to duplicate this with analog. Mel and I have fooled around with EQ a bit and you can enhance the DV audio to sound terrific, but the problem is getting software EQ's to work simultaniously with WinDRM. An outboard unit would work fine. Check with Mel about the DVDRM mode info... 73, Tony KT2Q
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend to have fewer disagreements is that it is not as easy to have the quicker back and forth ability you have on voice modes. You also don't get the cues of the other persons voice timbre and nuances. What is a strong viewpoint to some is normal to others, and we see that on any internet group as well. Only it can be even worse, because even though the slower speeds on radio do allow for faster back and forth exchanges. I had that last night with a ham who was very frustrated with 141A in Multipsk because we could not connect in FAE. I was surprised how angry he got in a matter of minutes of frustration. With analog voice, you can talk back and forth many times faster than you can on keyboard or CW modes and you accelerate interaction. Most people are probably similar to my speed of around 40 wpm or so for keyboarding which is a fraction of the speed of talking. Also, most CW and digital contacts tend to be more superficial and short. And another thing about digital is that you can not have several stations transmitting on the same station at the same time like you can with analog voice and CW. So you don't get the snide comments from others like you will get on voice and even CW. I was listening to the tests the other day from the hams using WinDRM and it was similar to AM phone with the longer transmissions of a roundtable discussion. Of course with weaker stations, you get nothing:( 73, Rick, KV9U Simon Brown wrote: I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - *From:* Joe Serocki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The TRY to find someone on any rant on a digital mode. I doubt you could find one, much less one who sits there complaining how the government is not giving him enough of a handout!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds. I do not feel comfortable on the main traffic nets (20 to 35 wpm) although I did do a year or two as NCS for a Slow Speed Net (10-15 wpm) back in the early 1980's. CW has some value for message traffic, since it can be very efficiently run, if you know the ropes. But there are going to be very few new hams who will ever get up to that level and commitment. From what I can tell, our CW traffic nets are not doing well. And you don't hear that much QRQ stuff either, except maybe some OT's chatting back and forth. Because it is possible to have excellent CW QSK (currently Ten Tec Argonaut V, and formerly an old Omni C and Pegasus owner), you don't tend to double with another ham very often. I was not going to mention it in my last post, but the truth is that this capability also lets the policemen get on and harass others over the top of CW DXing with LID comments. Can't really do that as easily with digital modes:) 73, Rick, KV9U Radiotronic Gizmo wrote: I really don’t want to start a CW vs anything war here – really I DON’T.. but you are dead wrong on CW – it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can QSK – that is what is was invented for. Tnx es c u l om es 73 Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links * 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Bruce and group members, I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even approach that point from what I have seen. One of the big equalizers is the use of the short forms on CW. Did you ever notice that on digital modes, most of us type in the full text and do not tend to use the short forms (fer, es, ?, wid, tt, etc.) which are used quite a bit by savvy operators? The one difference (just like digital keyboarding) is when the CW operator is using a keyboard rather than a keyer. It seems that there is more of a tendency to spell it out in full. With the keyboard (perfectly sent code) I sometimes will use a computer to follow along. You do have a fairly substantial number of CW contesters, although the exchanges are fairly standardized and it may be a bit different from a longer chat. My normal code speed is very comfortable around 15 to 18 wpm, but I consider it to be fairly slow code. I will QRS though for anyone. If I try and get up around 25, I start missing too many characters as I have never learned to copy in my head and see the letters spell the words. There are a few exceptions with common words and certain syllables such as the ing which stands out for me. Isn't it just fantastic that most rigs now come with built-in keyers? That is so slick compared to having YAB (Yet Another Box) to connect up between the key paddle and the rig:) I even figure out a way to connect my Bencher paddle to either my Ten Tec Argonaut V or my ICOM rig with one cable for the ICOM, and an 1/8 stereo to 1/4 stereo female jack for the Argo, and then it coincidentally works with a straight key with the Argo without any wiring changes:) 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: Rick ... 99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY good when you have to pull things out of the noise Sometimes people just think old is not any good ... and to many CW is a old useless mode . Bruce On 6 since 66 Your comment Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much less at QRQ speeds.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I was on 160 last night working a ham about 35 miles away. We meet at 7 pm local time on Tuesday evening for testing of various digital modes under different condx. had the big blowout of my XP computer and got the new Vista computer that temporarily did not run any digital software (thankfully, it can run Multipsk to the CI-V on my ICOM but right now it may be the only software that can do this). When I got back on he asked why I could not have to defaulted to the other digital mode ... CW. I sometimes will call CQ from setting my dial frequency at 1808 but it is rare to have any other stations come back. Usually will try with PSK31 at first even though it may not be the best when the QRN gets bad. I want to see how DEX (Domino EX), especially DEX/FEC works under those condx. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: Guys. I dont have the figures here, but I would bet many more than 1 percent continue to use the code. You just have to listen to one contest weekend to hear the numbers that do. Also, a much larger percentage than that had to pass the code tests to get a license. Dont forget that EVERYONE that was on HF prior to black Monday had to pass a code test, whether they used it or not. As to QRQ, there is a small percentage using it, and that might make the 1 percent of CW users who do so. As an aside, I was calling CQ DX last night on 160 , at about 20 wpm, and had a very slow stateside CW responder come back to me. I thought it was amusing, his last name is Farnsworth. How about some of you guys getting down on 160 at night and make some digitial contacts. I hear very few, and most of them are RTTY. Man - its just made for PSK. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each .
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
You really had me going with the length of time it takes to get an STA. Glad to hear it is of a more reasonable time. I do wish they would allow longer STA testing periods, but I quite agree that since they will likely allow any reasonable experiment, you are fairly safe in getting the everything ready before the STA goes into effect. While I don't fully agree with Bob's view on regulations, I do respect his amazing programming abilities. The WiMax setup here is just a very common ISP installed RF link using Alvarion equipment. I use the term WiMax as a generic higher powered version of WiFi. Alvarion did not wait for the final IEEE specification and started marketing their products much earlier. I have seen these kinds of system other communities. They do throttle back the throughput since you are sharing the sector with anyone else on that connection. It can run over 1 Mbps, but they have it below 500 Mbps I have heard. My understanding is that they have a hexagon array of antennas with each covering 60 degrees beam width to cover the full 360 degrees. The power level is a few watts and runs on 2.4 GHz. It can not tolerate the slightest blockage from distant buildings or trees so is truly LOS. The neighbors barn just happens to be in line with a water tower located about 5 or 6 miles away that has one of their access points so there just is no useable signal at my location. Luckily, after cutting down some trees on the other side of the highway, I was able to open up a LOS link to a more distant tower about 7 or 8 miles. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Rick, Sorry. Did I write years to get an STA? My bad. It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help. HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize the software, hardware, etc. There have too many cases when the time on the STA ran out before anything actually got tested on the air! It happened to the HSMM Working Group with the 6M OFDM Modem testing. I think John, KD6OZH, got pulled away by our AMSAT brothers to work on a transponder or two, so we had to request a renewal. I supposed they got it as that is the HSMM follow-on project. Again, sorry for the confusion. If you would like to see your WiMax solution published, just let me know. I am editor of the HSMM column in CQ VHF magazine. As to the regs, I like Dr. Bob's (N4HY) of AMSAT fame approach. It definately fits for the FCC: It is easier to ask for forgiveness, than to seek permission! (HI) 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
Yes, Chris, But that is only in the text data sub bands. The voice/image/fax areas would allow it as long as it is a published protocol. Do you think that it is unreasonable to have some kind of published protocol? If it had the published protocol, would you be opposed to using it on the HF bands in the high speed/wide bandwidth digital image areas? What is your thinking on what would happen if regulation by bandwidth was enacted? Wouldn't it be likely that the narrow BW modes would be in the text data portions of the bands and the high speed (voice bandwidth or close to voice bandwidth) would be in the voice/image portions? An alternative would be to have wide BW modes at the upper ends of what is now the text data areas, but there is not all that much room available on some of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Chris Jewell wrote: kv9u writes: What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 97.307(f)(3) ... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ... That applies to all the cw,data subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. We need regulation by bandwidth only, but that proposal seems to be stalled. :-(
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting. We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday for a 7 mile link for high speed internet and it is a LOS system. But it gives you a feel what can be done on the higher bands. There are few limits to experimenting that I have seen. How about working on a maximized throughput on HF with narrow signals, perhaps 500 Hz or less? Then you could look at a somewhat wider bandwidths at 1 or even 2 kHz. Unless you consider the current modes to be the best that can be done. For HF, I just don't see enough space for extremely wide modes. I consider wide modes to be anything more than a 2 or 3 kHz bandwidth that a standard HF SSB transceiver does and I consider wider signals on HF to be counterproductive and a step backward. I did not know that it took years to get an STA. I thought the whole point was that it could be done fairly easily. If STA's are not practical then changing the rules is really the only alternative. Based on the recent FCC changes, it does not seem that either ARRL or the FCC is very supportive of what you want to do. Whether you like it or not, that is the democratic process at work. One could use a civil disobedience type of protest, as Bonnie has suggested, but most of us probably find that a bit too risky and outside of our comfort zone. And that assumes that the individual supports the directions that your group wanted to go. The democratic process works both ways and is intentionally made to be difficult to steer the ship in a new direction. KV9U John Champa wrote: Rick, Paul as the CTO was our reporting person. However, he did not come into the picture until the last year. A lot of frustration had built up by then. It was also his recommendation to the Board that the HSMM Working Group be founded. That's why we called him the Father of HSMM. Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved in what we were trying to do, and we had their support. The Technology Task Force still exists! It consists of the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects. They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less on policy and regulations. But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA. It could only go operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course. But first John KD6OZH must get it to work! (HI). 73, John - K8OCL Former HSMM Chairman Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:05:10 -0500 Walt, It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request continued, if not even, expanded activity. Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been working closely with him. I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either. As I recall, the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some time ago? The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. Otherwise you would not need encryption. I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to more secure control links such as landline has been used. Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other countries that may truly be in a technology jail, if they can not even run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct? 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: Rick, You are not in possession of all the facts. The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and other modes on frequencies above HF. The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish the task. The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 the board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific works. The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force. I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed specific needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project. WE did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97. Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as long as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as: http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results published since the 2001 inception? What HSMM networking protocols and systems were developed from the vision? When you do a search for related information you get things like: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/index.html Which point to web pages such as: http://www.qsl.net/n3der/ARRL/New/archives.html which don't even have anything archived. What happened to the HSMM OFDM Modem? http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Many of the comments I made earlier were based on the comments made by you on: http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0307/hsmm.html So I think that I have been very fair and hopefully understanding the politics on this issue, since it was you who openly expressed this dissatisfaction. One would think that Paul would have been working closely with HSMM from the inception but maybe I do not understand his position as CTO? I don't seem much related to HF though. In 2003, Neil, K8IT was to lead the HSMM-HF project. I don't really recognize this call. What was this project all about and what developed from the work? What about the HSMM WG Linux Infrastructure? Did anything ever happen with that? 73, KV9U John Champa wrote: Rick, Paul as the CTO was our reporting person. However, he did not come into the picture until the last year. A lot of frustration had built up by then. It was also his recommendation to the Board that the HSMM Working Group be founded. That's why we called him the Father of HSMM. Paul was able to get Chris Imlay and the FCC involved in what we were trying to do, and we had their support. The Technology Task Force still exists! It consists of the DV, the SDR, and the OFDM (originally an HSMM) Projects. They wanted more focus on hardware / software and less on policy and regulations. But the 6M OFDM testing still requires an STA. It could only go operation on 222 MHz, which is fine, of course. But first John KD6OZH must get it to work! (HI). 73, John - K8OCL Former HSMM Chairman
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
OK, Brad, What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are improper? It seems to me that we have found different countries have different rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000 operation, while our country has had Aplink, Winlink, Netlink, and eventually Winlink 2000 for several decades. The only rule that I would like to see changed is to allow operation by bandwidth instead of mode. What I really want, is a subset of this, in order to be able to operate wide BW (voice width) transmissions using SSB, digital voice, and digital data of any kind, whether image or text in the wide bandwidth (voice/image) portions of the bands. The problem is that I am in the minority. From what I can tell, most hams want modes kept as separate as possible and Danny has pointed out the problems you have with mixing modes which has somewhat tempered my enthusiasm. Wouldn't you agree that the reason that you may be able to have fewer rules (assuming you really do since I have not read your rules), is due to your very low density of population, both in terms of square miles and number of hams? 73, Rick, KV9U Brad wrote: It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more! Brad VK2QQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Gray Areas of Ham Radio Regulations and Rules
There is really nothing that baffling when you consider that NZ and Oz are so remote that even the lower HF bands are not often going to bother the larger population areas that much. But it works both ways. The Canadians, who are immediately adjacent to the U.S., have in the past had phone sub bands well below the U.S. amateurs and if you recall what happened some years ago, the Canadian hams were none too pleased with the increased downward phone expansion for U.S. hams and moved their phone operations even lower to continue to have an exclusive area. Of course now we are so far down on 80 meters and to a certain extent on 40 meters that there is not much more room to expand into. The more hams you have under a given set of rules, the more impact you will have if those rules are liberalized. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily bad or even good. But it will change the dynamics between countries. If you have a maximum 6 kHz BW, can you still operate AM phone? Aren't the U.S. rules even more liberal with something more like 9 kHz? I personally do not find it good amateur practice for hams to use SSB below 7100 if they have the next few hundred kHz above that available to them for SSB, unless they are working DX stations who can not go up. Split operation means that you are using twice the BW which is not very spectrum conserving. The current lowering of SSB here in the U.S. to 7125 seems a good fit for current useage, but of course I admit that could change depending upon operating trends. What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United States. The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and very limited population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes to propagation. 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, so all of our radio traffic heard on the ham bands is from the south. The Aussies have Japan as one easy bounce for them, with the multitude of JA hams providing lots of traffic. We used to have a lot of rules, modes , emission types, etc. similar to the FCC. This has since been abolished in favour of frequency limits, maximum bandwidth (6khz) and maximum power allowed. No regulations exixt on what modes can be used where, etc. This has not produced chaos in the ham bands, nor do we set up and operate digital data in what is traditionally the SSB portion of the band. We simply follow the traditional band usage that has been around for 70 years or more. Sure we mix modes at some points, especially on 40M where from 7050 to 7100 is used by SSB, RTTY and other digital modes at the same time in Canada. Has it been a problem? Not to my knowledge. Would I knowingly start calling CQ in a digital mode on top of a SSB QSO? No, out of respect for my fellow hams who were there first. The only real problems we have on 40M is the large number of DX stations using that segment during a contest, transmitting blind since they are all running splits and listening high on 40M. (I know I'll hear from Danny on this) Sure there will always be lids who have to run power and whatever since it is their right to do so,and no guvmint gonna tell me what to do We have all seen them on PSK31, running enough power to run a small village and basically wiping the band out for everyone. fortunately they are the minority. So why not go for less rules? Maybe the FCC would welcome this since they would not have to enforce the present rule structure, thus saving a little money. The hams in the US would then be allowed to experiment with new technologies such as RFSM2400 without fear of penalties, and this in turn would lead to better modes. It seems to come down to a matter of trust and respect within the ham community to be able to work with few regulations. John VE5MU
[digitalradio] FAX/image in the text data portions of the bands
One other related thought. With the recent changes to Part 97, I believe that it is now legal to send an analog or digital image transmission in the text data portion of the bands with signals that are no wider than 500 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: Yes, absolutely. Fax is legal only in the phone band. I even confused myself! I don't want to hazard a guess why Hellschreiber, which faxes pictures of characters, is used in the data band and now the phone/image band. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 8:35 am, kv9u wrote: Leigh, This is the exact opposite of my understanding of Part 97 rules. Fax is specifically what is permitted in the phone bands. Hell modes were kind of borderline modes since they were similar to CW in some respects. Upon further reading of Part 97 wouldn't you consider facsimile as image? Thus, any areas that image can be transmitted are also legal for facsimile (FAX). 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Bruce, You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules. It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules changed. But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that: If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz a 45 MHz limit up to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz. http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S. 73, Rick, KV9U bruce mallon wrote: This is from the same guys that want to distroy 6 meters with 200 khz wide signals? Nice very nice . --- John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rod, I have NEVER heard of any Amateur being fined by the FCC for experimenting with a new mode...so what serious trouble? Radio experimenting is one of the reasons our service was established! Wouldn't that be just a bit counter-productive to be so heavy handed? I agree with LA4VNA. We have too many punk amateur barracks lawyers trying to muck around with the few of us still left trying to develop new technology. They're always writing That's illegal while they just sit on their fat b doing NOTHING else but trying to find something in the regs prohibiting everything new that comes down the road. Such folks are a cancer in what is otherwise a wonderful avocation! 73, John K8OCL
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
Walt, It still seems peculiar that the BOD would close down a developing technology group as if it had done its job. We have only begun with this technology. Instead you would have expected to see them request continued, if not even, expanded activity. Did you ever work with Paul Rinaldo on this? I have never quite figured out what his function is since not much ever seems published with any information for new technologies. Seems like you should have been working closely with him. I have read the report and I sure don't agree with some pretty substantial parts and I can tell the BOD did not either. As I recall, the FCC permitted very wide bandwidth modes on 220 some time ago? The purpose of encryption is definitely to hide the message content. Otherwise you would not need encryption. I would be surprised if many had any disagreement with using non-ham controls circuits for controlling Part 97, since it would be similar to more secure control links such as landline has been used. Curiously, what is never mentioned is that it is not the U.S., but other countries that may truly be in a technology jail, if they can not even run some Pactor modes in their countries. Or is this not correct? 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: Rick, You are not in possession of all the facts. The HSMM was chartered to find out what it would take to do high speed data and other modes on frequencies above HF. The report showed what bandwidth we believe would be necessary to accomplish the task. The HSMM Working Group's Basic Charter was not openended...and in Jan. 2007 the board decided the WG had done its job and wanted to refine some specific works. The working Group was always under the Technical Task Force. I believe that in the future there will be more working groups to meed specific needs such as now exist with the DV group, SDR group and OFDM modem project. WE did prove that COTS 802.11x hardware coupd be used under Part 97. Encryption is a subject for debate but the League feels that encryption as long as the purpose is NOT TO HIDE the message content is within Part 97. I agree. Some don't. As far as I know the FCC is aware oor should be as the HSMM and ARRL have made no secret that hams are using 802.11x with WEP for the purpose of control of the access to Part 97 operations and thus far have not issued any citations. It is my understanding that some hams have sent letters to the FCC telling them that they are running WEP and 802.11x on a certain 2.4 GHz frequency and at what location and times and the individual(s) have not received a citation. Walt/K5YFW kv9u wrote: Bruce, You have to understand that John and his group have (had?), very different agendas than most hams, and that includes digitally oriented hams. Hopefully, he is one of the few U.S. hams who publicly recommend deliberately and knowingly violating Part 97 rules. It seems to me that the most reasonable thing to do, when you do not agree with the current rules, is to petition the FCC to have the rules changed. But you may expect a significant backlash if your requests are too extreme. John's group also recommended to the ARRL Board of Directors that: If bandwidth limits are required above 148 MHz, we recommend a 200 kHz limit up to 225 MHz, 10 MHz limit up to 1300 MHz a 45 MHz limit up to 5,925 ... and no limit above 10,000 MHz. http://www.conmicro.cx/~jmaynard/arrlhsmm.pdf Needless to say, this may be part of the reason that the HSMM Working Group was dissolved by the ARRL board. They also supported encryption on amateur radio frequencies above 50 MHz. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/hsmm.html I don't feel that I am being unfair to say that these are things that the overwhelming majority of hams would strongly oppose here in the U.S. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400
Considering that a commercial mode like Pactor can be used on the U.S. ham bands, it would not require that much to have the specifications posted or made available in some way to fulfill the minimal FCC rules that are logical and well thought out. They do not prohibit new technologies that would be appropriate for HF use. These high baud rate modems are not something new since they have been around for quite some time. They do not work all that well from what we can tell, but they may be competitive with other modes with the stronger signals. Once the information is forthcoming, then they can be used on the phone bands for sending images. As a liberal on this, I would extend that to any bit mapped or compressed document such as a word processor file or spreadsheet or presentation, but that is only my opinion. The best way would be to get FCC interpretation of the rule and if you don't like the interpretation then you can petition for change and you can get an STA to experiment with it. KV9U expeditionradio wrote: John VE5MU So where and when can hams in the US play with RFSM2400? I'll be back on 3587.5 after all the RTTY is done, probably around 0100Z March 18, on until 0400Z using mil standard . Technically speaking, USA hams can only play with it on dummy loads... or in the exercise yard of the FCC Technology Jail :) However, I've noticed that there are some more adventurous ham radio technology experimenters in USA are not sitting on their duff, waiting for the rest of the world to pass them by... and some others would simply prefer to rot on the sidelines. Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM2400/MIL-STD-188-110
Leigh, This is the exact opposite of my understanding of Part 97 rules. Fax is specifically what is permitted in the phone bands. Hell modes were kind of borderline modes since they were similar to CW in some respects. Upon further reading of Part 97 wouldn't you consider facsimile as image? Thus, any areas that image can be transmitted are also legal for facsimile (FAX). 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: I think that makes it fax, which isn't legal in the phone band. It's screwy, isn't it? Hellschreiber and Feld-Hell, which is much like what you describe, is legal in the cw/data band but not the phone band. Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] legal Mode guidelines
I strongly recommend that any new mode specifications be placed on the ARRL site with all the other mode specifications. Then anyone can refer to them easily. You do not have to be an ARRL member to access this information. It is a bit hard to find under support/regulatory information/FCC rules and then the first item under Additional Resources, 97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions or: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/ As far as the 300 baud speed or greater, just move the mode to the phone sections of the band where facsimile can be sent. This will allow for pictures, faxes, etc. I am willing to bet that the FCC would accept the idea of an attached doc file with text since it is more of a FAX. Wouldn't it be a bit mapped image? I don't think anyone has asked. But if we point out the enormous value for emergency use where you can coordinate a transmission on voice and also send the document, they may accept this as being reasonable. Especially when you have a mix of pictures and text on a page. If I understand it correctly, some Winlink 2000 users are sending weather maps through the Winlink 2000 system and, if so, that would seem to be illegal based on Part 97, since the Winlink 2000 system operates only in the text data part of the bands. The Winlink 2000 owner has promoted this as a feature of their system. 73, Rick, KV9U Les Keppie wrote: KT2Q wrote: All: The 'legal mode' issue keeps coming up everytime a new mode is introduced. Life is too short to try and make sense of Part 97 so I think it would be useful to have a list of guidelines to help determine whether a mode meets FCC rules or not. It should be to the point and concise; something like... 1. The mode must have an open and published protocol. 2. The mode can not exceed 300 baud when used in the digital subbands. etc... Tony -- KT2Q WOULD SUGGEST YOU DELETE (2)ABOVE AND RUN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT Les VK2DSG
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
It seems that the MIL-STD/STANAG modems frequently use a variety of wavefoms depending upon the speed. An example would be the STANAG 4539 suite of standardized waveforms. They are not all the same waveforms. Starting at 75 bps data modes it uses Walsh modulation and switches to BPSK at 150 bps, QPSK at 1200, 8-PSK at 2400 data and voice and then for faster voice up to 64-QAM at 12800 bps. This suggests that a highly adaptive modem may not necessarily need only one modulation type. STANAG 4285 is one exception and uses only PSK waveforms from 75 to 3600 bps. It is not easy to find much on the baud rate but I did find that the STANAG 4529 modem which is intended for 1240 Hz wide bandwidths (marine ship to shore) use 1200 symbols per second. This is what I have considered to be the baud rate. This is a narrower mode thus the slower baud rate. The one thing that comes across from comparing speeds vs. S/N is that there are really are no fast modems that can go down below zero dB. In fact, to get data rates of 1200 bps it is often around +10 dB. A lot of this information came from a web site from Rapid M a company in South Africa. 73, Rick, KV9U John Champa wrote: Rick, Now that is some interesting research! More please. Thanks, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:00:21 -0500 I was able to find some interesting data on poor channel performance of the 110A modem from one company: http://www.etools.de/software/telekommunikation/komponenten/milstd188110a.htm Depending upon the BER you can tolerate, it appears that the 2400 bps speed can only handle around +10 to +14 S/N dB. The slower bps rates can work to around zero S/N. Te 150 bps shows something around -1 to -4. Another interesting specification is the the multipath tolerance. They claim 6 msec at 2400 bps, 8 ms from 150 to 1200 bps, and 12 mec at 75 baud. That seems to have good ability to cope with ISI. Now these are the bps rates. Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, contrary to what Bonnie claims? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: Well, MIL-STD-188-110A uses a single phase shifted tone , I guess that made it even more non-intuitive ? The difference between packet and this MIL-STD is just huge. Interleaver to fight fade and QRM, equalization to benefit from multipath and the list could just go on and on. 300 baud packet is a joke. 73 de Per, sm0rwo
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
I was able to find some interesting data on poor channel performance of the 110A modem from one company: http://www.etools.de/software/telekommunikation/komponenten/milstd188110a.htm Depending upon the BER you can tolerate, it appears that the 2400 bps speed can only handle around +10 to +14 S/N dB. The slower bps rates can work to around zero S/N. Te 150 bps shows something around -1 to -4. Another interesting specification is the the multipath tolerance. They claim 6 msec at 2400 bps, 8 ms from 150 to 1200 bps, and 12 mec at 75 baud. That seems to have good ability to cope with ISI. Now these are the bps rates. Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, contrary to what Bonnie claims? 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 110A works this well at 2400 baud, what would happen with slower speeds? From what I understand, it does require a good signal to get through, perhaps comparable to the WinDRM software at maybe +10 S/N dB or maybe a bit below that? 73, Rick, KV9U Hi Rick, Your understanding is not correct. The lower baud rates of the 188-110 PSK system work in *negative SNR*. That is much farther down into the noise than DRM. May I suggest you download RFSM2400 and receive some of the signals on the air. This might give you a better feel for it. Bonnie KQ6XA .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
Bonnie, Your definition below is not at all my understanding, nor does it square with anything that I have read on baud rate. My understanding for many years has been that baud refers to the symbol rate per second. In other words, the actual changes or transitions taking place per second. The rate of data throughput (the signaling rate) is often expressed as bits per second (bps). Some baud rates may allow for more data throughput in bps than the baud rate because one symbol can carry more than one bit depending upon the modulation scheme. What do you consider the baud rate to be, if not the symbols per second? KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Rick, KV9U wrote: Isn't the baud rate the same 2400 baud, all the time for this modem, Hi Rick, Perhaps you have been confusing baud and symbols per second. This is a common mistake many hams have with complex digital formats. To answer your question... The MIL STD 188-110 serial PSK modem signal on the air is 2400 symbols per second. The non-standard RFSM2400 is 2000 symbols per second. The baud rate, determined by coding, may change. The symbol rate stays constant. The baud rate may be as low as 75 baud or as high as 4800 baud. If your issue is about how this affects your FCC compliance, the answer to that is: 1. These modems do not exceed FCC's limit for sending image or voice content in the image/voice subbands... because there is no FCC symbol rate limit in the image/voice subbands. 2. These modems do not conform to FCC's arbitrary 300 symbol per second limit for the USA ham radio HF RTTY/data subbands. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Stay in Technology Jail. :) Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RSM2400 / MIL-STD-188-110
It still seems a bit non-intuitive that using a 2400 baud rate with two tones can work well and yet 300 baud packet hardly works well at all. There is something that I am missing here. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: Yes. MIL STD 188-110 is in PCALE software (along with standard ALE). Operators have been using -110 (outside USA) for data files. I was using the RFSM2400 while I was in Hong Kong, China. It is a good system, and the modified narrow version takes no more bandwidth than some other digital modes or SSB voice. As you know, USA has an arbitrary 300 symbol/second limit in the USA Data Subbands. But there is no such 300 baud limit in the phone and image subbands, so some of us in USA have used -110 to send image files. It does that quite well, but the real forte of -110 is data FTP and email. Wow... 2007... a shame that USA hams are living under those antiquated FCC rules made for the previous century's technology. USA hams still sit rotting in the FCC's technology jail. The rest of the world's hams can use RFSM2400 freely for data or mail. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM-2400 Email features
The impression we have had is that the S/N ratio has to be quite good, perhaps in the +10 db range? How fast does this compare with the through put of the OFDM modes used with SSTV image data? 73, Rick, KV9U Les Keppie wrote: Seems to me to be quite a good system Regarding your comments about not being legal - Yes a bit of a puzzle as it is doing no different to Pactor 3 as far as I can see - transferring files on HF - hihi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: What's with Boulder?
Initially, I was thinking that the clock had the software to determine the change in daylight time and I think my La Crosse Technologies Clocks and my other atomic clock has a setting for this. But here in the U.S., didn't they change the DST data change? So, if the clocks changed accordingly, then it means that some kind of signal had to be sent. And two of my clocks changed. One clock did not change, but that is because I have it here in the shack and it is set to UTC:) The L.T. clocks are very nice units as they do a number of things, including remote detection of the temperature, relative air pressure (up or down), etc. And you can use one outdoor sensor for both clocks to detect. I have no idea how something like this can be sold for such a low price ($30, I think it was at Wal-Mart) and that includes an outdoor sensor for that price. Needless to say, I have a spare sensor if anything happens to the currently use one. They worked very well through this winter which is much better than when I had a much more expensive Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer that never worked well at all. To put this in perspective, when I was growing up, it would have been total fantasy to suggest that someday there would be such a product and it would be sold for $5 (in 1950's prices). 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: My atomic clock changed right on time. I would have to look at the manual, but the clock itself may have the software for DST. However, WWV/B would have to put out a bit that says DST for the clock to have known to change. My clock does have time zone settings incorporated into the software. I had to set that up initially. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait! WWV and WWVB transmit UTC time codes. There is absolutely no way for either station to 'know' in which time zone your atomic clock is located. So How could they correct time for DST??? Enlighten me please 73, Chuck/AA5J At 09:00 PM 3/11/2007, Les Warriner wrote: Whoops. Yes, they do correct time for DST and standard time. My clocks, atomic clock controlled, changed at 1 AM EDT by gaining an hour. My UTC clock did not change - thankfully!!! At 04:45 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote: Hello There, WWV has always gone by UTC. UTC has no Daylight Savings Time period. They have leap seconds once in awhile. 73 Gary WB6BNE - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Walt DuBose To: mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's with Boulder? Andrew O'Brien wrote: Hmm, not really ham radio related but my atomic clock just leap forward an hour at 11.30PM Eastern Time (USA). Did WWV not have the patience to wait until the official date and time ? It changes at sometime after midnight UCT. Walt/K5YFW No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007 9:27 AM Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: What's with Boulder?
Peter, A bit over the top for most reasonable folks. The majority of Americans shop at Wal-Mart except maybe a few on the fringe or extreme upper income. We shop at War-Mart because of the convenience of having everything in one place, even in a rural area where I live. Without them, I would be paying 20 to 30% more for many of our groceries and other products, or we would have to drive 40+ miles to La Crosse to find similar discounted prices. Not to mention being open 24/7 which was not available to us in the past. The La Crosse Technology products are distributed by the next door neighbor to a nearby ham acquaintance. They live just across the Mississippi River from La Crosse. You can buy La Crosse Technologies products from many sources. You are welcome to pay an additional $10 that you can expect to pay at full price stores or pay a lower price at a discount source of which Wal-Mart is only one. The point is that there is a lot of technology that goes into this kind of equipment, has a nice appearance, huge digital readout for even those of us somewhat sight impaired, remote sensor, etc. To call those in another country, slaves, does a disservice on an international group such as ours, and is also factually untrue. The standard of living continues to increase at a double digit rate in China although perhaps not quite as fast as it has been increasing the last decade or two. KV9U Peter G. Viscarola wrote: I have no idea how something like this can be sold for such a low price ($30, I think it was at Wal-Mart) Because they use Chinese prison labor to build them, probably. That's just ONE reason I don't shop at Walmart. But I certainly agree on the other aspects of your post -- These gadgets are amazing. de Peter K1PGV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy detector
There were some who were not that happy about the development attempt of SCAMP since they had such a large investment in their modems. But the owners wanted to come up with an alternative to the SCS modem. SCAMP was put on hold because the programmer did not have time to continue further programming due to the pressing needs of the changes they needed to make to the underlying infrastructure. From what I can tell, they have only one main programmer and while his ability is in the spectacular range, one person can only do so much. Almost no one else could do the things that he has been able to do. In fact, there were those who were claiming that it was not possible to do. But SCAMP just could not perform well enough to be useful on HF, except when conditions were quite favorable. It needed to either have the protocol replaced (OFDM?) which could then be made adaptive to conditions, or else it would need a fall back protocol. If you look at how the original Aplink system evolved to the old Winlink system, it was possible to run several modes at one time on the same equipment and the same frequencies. In fact, RTTY Digital Journal had a very detailed article on how this was done a decade or two ago. Very clever set up of equipment and switching capabilities. Remember at one time they had both Clover II and Pactor. If SCAMP had been competitive with Pactor 3 would it have been used? Absolutely, no question about it whatsoever. Many of those who now complain about Pactor 3, would been quite unhappy about SCAMP today as it was about the same bandwidth and was a very aggressive sounding mode. I would expect many more HF users of the Winlink 2000 system today and more use of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: Ask yourself why scamp died. Do you really think the winlink users who have spent a thousand dollars or more on pactor modems are going to relish throwing that investment away because the winlink admin's have decided to go to a soundcard mode? Jim WA0LYK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detector (process definition).
Any kind of busy detection circuit will need to provide detection for the entire band of frequencies you are going to be transmitting in. In fact, this was one of my recommendations to the ARRL. It should not be as much of a problem as you have with Pactor since the mode will likely have one set bandwidth and it will adjust for the conditions with the way the protocol works within that BW. Pactor, in order to be backward compatible, needs to operate in a ~ 500 Hz space for initial interrogation of the stations and then it may expand to P3, if it is found that it is possible to do so with P3 modems on both ends. If they are P1 or P2, then they would stay at around 500 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: I suspect an activity detector IS going to have a problem knowing if there is another close by signal while the auto station is tranmsitting. In fact, so will a client, while it is transmitting. If, while transmitting, the busy detector would prevent expanding the bandwidth if there is a close by signal, then I see no reason this why this wouldn't prevent qrm'ing of other nearby qso's.
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info)
And I think that Rick, KN6KB, was being modest about the 80% detection. I did not find that the software would ever transmit on what I, as a human, would have considered a busy frequency. However, there were times that it did not want to transmit because of what it perceived as a busy frequency, but I would have. The one thing that may have to be improved is the ability for the software to ignore a continuous carrier caused by a local internal or external birdie as it is extremely sensitive to the slightest carrier, even ones you can barely see on the screen. Even fleeting carriers. It seems to me that if you can detect SSB, then you can pretty much detect most modulation. The software had the ability to be adjusted by the operator for the level of detected signal by x dB using an on screen slider. I hope others will suggest to Paul Rinaldo, when they submit their recommendations for an HF digital mode, (or maybe an addendum?), that this software is already invented and ideally should be used, rather than having to reinvent it. Rick seems like a very reasonable person to me and not quite as much into the politics of the Winlink 2000 systems as the main owner/administrator. And remember that that ARRL may be able to provide some input into this considering that they so strongly supported Winlink 2000 with a stacked committee that insured a particular outcome in the decision making to support this kind of activity. Based upon the overall attitudes one gets from the Winlink 2000 administrator and his supporters, I would expect that the last thing they would want is to have a competitive system, that builds upon other systems, such as PSKmail, and incorporates some of the SCAMP software components, run at a moderate to high speed, and do it on the MS OS (Microsoft Operating System) platform. And yet, that has to be what will eventually evolve if we are able to set up truly robust and decentralized systems wherever we want them and need them and not be under the control of a central group. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80% confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were amazed by the effectiveness of this first iteration. Pushing the confidence level from 80% to 100%, however, would take years -- if its even possible. But a busy detector that works 80% of the time would cut QRM from unattended automated stations (like WinLink PMBOs) by a factor of 5! Your comment that many think it is simpler than it really is to do it WELL is frankly moot; Rick demonstrated two years ago that useful busy frequency detection was implementable on a PC and soundcard. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz FreqCoordination Info)
John, We have gone over some of this a number of times, but perhaps you missed it. The Winlink 2000 programmer abandoned further work on the SCAMP mode because there is mostly one programmer as they don't work with many other hams on this. The have a closed view of the system and has been told to me, they can not allow others to know too much of the details because a malicious person could take the whole system down. Thus the security. The programmer had to work on the huge job of redoing the CMBO (Central Mail Box Office) into the new CMS (Central Message Server) to increase the redundancy of the system from two in the U.S. to two in the U.S. and one in some other country with a potential for a total of 8 CMS's worldwide. Now they are redoing the PMBO (Participating Mail Box Office)'s into RMS (Radio Message Servers) but I am not sure how things are going on that change. The programmer did indicate that he planned to release SCAMP as a GPL. It appears that he is legally bound to do so two years ago, but I hope that he will want to do this to advance the radio art, rather than keep this away from others. The main issue is to replace or add to the RDFT protocol with another protocol that can run well for different conditions. The SSTV folks abandoned RDFT after OFDM modes were developed as they work slightly better, perhaps 3 db or so with similar throughput. If you are on 3585, you are in the automatic area of the band, so you might expect some competition there. Even if a SCAMP replacement is developed for Winlink 2000, it is not going to replace P modes any time soon, since P modes are still likely to outcompete anything that can be developed by the amateur programming community. And there is a huge investment of $1000 modems that are not going to be abandoned unless something else proves to be better. There is no Winlink 2000 organization that you can work from within. It is basically a closed group of maybe half a dozen (at most) owners. They dictate all the terms to the amateur community and tell us how we are to use their system, who can have a CMS or PMBO, etc. There aren't that many SCS modems around. Some areas have invested in them, but most have not. P1 can be used for emergency use with some HF PMBO's and they will lift the 30 minute time limit for using their system in some cases. The ARRL proposal was not accepted by the FCC. For some reason, there are folks like you who seem to suggest that ARRL was behind the recent FCC changes. They were not. Their proposal was much more modest than the bizarre decision by the FCC to make things worse for the new modes. Hope to work you again on the digital frequencies if and when I get my Linux system running anything digital:( 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: Hey I'm one of the first to complain about WINLINK knocking out a QSO, and it is usually during a DX contact that it happens What I can't understand is the constant complaining about big bad old winlink, with the arguments going around and around. I don't have to operate in the middle of the automatic stations. I have a VFO and can go down below 3590, and find good QSO's between 3580 and 3590, or go to a different band. I know that I have the right to operate digital modes where I please, but common sense also says why fight QRM? WINLINK is not going to disappear, and any new ARQ mode to replace Pactor 2 and 3 will have to supported by the WINLINK folks Nobody really seems to know what happened to SCAMP, maybe the P3 modem builders made him an offer he couldn't refuse? There are authors out there quietly woking away on new stuff, like 141A and RFSM2400 which show some promise and deserve support from the digital community. If I were a US ham right now I would want to do several things: * Instead of trying to burn winlink at the stake, work from within the organization to try and reduce the frequencies used on 80M Honey always works better than vinegar. * Mount a concerted campaign with local Homeland Security offices, talking about the lack of data frequencis for emergency use, especially for all those fancy P3 modems that they bought. Point out how much better it would be with another 25 or 50 kHz of bandwidth to 3650. * Another campaign with the politicians, same argument, but pointing out how the federal bureaucrats (FCC) have put the US at risk. *ARRL? they know not what they do. Not much to do except plot a revolution and/or run for office. The thought crossed my mind as I went through the 75 or so emails over the past few days as to how many of the authors actually use digital modes on the air... John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
SCAMP was developed using the RDFT protocol, which in itself is GPLand comes from Linux. The author indicated several years ago that he would release SCAMP's protocol as GPL. He has not done this. Partly, I think because of time constraints and also because of keeping things proprietary and not willing to share. I have never seen such negative thinking in amateur radio is all the years I have been involved since first licensed in 1963. It used to be that hams were more than happy to share new ideas and others would build upon those ideas and for the most part, most hams enjoyed that progression. This seems much less common with computers and software, even when they are directly associated with ham radio. My hope is that as we see more GPL and open software, and the last few years have almost been explosive with this software, we will see this happen in amateur radio as well. 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM ~- Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links * 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio]
John, The content is extremely important. Commercial use of amateur radio is not permitted under Part 97. There is no question that the Winlink 2000 system is allowing commercial use, since these are messages that would otherwise go through commercial channels. And, according to Part 97, it is not only the content, but the regular use of such transmissions that makes it illegal. Further, all modes on amateur radio were intended to be monitored by other hams. This is nearly impossible with Pactor 2 and 3. In fact, the owners of the Winlink 2000 system made light of that some time back as to how secure it was using the compression of data plus the protocol. While it is theoretically possible to monitor with the right software, I often wonder how many owners of Pactor modems (P2 and P3 primarily) are able to discern the messages. Perhaps some SCS modem owners can describe their experiences. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: If the guy at sea was a ham why would care what type of a message he was sending? At 07:42 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote: I'm with you on that. Why the ARRL supports what is essentially long range Citizen's Band or Marine Band is beyond me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
I believe if you check the regulations, the automatic area on 80 meters is even narrower at 3585 to 3600. Because of the poor implementation of busy frequency detection, one can expect much more QRM from automatic stations. Eventually, I expect that the regulations will be written to prohibit operation of any HF operation without human or machine automatic detection. The problem is that the narrower, 500 Hz, semi-automatic modes may operate anywhere in the text data part of the bands. On 80 meters, that would be from 3500 to 3600 here in the U.S. However, good amateur practice and the bandplans would not agree with that wide a use of the bands and a ham doing that could be cited for improper operation. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: In USA the FCC set the new auto subband at 3580-3600kHz. No one should be surprised that hams are using this subband for auto operation exactly as FCC intended it to be used. No one is forcing anyone else to operate non-auto in the auto subband. Space is available for non-auto data/texting 3500-3580kHz without the limitation. Many of us were not happy when the FCC shrunk the size of the data/texting sub-band, but we must live with it now. There is really no question that auto stations exist and will continue to exist. Live with it, and get used to it. Auto operation at various degrees will undoubtedly be a part of normal operation on the ham bands, there is no turning back the clock to the horse and buggy. We as hams should continue, and will continue, to use any and all types of communication systems we can dream of. That's what we do. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
If a programmer is experimenting with a work that is derived in part from a program that has been GPL'd, I wonder if it has to be released? In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: Now that NCI is no longer necessary, maybe we can get Bruce Perens interested in this topic and he can pursue the release of SCAMP source code through their obligations of GPL. Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 1:48 am, Rein Couperus wrote: The SCAMP busy detector has been around for several years. Is this available for Linux? Source code? GPL? Rein EA/PA0R/P
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
If I understand the URL correctly, the source code of SCAMP should have been released and could have been demanded under the legal copyright of the GPL. As it was, it was deliberately set up with timers to self destruct after a few weeks or months. So even though some of us had the .exe for a while, it was no longer operable. Some of us have been waiting for several years but there has been no further work on this mode that I know of on the newsgroup we are on. I can 't say enough good things about SCAMP because it solved most of the problems that we had with providing an ARQ mode and high speed, and busy frequency detection. The only drawback was that it could only operate with good signals and had no fall back position. If their programmer could have continued working on it, I am confident that a fallback mode would have been possible. Unfortunately, with such a closed system, they needed to work on the reconstruction of the inner workings of the Winlink 2000 system with the new CMS system and now the RMS's being developed and a sound card mode to replace Pactor 3 is just not a high priority item. And when you only have one person, even if they are a spectacular programmer, you only have so many hours in a day that they can give to the cause. With the ARRL proposal, I would expect that any successful mode would be used for Winlink 2000, but more importantly, for other digital modes, both keyboarding and higher speed file transfer and for development of new e-mail systems that are more adaptable, locatable, and much less fragile than the Winlink 2000 system. Tomorrow our county AR Club will be continuing its training on packet, digital, and specifically the Winlink 2000 system. Although Winlink 2000 can be useful for casual use for traveling radio amateurs, it is not well suited for emergency communications. Even though we are primarily interested in emergency communications, I like to thing that it is helpful to understand the design of the system. Many of our local hams are newer and some have told me that they are not clear about the difference between the Winlink, NTS/D, and Winlink 2000 systems and how they evolved. 73, Rick, KV9U Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA So the FSF says no. As Dave points out, I don't know that this has been taken to court. However, in this case among, it would be unlikely to go to court. I was serious in suggesting that perhaps Bruce Perens (who is a ham and a Linux activist) would be interested. Leigh/WA5ZNU In other words, once you release an alpha or beta, do you have to provide source source to everyone else? Or does it have to be a finalized and released code? 73, Rick, KV9U Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Our other groups: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
There is no coordination of HF frequencies that are associated with the Part 97 rules. There are bandplans that the FCC recognizes as good amateur practice. While anyone can come up with a bandplan, it would necessarily have to be from a major organization or organizations to have any weight with either the FCC or the general amateur population. For example, in the U.S. the ARRL is the only general organization that represents radio amateurs at the national level. There are specialty groups that have agendas that may conflict with other groups or individuals and they may have bandplans, but they would not be something that most amateurs would abide by. This is partly due to the rather large numbers of groups and agendas and frequencies they would like as their frequencies. This would include NTS nets, county hunters, certain emergency callup groups, etc. The ARRL has a delegate that meets with the IARU to work on mutual issues and form cooperative agreements and the IARU (at least in Region 2), has as one of its main principles in its Constitution, to promote and coordinate radio communication amongst the amateurs of the various countries and territories in Region II. But it has no direct force of law. It could maybe, possibly, depending upon bureaucratic interpretation, have indirect force of law. But if the FCC ran into many challenges, they would likely want to disengage from enforcement of the many different competing interests for the same small area of spectrum. Most of us could not possibly remember more than a few frequencies or areas for specific types of operation. I have to refer frequently to the ARRL bandplans, as imperfect as they are, to try and operate appropriately. 73, Rick, KV9U Box SisteenHundred wrote: What coordination...? the ARRL just stuck a flag into a frequency and called it theirs ! 73 Bill KA8VIT From: expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no grab happening. Everyone has to operate somewhere in this small band. Since the sub-band changes are fairly new, the only coordination entities listed so far have been well-organized ones like ARRL NTS, Winlink2000, ARRL's W1AW station, and International ALE. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
The Winlink 2000 programmer developed the SCAMP mode over two years ago. This mode did not have the weak signal operation that was hoped for, but it did have busy frequency detection. Maybe you missed the discussion on this or are new to the forum? Busy frequency detection is a reality, it is already invented and I believe that it should be MANDATORY for all automatic stations, whether semi or fully automatic. It was interesting that before Rick, KN6KB, invented this detection software, the common belief was that it could not be done. I included this in my extensive comments to Paul Rinaldo at ARRL who is gathering information on a possible new HF digital protocol. I hope you, and many others, did the same when comments were sent to Paul. In terms of ARRL NTS nets, they know, and any knowledgeable ham knows, that they do not have exclusive use of any frequency, however, they would very much appreciate it if you would allow their net to operate on their QRG, just like any other thousands of nets of all kinds. Most of us can move a little bit to help them out. Remember, that at least theoretically, these nets may be useful for traffic handling during emergencies. Without the daily practice, of these operators, the net may not perform as well when we really need it. Last year, I was able to route a Health Welfare message to Alaska, from a tornado victim in a nearby community. 73, Rick, KV9U Kurt wrote: Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other communications, if we hear them. Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts transmitting. So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in progress. Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong, but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso. Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a programmer will get a program going that will listen before it transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between my ears to make sure the freq is not busy. Hey it's an old computer but still works great. 73 Kurt K8YZK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz Freq Coordination Info
Joe, I think it is fair to say that the primary reason was that when we first came up with these technologies, the promoters and users lobbied heavily to get FCC approval. I believe that you will find that the ARRL was influential in getting the rules changed to allow this. There was a very great deal of discussion on this at the time. I think it is also fair to say that most hams were opposed to allowing automatic control on the HF bands. The compromise was that the semi-automatic stations would be able to place their stations anyplace in the text data areas of the bands providing that their bandwidth was kept to 500 Hz or less. If they were fully automatic, they had to stay in the narrow automatic portions of the bands.If they were semi-automatic, but over 500 Hz in width, then they had to also operate only in automatic areas. This was done primarily to accomodate Pactor 3. While there are no more FCC declared emergency portions of the bands, good amateur practice is to stay away from those areas once you become aware of their existence. Emergency nets are often formed to handle potential traffic, but it would not mean that they are formed for emergency traffic only. Most would not be emergency, but there might be some priority and heath and welfare traffic. E-mail access via HF has been in place for many years and is a done deal here in the U.S. I don't see any practical way to stop it now without a huge groundswell from the amateur community and that doesn't seem likely. If you want HF to e-mail to be available for emergency use or for providing messaging from disaster areas, it has to be something that is available and frequently used by the hams who will try to gain access during difficult times. Speaking from experience with Winlink and the earlier Aplink system (not the same as Winlink 2000), it is not always that easy to gain access to these HF systems at the time you might want it. My belief is that there needs to be many, many, HF servers available, preferably on the 160/80/40/30 meter bands so that a server can be accessed from most locations when you need to access them. While I have been told by the owner that this is not possible for the Winlink 2000 system, it certainly could be for a narrow mode system, such as PSKmail, which does not have the weakness of the underlying infrastructure of Winlink 2000. And does not use such wide bandwidths. 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Ivey wrote: I have yet to understand why the FCC allowed automatic stations on the ham bands in the first place. I hate to see ham radio being used as an internet email service that in 99% of the case the mail is not related to ham radio. I think that 99% of the ham support handling emergency traffic and would stay clear of any frequency that was being used for such a purpose. A lot of people including hams do not really understand the term emergency traffic. Simply put it means the threat to life, injury. and property. 99.99% of all emergencies are confined to a general local area. It very rare that one needs to send traffic from the west coast to the east coast or Washington DC. Ham radio serves a great purpose in these cases and we as operators should help out when we are needed. But for someone out in his boat just wanting to check is email should not be allowed on the ham bands. My 2 cents worth. Joe W4JSI
Re: [digitalradio] narrow filters/PSK
Like most things, there is a middle path on this. Most of the time I can operate digital modes with a wide setting on my passband. The maximum on my ICOM 756 Pro 2 is 3.6 kHz. If I do get some very strong signals, they can and will desense the rig and the waterfall display will weaken, sometimes unacceptably. Then I either use my passband tuning controls to tighten up the filtering and block out the interfering signal. This PBT is not as good as using the selectable filters. The rig has three selections that you can use as defaults but you can also change any one of them with a few keypresses. I often set up my digital modes for 2.3, 1.0 and 0.5 kHz. I can go down to 50 Hz which is very impressive DSP filtering for CW and even PSK31. But you don't have much leeway in tuning. So most of the time (90%+) I use a wider setting and only tighten it up if I have a problem decoding the station I am working. If I have the station centered on 1500 Hz, I can change the filters or the PBT and know that it is the best fit for the passband. My QTH is very rural and far from any local QRO operators. My main QRM is from my own 6 joule energizers (electric fencers) of which I have two to cover different sides of the farm. Thankfully, my rig's noise blanker is very effective against that kind of noise. I have never been very impressed with DSP noise reduction, although it may help a little bit. 73, Rick, KV9U Roger J. Buffington wrote: A strong adjacent PSK31 signal inside the passband will desensitize any rig's receiver by activating the AGC such that if you try to receive a weaker adjacent signal, you will be unsuccessful. If you disable the AGC often the stronger signal will simply overload the receiver. IF filtering is essential for preventing this, and countless times filtering has made the difference between good copy and no copy. DSP filters are only helpful if they are in the IF, preventing AGC action by signals outside the passband. Software solutions, such as those in MixW or PSK Deluxe, cannot affect the rig's AGC action and are no substitute for good IF filtering.
Re: [digitalradio] 13-pin ACC2 socket on Kenwood 850S (wiring it for MFJ 1278B TNC)
For pinouts and wiring for digital connections to rigs, I often refer to the microham products listing and go to their cables section for a given product. They show the TS850S as similar to older Kenwood rigs such as my TS-440S, except the 440 did not have FSK. Can you find a separate RCA phono jack on the back of the rig for the FSK keying connection? http://www.microham-usa.com/Products/MK/Cables/DB37-TS-6.pdf It has been over 15 years since I wired up a Kenwood 13 pin DIN for my Kenwood TS-440SAT but this is from my manual and what the pins do: 3 - Data output - Output level is fixed regardless of the AF control setting. Output voltage: 300 mv or more at maximum receiving input with a 4.7 K ohm load 4 - Grounding - the shielded wire of the audio output terminal is connected here 8 - Ground 9 - MIC mute - Signal output from the MIC jack is muted. Grounding mutes signal 11- Data input - Input terminal for data communication. In SSB, MIC gain can be controlled by the MIC control. Input voltage: 500 mv or less (SSB: Voltage starts deflecting ALC. FM: Voltage providng + and - 3.0 kHz modulation ratio.) 12 - Grounding - The shielded wire of the audio input is connected here. 13 - Standby Standby terminal Grounding transmits. I don't know if the 870 series has additional AFSK line in and out RCA phono connectors as does the 440, but I made note to myself that the Data Input on the 13 pin DIN jack ... appears that this input is after the mic am/processor IC4 so needs much more voltage than the AFSK IN Jack which is parallel with the Mic Input. It was very convenient to break out the wiring to a small minibox that had a toggle switch that enabled me to ground pin 9 and thereby mute the microphone circuit and avoid accidental transmission of mic audio on digital transmissions. You might want to take a look at KE4MOB's website on the MFJ1278B and FSK issues. I assume you will be using the header jumper in the 1278 to run FSK which is much better than attempting to use the internal AFSK generator. http://www.qsl.net/ke4mob/ 73, Rick, KV9U kc7fys wrote: Howdy, I need some specific instructions on wiring up this cable. I have the 5-pin DIN for the MFJ, but don't have the instructions for wiring up the FSK and 13-pin DIN. Thanks for tips. Jonathan KC7FYS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARQ FAE mode on Multipsk
Had a late night connection with VE5MU on 80 meters. While it would not have been possible to maintain the link in the summer evening QRN levels, it worked fairly well with pushing the power levels up to close to 50 to 100 watts. The throughput is quite good at around 100 to 150 wpm I think when the flow is maximum and not too many ARQ repeats. This mode operates very similarly to Clover II and I think works better (although 4 times wider) than Clover II did. USB and LSB I think could be used. You can set the passband to a fixed tone edges or variable with the options menu. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Patrick and group, Thanks a lot for the brief explanation. I hope your new ARQ mode will progress well and I would really love to see some comparisons vs other digital modes, especially vs Pactor 2 and 3, although I realise that it is early for this right now. BTW how can you operate your new ARQ FAE mode? Do you need USB and do you have to have your passband centered on 1500 HZ or something near there? Or will LSB do as well? I suppose it has to be USB and 1500 HZ just like other wide digital modes, or am I wrong? Keep up the good work OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New ARQ FAE mode on Multipsk
It is the bidirectional, pseudoduplex operation that reminded me of Clover II (I never had the capability to run the original Clover mode, nor the later Clover 2000). When I would chat with Ray Petit, the inventor of Clover, Clover II, and also Coherent CW, we would typically have what I would characterize as modest signals, but little throughput. Even on 20 meters. So it was often frustrating. The control software would tell you the link quality and all, but for most of us, it is the throughput for a given set of conditions that really counts. It would be interesting if there are any Clover II users who can tell us how the mode compares to the other current modes and particularly the new FAE ARQ mode. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Hi Rick, Plus it retains the bi-directional (duplex) support ( and most things) of DBM ARQ and thus both stations can type at the same time and as soon as it sync's the resends will only be predicated on propo. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:05 AM 2/27/2007, you wrote: Had a late night connection with VE5MU on 80 meters. While it would not have been possible to maintain the link in the summer evening QRN levels, it worked fairly well with pushing the power levels up to close to 50 to 100 watts. The throughput is quite good at around 100 to 150 wpm I think when the flow is maximum and not too many ARQ repeats. This mode operates very similarly to Clover II and I think works better (although 4 times wider) than Clover II did. USB and LSB I think could be used. You can set the passband to a fixed tone edges or variable with the options menu. 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] New ARQ FAE mode on Multipsk
I am pleased that ARQ FAE, a modest speed 8 bit ASCII data ARQ sound card mode, is available for the first time on MS OS. This is a major breakthough. The speed is slower than P2 and we must not forget that the bandwidth is extremely wide at 4 times P2. But it is moving us in the right direction for higher speed ARQ sound card modes that work much deeper into the noise than the previous attempt with SCAMP. ARQ FAE is in the 150 + wpm speed, Pactor 2 can got up to maybe 500 wpm, maybe more with compression? SCAMP was close to 1000 wpm and had a slightly wider footprint than ARQ FAE, but that was under really good conditions. In comparison, P3 has a similar footprint but can operate with a raw speed of over 2000 wpm and with compression can get way over 3000 wpm in the best conditions. So we have a long way to go, but we are making progress. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: Have a look at Patrick's 141A ARQ FAE mode on Multipsk. Under moderate to good conditions this ARQ mode would run circles around P1 and P2 it is VERY quick John VE5MU As far as my other modes, have had RTTY covered for the last 30 years. With AMTOR PACKET PACTOR have TNC's for them. Never have seen any software that will keep up with ARQ and a TNC to date. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date: 2/25/2007 3:16 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/700 - Release Date: 2/24/2007 8:14 PM
Re: [digitalradio] That pesky FSK RTTY
Andy, The main advantage with FSK is that you have the ability (with some rigs) to use certain filtering specific to RTTY. My ICOM rig has superior filters that are double humped and shaped for the 170 tones. I can not use them on AFSK, but due to the requirement of needing another COM port and another interface for FSK switching, I have never set it up due to the ease of just using AFSK. I also rarely use RTTY and consider it obsolete for my purposes since it is mostly used for contesting these days. With FSK, there is no setting up of the drive levels from the sound card since you are basically switching the frequencies from inside the rig. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: OK, my cable for my Microkeyer should arrive in a day or so My new rig provides for FSK RTTY as opposed to the AFSK my old rig has been providing for the past 18 years. I have seen many post over the past few years about FSK, but have paid little attention. It seems though that many have some difficulty getting FSK set up. I appreciate any tips about setting FSK RTTY up with the new TS-2000 , I will probably use Winwarbler and Multipsk as my main RTTY software. I'm actually not sure what the difference between FSK and AFSK really is other than the obvious keying differences.
Re: [digitalradio] That pesky FSK RTTY
In the old days the VFO was shifted by mechanically switching a smaller capacitor in and out across the VFO tuning capacitor. This is probably why mark high was the standard, since adding capacitance would pull the frequency lower for the space tone. Today we are mostly using synthesized VFO's, and apparently all that most rigs do is insert the tones internally instead of you having to do this with outside tones from a sound card or other interface device. The advantage is that you do not have to adjust anything, assuming the internal tones are set correctly. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: OK, I think I get it but.. With FSK, there is no setting up of the drive levels from the sound card since you are basically switching the frequencies from inside the rig. tell me more about the above. How does the switching of frequencies generate tones heard at the other end.
Re: [digitalradio] re: 25-02 crashes
Steve, I got the impression that MARS was moving toward Winlink 2000 and handling traffic primarily through the internet. How do you set up different methods of traffic handling to include the different systems? Or do some members work one kind of mode and others another kind of mode? As a former Navy MARS member back in the early 1960's and later in the 80's with AF MARS, we were mostly sending traffic with voice with some feeds (often garbled) from RTTY. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: Hi Patrick, Bad news as soon as MultiPSK 25-02 receives an ARQ FAE linking call the following happens, I have tested this between two stations on a few PC's in my test bed. I have reverted back to 19-02 I have 20 or my 50 core MARS-ALE testers working with 19-02 within a few hundred miles of each other testing robustness WRT multipath, its working great. I have almost 400 beta testers working with MARS-ALE that communicate via a single e-mail forum. There are over 2,600 Army MARS members alone ( not sure how many Air Force and Navy MARS members) waiting for a production release of MARS-ALE to debut. /s/ Steve Emacs! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/700 - Release Date: 2/24/2007 8:14 PM
Re: [digitalradio] 144.???? Rtty
This was something we did in the early 1980's prior to packet radio. Even my homebrew TU worked well on VHF RTTY compared with its dismal performance on HF. We had an active contingent of local hams who used RTTY on meters. In fact, they even built and maintained a regenerative RTTY repeater which made it possible for hams over a 50 or more mile radius to use VHF RTTY. Some had autostart so it was possible to send messages to print and hold on their system. Then packet came in like a roller coaster. In a matter of a few months, the useage of the RTTY repeater went almost to zero. The RTTY owners decided that they would run the repeater for a long time. Two weeks later they shut it off. Then it was quite a sea change as most active hams had a packet station always on for e-mail. Today, all we have left is the internet since almost all interconnecting links, BBS's, are gone. Another sea change, although the complete opposite of the one in the 1980's when for a short time VHF digital was one of the most active modes for radio amateurs. I had hoped to get some interest going with VHF digital, but have pretty much given up as there just are not any hams in my area willing to do this. Out of 150 hams in our area, you would be hard pressed to find more than two or three who really have much interest in digital other than perhaps contesting with RTTY. With more hams likely moving toward HF, it may be possible to find some locals trying that out, but in rural areas like I live, it is just not that common. 73, Rick, KV9U va7s wrote: just curious anyone interested in trying vhf rtty Ian VA7SW
Re: [digitalradio] 141A
I copied some of the ALE from EA2AFR. I copied both of you when you switched back to Olivia 32/1000. There was a Pactor 3 station overlapped with about half of the ALE and that blocked any reception. Then when you went to Olivia, on a slightly different center frequency, I was able to copy through the approximately 30% overlap with P3. Now I see W1OER calling CQ on 14109.5 (dial frequency 140108 + 1450Hz). I will move up to 14.109.5 +1500 and see if any ALE activity. KV9U John Bradley wrote: EA2AFR and I tried for quite a while to get this running, but sigs were not strong enough. Could communicate unproto and also had a good chat with 100% copy using Olivia 1000/32 Also heard KV9U and KQ6XA briefly another day, maybe. John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/700 - Release Date: 2/24/2007 8:14 PM
Re: [digitalradio] 144.???? Rtty
Hi Jerry, The repeater was located on a farmer's silo on a ridge somewhere between Trempealeau, WI and Winona, MN from what I recall. I did not have any problem hitting it with modest power and antenna from Onalaska, WI. It had pretty good coverage. The one thing about regenerative repeaters is that they are mode specific. If you had an RTTY regenerative repeater today, not that I would remotely recommend such a thing anymore, you would not be able to use any other digital modes, such as PSK31, MFSK16, Olivia, etc., since it would only regenerate the tones close to 2125/2295 Hz. I too had a Model 15. I paid $45 for it in the early 1980's and only had it for a few years and sold it with a homebrew TU for $5 (including the power supply loop for the teleprinter) due to the complete collapse of the older technology. One of my diehard teleprinter friends, who is still active, but won't try any new digital modes if it is not SSTV on 40 meters, used to have a Model 33 and he swore he would never get rid of it. Well, after a few years of taking up so much space in his shack, he somehow managed to get it downstairs and took it to the only place possible ... the local landfill. I'm sure it was very painful to do this. VHF RTTY would truly be an anachronistic mode today since it has been eclipsed by the weak signal modes that would work so much better on VHF. The weakest signal modes that have been tested to work deep into AWGN work well on VHF and higher frequencies. You don't see any RTTY art anymore come to think of it. It used to be fairly popular on VHF, because you could operate for long periods of time with no hits and it made for a nice picture. I especially liked the Abraham Lincoln and the Einstein ones:) 73, Rick, KV9U Jerry W wrote: Rick, Was that regenerative repeater in the Chicago area? I remember someone used to send text pictures on one night. I have one left that I sent to my father, it was a semi-truck and the title was Keep On Trucking. But the paper is getting brittle and falling apart. Had a Teletype Model 15 and a TU I built from RTTY Journal, was before the ST-600 or Mainliner, all tubes. I lived in North Riverside, IL and had to get a eight elemet beam, aimed it west to get good quieting on the receiver. Jerry - K0HZI
Re: [digitalradio] 144.???? Rtty
I was pretty sure the shift was 170, but just got e-mail confirmation back from the ham who was one of the main guys who set up the repeater and he confirmed we used 170 Hz. I would be very surprised if any RTTY repeaters still exist since packet was so much better and could do so much more. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: Rick What was the shift used? In the St. Louis area there was a 146.10 .70 repeater that used 850Hz shift. Since I have not lived in the area for some 20 years now I have no guess if it's still on the air.
Re: [digitalradio] 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband
Maybe Canadians did RTTY/digital data differently than the rest of the world? John's comment that there is a tradition that when a frequency is given that it means VFO frequency just is not true from any historical perspective. It may be that he never operated RTTY which is the historical beginning of what most of us consider to be digital operation and typically the mark frequency was often given. When an operator gave a frequency it was the actual frequency they were operating. If an operator was using AFSK, they would have to calculate the difference to put themselves on the correct frequency. This was absolutely critical when using autostart. And it was also savvy and knowledgeable operating. The truth is that no one used the AFSK dial frequency to indicate their digital frequency unless they did not understand that running AFSK is going to give you a significantly different transmission frequency than those who specified the actual mark, space, or center frequency they were operating. There are a few rigs that will display space or mark tones for RTTY operation. Also, some digital programs, such as WinWarbler, display the actual frequency above the waterfall assuming you have rig control. If you have used this program, you will note that when you set your frequency on the nearest KHz, it will display that frequency on the left most part of the waterfall and the frequencies above that point if using USB. So, if you set the program to RTTY, it has the standard 2125/2295 Hz points marked on the waterfall which has been the standard for the high tone pair for mark and space for many decades. If you wanted to tune in those tones at their standard audio frequency, at an RF frequency of 14109.5, you would need to set your dial frequency at 14107.30. This was often needed because the most U.S. TU's required the tone pair of 2125/2295 Hz in order to insure minimal chance of sending harmonics from the rig. It sounds complicated, but with WinWarbler it does not require any calculations since you just center the tones in the marked area. For PSK31, assuming you want to center a 14109.5 kHz signal at 1500 Hz, you would of course set your rig to 14.108.0 and you would be at the correct frequency. When I tell someone that I am transmitting on 14109.5, I always put my cursor on the 1500 Hz point on the waterfall to center the mode, and move my VFO to 14108.0 so that I really have my signal on 14109.5. When John, VE5MU, claims to be transmitting on 14109.5, he is actually centering his transmitting frequency on 14.110. While you may be able to tune around to find him, I think that most reasonable and hopefully savvy digital operators would agree that knowing his actual frequency is much better. It is probably not too unfair to say that the increased use of AFSK has made a number of hams confused about what frequency they were on. Even voice can be an issue when we consider centered frequencies, and not dial frequency. Look what has to be done just to operate USB voice modes on 60 meters. We are given the center frequency and have to calculate our frequency from that point to work with our dial frequency readout. My equipment has optimum filtering when operating in SSB digital modes only when I center the frequency at 1500 Hz. Therefore, I move my VFO appropriately if I hear something that I want to decode. I only move around the waterfall for casual checking of signals or if they are very strong and I am betting that I won't need any filtering in place. I admit that there have been a number of times that I was in QSO with someone away from the optimum 1500 Hz point and some QRM appeared that I could not filter out. A truly experienced digital operator would not expect another operator to find them somewhere away from the dial frequency when they can just give them the frequency. KV9U John Bradley wrote: I know this argument has been beaten to death before,but here it goes again. I think all of us who are using digital modes understand the offset concept. If you specify a VFO frequency, this is a good starting point for finding the other station. With the number of modes out that allow tuning the offset, the offset can vary from under 500hz to 2000hz and still stay within the bandpass of most rigs. If I am in QSO sequentially with several other stations, I would be using the tunable offset to receive the signal as best I can, therefore the offset is not fixed, but my VFO frequency is. In a similar fashion I may have tuned the offset to avoid a CW station, again staying at the same VFO frequency. Specifing a VFO frequency establishes a point to look up from . Most experienced operators would tune their offsets from 500hz up to 2000hz looking for the signal. And usually once you set the VFO frequency, the signal you are looking for is pretty obvious. Traditionally, when a frequency is given that means VFO frequency, and not something
Re: [digitalradio] 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband
You are of course right, Jose. That was a typo and should have read 14.111. Thanks for the correction. Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: KV9U wrote: When John, VE5MU, claims to be transmitting on 14109.5, he is actually centering his transmitting frequency on 14.110. No, 14111.14109.5 kHz + 1.5 kHz I did have to tune around, but I finally found him. Of course, it is easier to state the RF center frequency. The rest is my problem, dealing with my radio and preferences. Jose, CO2JA __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
Re: [digitalradio] 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband
The ICOM 756 Pro 2 centers on 1500 Hz. If anyone knows if you can change the center, I would like to know how to do it. My preference would be 1000 Hz since it makes it easier to increment one kHz from the dial frequency. As mentioned to Jose, the correct frequency you were operating on was 14.111, not 14110. SSB nets are not running digital modes and their frequency is the dial frequency, whether USB or LSB. CW nets are based on the zero beat frequency, but different rigs have different CW offsets. Many rigs have the ability for the operator to change the CW pitch to center the received audio frequency in the filters as well as meet operator preference. The other operator has no idea that you are doing this as long as you are zero beat on the frequency. KV9U John Bradley wrote: I appologize, since I didn't realise that it is equipment defficiencies which do not allow you to change from the 1500hz center point. It must be an Icom thing, since the Kenwood equipment I am using permits centering on 1000,1500, or 2210 hz. I think that you should take up your cause with all the many digital, RTTY and SSB nets around the world who only specify a VFO frequency as opposed to the exact frequency of the offset or sideband in use. It certainly is a slap in the face to good operating practices and should not be condoned by experienced operators anywhere. Some remedial math might also be in order since 14109.5 + 1500hz is 14111.0 ( not that this supports my argument or anything) Nuf said, will continue to bumble along with VFO frequencies, trusting that others can deal with the vagarities of their equipment, and hope that we can co-exist for the common good. somewhat tongue-in-cheek, John VE5MU -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699 - Release Date: 2/23/2007 1:26 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699 - Release Date: 2/23/2007 1:26 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Olivia dying?
After several years, the main digital mode still appears to be PSK31, especially on the higher bands. When a new mode comes out, some of us will test it and if it doesn't have some superior feature, may not use it that much. A good example is MT-63 which seemed fairly popular when it first came out, but has not been used that much as of late. Although Olivia is robust under some conditions, this is usually in the wider modes. The AWGN sensitivity is comparable to PSK31 but on bands close to the MUF, it may not be needed for casual QSO's. The fastest common speed is just under 40 wpm at the 16 tone/1000 Hz bandwidth, which is close to PSK31 but most other tone/BW's are much slower, typically under 30 wpm and even under 20 wpm in some cases. The 4/500 speed gets the the baud rate up to 125 which may be a bit too fast for many HF conditions. The mode that currently seems quite good to me is DominoEX, particularly with FEC. Even with moderate static crashes on my last Tuesday's test schedule, it would print solidly when I know other modes would have had problems. It may not perform so well when we try it during the more severe conditions on the lower bands during the summer, but it will be interesting to see. DEX has considerable tuning tolerance unlike MFSK16 which formerly was my favorite mode. MT-63 was exceptionally bad the other night under that condition of NVIS+ground wave (35 miles) with moderate power and modest antennas on 160 meters. ALE is so very wide, that I am not able to use it this afternoon due to the RTTY contest. At times there are three stations on RTTY in the 2000 Hz bandwidth of the mode. This does rather limit its use at times. I think we would all be interested in hearing of the experiences of other digital hams and how they rate the old and new modes. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: I received a Skype call from a ham asking me the very same question I was thinking last week...what has happened to Olivia? Last year I would say it was behind only PSK31, Pactor and RTTY in terms of frequent actvity for digital modes. Now I think it is not as commond as MFK16, Hell, and ALE. What gives ?
Re: [digitalradio] 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband
The reason for using a frequency close to the beacons is to insure you don't step on the beacon, but still are able to operate with efficient spectrum use. We can surely all agree that we have very limited spectrum for the number of users, particularly during certain times of heavy use. If we kept far away from this one set of beacons, we would be giving up 6 or more KHz of space on each of those bands that have the IARU beacons: 20, 17, 15, 12, and 10 meters. I would view this as very poor amateur practice. Even though I often disagree with Bonnie's ideas and the way she presents them, this is one time that she is clearly correct. When you put your SSB dial frequency on a given frequency you are actually NOT transmitting on that frequency with the typical digital mode. The dial frequency is the frequency at which your carrier frequency would be if you had a carrier. Of course, being that it is SSB, there is no significant carrier unless your equipment is malfunctioning. Even if you were on 14.100 USB, and you started transmitting with a 500 Hz wide mode and centered it on 1000 Hz, you are still going to be 750 Hz ABOVE the 14.1000 CW beacon frequency. This seems to be a very difficult thing for many hams to understand based on the comments we have been seeing lately. They somehow think that they are actually transmitting on their dial frequency. They most assuredly are not when they are transmitting with a tone or series of tones away from that frequency. Are you even sure you understand this? For example, have you really been on 14109.5? I might suggest that you were not on that frequency at all but were well above this frequency. It is rather difficult to connect with someone when they are perhaps 1500 Hz off from where they say they are. Lets suppose you decided to move to 14099 with a tone spread of 500 Hz and centered on 1000 Hz. Do you honestly think you would be clear of the beacon frequency because your dial was not on 14100? In truth wouldn't you be zero beat with the beacon and QRMing both sides for 250 Hz? ALE seems mostly an annunciator to let others know you are calling them or a group. Basically it is an adjustable SELCAL like we used to use for autostart RTTY in the very old days. I don't see this as ever being all that useful since we have had DCS on rigs for many years now and it is rarely used on VHF and higher bands. In terms of communication, the ALE operators are mostly going to talk or send messages via ALE after they connect. What I see much more valuable is the fact that this gives us a new ARQ mode for messaging. And it may interest others in coming up with adaptive technologies to allow us to transmit higher speed, yet error free data. KV9U John Bradley wrote: The math is all fine and dandy , but WHY pick a frequency close to the beacons? That's where all the logic fails! There is a large chunk of relatively little used frequencies on both sides of the beacon frequency. For argument's sake why not make the guard frequency +/- 3 khz? why not clump the ALE frequencies closer together since they reflect (usually) the state of the art , or at least modern equipment since computer control is required? The only redeeming virtue is that ALE operators spend much of their time arguing and discussing ALE on email rather than on the air. For the past few days I have been sitting on 14109.5, testing (playing with) Patrick's new 141A mode. Basically have been monitoring from about 1300Z to Z, since I have also been working on a consulting project on another computer in the office. The only things I've heard are other folks playing with the same mode, no soundings etc etc from the ALE folks. This is a good thing, since they are so determined to potentially QRM the beacon frequency, the incidence may be fairly low. :) John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DEX vs. MT-63
I did not see any response to this but each of the DominoEX modes does have an estimated SNR For example: DEX4 = -14.5 dB DEX5 = -14 DEX8 = -13.5 DEX11 = -12 DEX16 = -10.5 DEX22 = -9 Add about one 1 db better SNR for using the FEC mode. It does seem that DEX22/FEC works better than DEX11 without FEC in many cases even though the throughput speed is about the same. However, under weak signal condx, I suspect that DEX11 wihout FEC would work deeper into the noise. As I am finding out on many HF circuits, the ability to handle the vagaries of the ionosphere is often more important than the raw ability to handle AWGN. I did think that MT-63 would do better than DEX11/FEC and DEX22/FEC, but it was much worse during the 160 meter test. Signal strengths were generally quite good though and QRN was not too bad considering the time of year here in the northern hemisphere. It will be most interesting to see what happens this summer with static crashes. It just seemed like DEX was able to handle static crashes better than other non-ARQ modes. 73, Rick, KV9U DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: Coding Coding Mode Baud Speed Correction Convolution Interleaving SNR (in dB) Bandwidth DominoEx11 10.766 77 WPM No No Not Stated Not Stated 194 Hz DominoEx22 21.533 154 WPM No No Not Stated Not Stated 388 Hz MT63-1K10 100 WPMNo No Yes -5 1000 Hz Perhaps the bandwidth of MT63 and its SNR threshold may have been the difference. But I don't know what the SNR threshold of DEx11 and DEx22 are. Also, they are different types of modulations. Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] ARQ FAE and 141A
Assuming you are centered on 14109.5, there has been a Pactor 3 station partically on that frequency. Tried calling you now since freq is clear but no response. But not sure of QRG. I am dial frequency 14.108 _1500 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: this morning could hear CO2JA, Jose on 14109.5 but couldn't work him with 141A. Did work him with about 85% copy on OLIVIA 1000/32 conditions noisy and with a little pactor QRM will keep trying, any other takers? John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 - Release Date: 2/22/2007 11:55 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DEX vs. MT-63
I was not aware that the lowest S/N ratios allow for significant error rates. For example, the British study had what seemed perfect data throughput when they listed the S/N ratio below noise, although under AWGN and that is more similar to VHF and up compared to HF. Based upon the multitone success of Pactor 3, it seems that having a moderate number of tones (18 perhaps?) might be better than having large numbers such as found with MT-63 (64 tones). What would happen with a DEX44 or DEX88, with or without FEC? 73, Rick, KV9U DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: Rick, A couple of things to consider... Most of the published Lowest S/N (such as by Patrick, F6CTE, Pascal, F1ULT and others is based on the signal level where you are getting about 2% errors. The lowest S/N for MT63 is - 8 dB for 5 bauds, - 5 dB for 10 bauds and -2 dB for 20 bauds and is generally either error free or not decoding at all. DominoEX 16 is 15.625 baud ~100 WPM ~50 WPM w/FEC DominoEX 22 is 21.533 baud ~140 WPM ~70 WPM w/FEC While no specific lowest S/N is given for DominoEX, I suspect that DominoEX 22 is close to MT63-1K in throughput except that it more than likely DominoEx 22 has a lower S/N than MT-63-1K. Therefore one would expect DominoEX-22 to work better than MT63-1K perhaps in part due to the higher baud rate and less of a tendency to be affected by Doppler. This might also be a reason that DominoEX 22 worked better than DominoEX 16 w/FEC. As you say...the ability to handle the vagaries of the ionosphere is often more important than the raw ability to handle AWGN.
Re: [digitalradio] ARQ FAE and 141A
John, If you indicate a frequency (QRG), then you should be on that frequency. It is precisely because everyone's offset will be different, that you can NOT use a dial frequency without specifying that it is a dial frequency and then it also specifying the offset you are using. Because we have a waterfall for digital modes, and because there is often a center line to show the center frequency, it is my contention that you should place your cursor (for those modes that permit this) at the point on your waterfall to insure that you are really on the frequency you say you are going to be on. In my case, I typically use an ICOM rig that requires the center point to be offset 1500 Hz from the carrier or dial frequency. Thus, if someone says they are going to be on 14109.5, I move my VFO to 14.108.0 so that I will be close to their QRG. If they center their mode, then we will be very close allowing for rig differences in accuracy. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: dial frequency 14109.5 plus 0ffset. Since everyone's offset may be different, easier to understand VFO freq and look up from there at 2000gmt back making noise John
Re: [digitalradio] ALE with MULTIPSK
It seems like there are a rather large number of frequencies on each band for this mode. I could see perhaps one watering hole for ALE, particularly since it is such a wide band mode. One ALE signal will take up as much as all the PSK31 signals on a given band and probably even more than that so it seems to me that we would want to be prudent with having only one frequency. Individuals could come up with their own frequencies or group spot frequency, but it would be better if they all shared one frequency per band. The many rules and procedures to operate ALE are far beyond what 99% of radio amateurs would ever want to do on the HF bands, but if it could act as an ARQ mode for keyboarding or messaging I can see where it could be a stop gap measure until we get a better replacement for this feature. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: HFLINK welcomes all MULTIPSK users to ham radio ALE operation. For the past 7 years, a global network of ALE Ham Operators has been growing. The purpose of the network is to enable ordinary Voice, Text, or Data QSOs in any mode. The ham radio ALE network is live 24/7/365 for QSOs or Propagation Testing. It is on hot-standby for Emergency/Relief Communications. We invite all operators to participate and enjoy QSOs using ALE. At first, ALE and its protocols may seem complex, but it is well worth the initial learning curve. The ALE network is really a framework for many sub-networks or individual hams to operate.
[digitalradio] DEX vs. MT-63
This evening the other station that I have been having a weekly hour testing session with, met on 160 meters tonight. The QRN levels are not bad (for 160), but there were static crashes over S9. We used Domino EX/FEC at the 11 baud speed to start and had good luck. We then moved up to DEX22/FEC and still found pretty good quality print although there were some hits for some of the static crashes. We then attempted to use 100 wpm, 1000 Hz wide MT-63. Very poor results. Now I did not change my transmitter power and got very little print from me. He normalized his power for 40 watts average and even then his print on my end was very poor. I would get a few characters such as callsign exchange, but miss a dozen or more characters in a row. We were forced to go back to DEX22/FEC and finished up there. I do want to try the ALE mode since it was incorporated into Multipsk. I downloaded the program and I think I understand how to connect to another station. Anyone on tonight yet? 160 and up. Butternut vertical ground mounted here. Also, on 80 meters, NVIS inverted vee dipole. Any Technician hams planning to operate CW or digital or voice on Friday? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
A few years ago, my wife was thinking about upgrading to General but found a similar situation where the dits and dahs sound roughly the same to her. She decided that it was not something she wanted to spend that many resources in trying to learn, since the only possible use she would have for a General would be HF portable operation to enhance what we do now with repeaters. Because the test had dropped to such a slow speed at 5 wpm, it was practical to consider alternate methods of reception, such as flashing light or tactile feel. Some deaf hams have been able to hear CW by lightly touching a speaker cone and sensing the vibrations. For some, it is one of the few ways they could communicate. Computers have helped tremenously in being able to display text and images. If digital modes were extremely important for emergency communication, it is not unreasonable that the government might include some kind of certification for typing skills when you consider the Part 97 basis and purpose of amateur radio, but it does not seem to be viewed as an important skill for the radio amateur. Speech to text technology has improved somewhat over the last decade and even QST had an article a while back with a ham that used this for sending PSK31, rather than having to type the message on the keyboard. On one of my farm internet discussion groups, we have at least on blind participant and I know some who use speech to text to write their posts. It is even possible for a deaf person to communicate with a blind person using these kinds of technology. Just one of the extra benefits of our digital modes:) 73, Rick, KV9U James Wilson wrote: Glad you learned it. I have spent at least 80 hours trying to learn code using every method possible. I was getting ready to go to the doctors to figure out what was wrong with me. It's hard to explain I just can't hear the sounds. Dit's and Dah's continue to sound the same. I consider myself fairly intelligent but just couldn't learn code. After they dropped code I said ok this is good, but I still want to learn it. It's low power, ability to work in all situations then I learned about PSK and the beauty of PSK. Now I agree with the CW guys there should be a skills requirement for current technology. If you can't type 20 words per minute your drop down to a tech, 30 words to be an extra. Come on, anyone can learn how to type and 30 wpm isn't that fast.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
Some thoughts on this: 1. I am mostly retired except for the farming operation and we no longer have any livestock over the winter so that means minimal chores other than keeping the woodstove burning. 2. It only takes a few seconds to look it up as I have Part 97 on my computer as a basic .doc file and can do a quick search to find the pertinent information. 3. I try to keep up my understanding of rules, both for my own interest and so that I keep it straight when I teach ham classes or do any mentoring. Maybe it even keeps the brain going? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: I wish I had all your free time to look this up all the time At 07:06 PM 2/17/2007, you wrote: It is legal under FCC rules for W1AW to transmit code practice under 97.111 Authorized transmissions. (b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications: (5) Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code; (6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins;
Re: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
W1AW should be able to locate a clear frequency in most cases by moving a few hundred Hz away from an ongoing QSO. They are not generally hard to find in my experience as they often have the strongest signal on the band at least here, halfway across the country. The ARRL still has to follow the Part 97 rules. I would go so far as to expect them to be exemplary in following the rules and setting the examples to other radio amateurs. There are going to be some cases where transmission of the code practice may still be of limited use to a few hams who just do not have computers. It is difficult to think of any other reason to take up bandwidth, however small it may be. But even if there is no use anymore, they, and anyone else, can still do this kind of one way transmission until the current rule is changed. Think of the hundreds of frequencies that are used by the traffic nets. We often use 3.555 MHz here in our Section. Others use one or more frequencies. Take a look at what hfpack.org considers to be their frequencies, or how about checking out bandplans.com and see the various groups, nets, special interests, etc., or the WRRL (World Radio Relay League) frequencies they meet on. Should you have a list of these hundreds of frequencies or should you be required to memorize them? Which one of these should take precedence or have more status than another? You have to ask yourself, do all groups with longevity have an equal status for reserving a given frequency? The rules say that is strictly prohibited. The answer can not be more clear than in actually reading the rules and realizing that everyone must first check to see if the frequency is in use. You just ask if voice, or on CW typically use a QRL? Same with digital. If the frequency is clear, then it is your frequency until you relinquish it. All hams should fully understand this and follow it. 73, Rick, KV9U larry allen wrote: If w1aw had to listen and move to find a clear spot then how would people find them.. Why can't the other users realise where and when w1aw does their code practice and keep the frequency clear... then everyone could 'hear' w1aw's code practice, rather than having to tune around looking for it Considering w1aw's longevity, I think we should respects it's place in ham radio society.. If you feel that we are loosing too much cw space then complain to the powers that be like you, the plural you, complained about wanting a no-code licence... Larry ve3fxq
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
Clearly, the FCC no longer considers CW a necessary skill. No reasonable person can deny that. The military (except for some special personnel) no longer use it, MARS dropped it as well. It is a huge sea change for sure. Voice modes were fairly popular as the technology improved and it was not necessary to promote specific skills since we already know how to do that. Digital is a relatively small special interest area of radio amateurs and only in the past few years has become a bit more important and that is reflected in the number and types of digital questions asked in the exams. Only CW requires a special skill to operate unless you include typing skills for keyboarding. In fact, I have found that one of things holding back more deployment of non voice digital modes is the inability of the operator to have those skills. Will there still be a few hams who will want to learn CW? Yes, a few. But many fewer than we had in the past. I am a good example. I hated CW and hated the idea that that I had to do it. And I only later was able to pass the 13 wpm and later the 20 wpm exams at an FCC examining site prior to the VE program, but it took a huge amount of effort. If I had not had to learn CW, there is no question that I never would have expended that much time. And I would never have realized that it can be an interesting mode to use. And I would never realize what I would have missed. It was only that I was required to do it that pushed me to do it. That is all gone now. It will be quite interesting to see how many do try it and become proficient in CW. But maybe only half as many? 20% as many? 10% as many? 73, Rick, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am wondering why CW, as a mode, becomes less valuable just because there is no upfront test prior to licensing. Were Digital and SSB modes previously considered less valuable than CW because there was prerequiste testing in either mode before we got our licenses? Maybe Digital operators could have been subjected to a keyboarding test and SSB operators subjected to picking callsigns out of heavy QRM! Now, all three modes are on similar footing. You pass the test, get your license and work the mode or modes that you wish to use. I just don't understand why the elimination of a licensing requirement means that folks won't want to learn CW or improve their existing CW skills. In my case, I was away from CW for a number of years. I can still copy a CW QSO at 12-15 WPM but the format of a typical CW QSO is pretty predictable, easy to follow and copy. I prefer the practice that W1AW offers me as it gives me some good text to copy and a quick way to compare my copy with what was actually sent. 73 es DX Russ WA3FRP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
Rod, I agree with your assessment of EMP issues and have thought about this a bit over the years. I keep one rig off line in a closet with the hope that it might survive an EMP event. It might not though, as it has no special shielding. I suppose I should at least short out the antenna connector. Sometimes I wish I could have a Faraday shielded ham shack. Maybe we should consider doing that if we ever build a new home. It would only cost a small amount of money to wrap a room with some hardware cloth under the paneling, ceiling and floor. Digital modes generally require computers and most of them would be damaged except perhaps some lap tops that might have been disconnected. We don't really know with absolute certainly how large an area the EMP event could cover with a specific damage level. But it would definitely cause impacts to anything connected to wires for a long way from the detonation point. I don't recall anyone ever saying that CW has no use. I have not seen anyone debate this at all here on this group. In fact, I know that there will be a few hams who will try it and who will have a natural or native ability to learn it and will find it a lot of fun. But probably not a lot of them. Your last comment is what the folks who do anything new generally say to the OT's. 73, Rick, KV9U Rodney Kraft wrote: Personally, should someone fire off a nuke, or a series of nukes, the EM Pules would wipe out MOST electronics, at least those that are operational at the time and most of what isn't shielded! Phone systems, especially Cell phones, would be history! The Trunking communications systems (they require rather large computer databases to keep them running) would fail. Basically, the majority of all communications, GPS, Navigational... systems would be toast! CW has proven itself to be reliable in the most adverse conditions and always will be. To say that it has NO use is a stupid statement! Yes, it HAS become rather obsolete, with all the other forms of Data communications, but wouldn't you at least like to know that SOME form of RELIABLE communications is actually in use and people are LEARNING and honing their skills? This debate is rather stupid because all the FCC has done is to STOP the REQUIREMENT for CW in getting your license. It has NOT stopped or forbidden its use! GET OVER IT!!! ADAPT!! Rod KC7CJO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
They actually do have a station operator during the simultaneous transmissions. They had claimed in the past that the operator listens on each band and if necessary tweaks the frequency a bit if it is right on a QSO that can be heard. The W1AW signal is an excellent one and I can easily see that they could step on stations that can hear each other well but can not be heard by W1AW's operator. I have to say that with all the computer practice CW available now, and since it is no longer necessary to operate at any particular speed to pass a code test, the code practice transmissions are pretty much obsolete. For those who might remember what it was like as a new Novice, we would timidly listen around and hear someone calling CQ at a speed we hoped that we could copy and then answer them. With computers, it is possible to get some assistance by using the computer to help you if you miss something. This assumes the other op has a reasonably good fist and lets face it, many ops have really poor sending ability. If a computer can not decode your fist, then you know you need to improve it. That includes OT's as well, many of whom have difficulty with timing, word separation, etc. Then again there are those who are really savvy and can do a good job and are a pleasure to chat with on CW. I hope to hear some slow ops trying CW on the 80/40/15 meter text data areas of the band that all hams, including Technicans will be able to operate on in about 6 days from today. The very best way to increase your code speed, and certainly the most fun way, is to actually get on the air and use it. Of course, most will want to try SSB voice and maybe even some digital on 10 meters. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill McLaughlin wrote: Hi Danny, I know it has been asked before; sadly. I cc'd them at HQ with the same question, to be fair. I agree re their 160 meters ops also. It was a marginal problem on 80 under the older FCC constraints but the recent changes only amplify the issue. Many of us predicted the effects of digital modes all being pressed into an RF corner and think with level-heads we can work it all out (like we have options?). We (or just I) do not need the mess compounded by (envious look inserted) a signal of W1AW's magnitude dumped on an already saturated digital mode band-space without the inkling of listening before transmitting. It is seemingly unattended operation that by statute is limited to frequencies not where they are. As for 160, do not believe there is any FCC allocation for unattended ops (as W1AW seems to be)...if there is let me know as a few actual researchers for propogation are looking for a frequency to beacon... the ARRL has it in the bandplan but the FCC does not have it in the regs. 73 and be well, thanks for your comments, Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
It is legal under FCC rules for W1AW to transmit code practice under 97.111 Authorized transmissions. (b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications: (5) Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code; (6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins; It would not come under the same rules as repeaters since they are placed by permission of the frequency coordinator which is whatever group is formed by the radio amateurs in that area or section, etc. The FCC considers them to hold the most weight. 97.3 Definitions. /(22) Frequency coordinator/. An entity, recognized in a local or regional area by amateur operators whose stations are eligible to be auxiliary or repeater stations, that recommends transmit/receive channels and associated operating and technical parameters for such stations in order to avoid or minimize potential interference. Any uncoordinated station needs to resolve interference to a coordinated station. Under Part 97.113 Prohibited Transmissions, there are some exceptions for even the operators of a code practice station. This was tailor made specifically for the ARRL operators and placed into the rules by request from the ARRL. (d) The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week; schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other service as a control operator. 73, Rick, KV9U larry allen wrote: I believe that w1aw has the rights (perhaps a better word can be found) to it's accepted frequencies in the same way that more modern repeaters have their rights to accepted frequencies. Larry ve3fxq
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
I wonder if group members might want to use 1808 KHz as the frequency for 160 meter digital modes. And that means the actual frequency. With the ease of seeing the bandwidth on waterfall displays, I favor centering on the frequency. This means that you need to put your dial frequency at the appropriate point to have the transmitted frequency in the correct location. Since I need to center on 1500 Hz up in the passband, I would need to set my equipment for 1806.5 KHz so that my transmitted signal is actually on 1808. If you center on 1000 Hz, then you would need to place your dial frequency on 1807. Bottom line is that the frequency should always be the actual transmitted frequency. Last night there were some digital signals here in the midwest U.S., even with some moderate QRN. As far as when, it could be anytime that the D layer is not absorbing too much, and a good time might be when the greyline terminator is approaching your QTH. Of course, close stations, ~100 miles?, should be able to make contacts during the day? 73, Rick, KV9U David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
How does the audio quality sound with P25 equipment compared with D-Star? Since P25 is very expensive, are almost all users getting used equipment? How much does this cost? I have heard new prices for HT's at $1500. Is that really true? What about the cost of the repeater? Or did you buy a used one? Either way, what kind of cost is involved in the repeater itself? I assume that the cavities and antenna, etc., are identical to analog repeaters. Thanks for any information you can share. 73, Rick, KV9U otobmark wrote: I am trying to put up a P25 repeater and if all goes well, it will pass D-Star digital as well as P25 and analog. Limitation is that since I'll have only 1 repeater initially, the 2 digital modes (D-Star P25)cannot cross communicate. If I key up w/ a D-Star HT then only other D-Star radios will be able to decode the audio...same with P25.
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
Danny, If we don't stay with the bandplans, then we can be sited by the FCC for not following good amateur practice. The ARRL Bandplan is the defacto bandplan for the U.S. That is why I don't venture out of the digital part of 160 meters when using digital text modes. Ideally, CW stations should not be using 1800-1810 as that is reserved for digital modes. The bandplan does permit CW there, of course, but that is because CW has special dispensation yet across most all of the ham bands (except 60 meters) here in the U.S. If you set your dial frequency to 1808 USB and put your signal at 1000 Hz on the waterfall, you are really operating on 1809 and that is getting very close to the CW QRP frequency of 1810. An alternative frequency could theoretically be the 1.995 - 2.000 experimental area, but that is right close to the 1.999 beacon frequency. Do I agree with these bandplans for 160? No I do not, but we would have to get them changed to our liking if we wanted to operate differently. What I really would like to see is narrow band modes (CW, PSK31) at the bottom of the bands, medium digital modes ~ or 500 Hz (RTTY, DEX, MFSK16) above that, and wide band digital 1000 Hz above that and below voice frequencies. But that is not possible at this time because the FCC has continued to divide by type of mode rather than bandwidth. I am not too worried about missing any DX on 160 and consider it lucky to copy stations within a 1000 miles or so:) 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: Again, I see no reason why we would want digital signals down that low in such a wide band. That first 25 KC or so is used heavily by CW stations both here and DX. I dont care what someone else arbitraily decided was the bandplan for digital. Those bandplans are NOT worldwide, and until they are, they make no sense DX wise. We should go with the flow. Its the same with mixing SSB all up and down the band, just makes no sense. I also dont see why we even need to mention where your, or my, VFO is set. Simply give the final freq where the signals will be in the waterfall. Each of us has different offset, according to our own equipment, and all that does is confuse the issue. IF I spot something on 1.876, that is where it is on the waterfall, and if your software doesnt take you there automatically (very unlikely it wont) then its up to you to figure out your offset. It is certainly the one item that confuses new people when they get into digital radio, because they are seeing spots listed every which way. The great majority of software packages (including every one I have used) takes the offset into consideration and properly sets the VFO and then the tracking mark on the waterfall falls right on the proper spotted freq. You can almost bet someone doesnt know how to set their offset, or spot correctly, when you see them spot exactly on 14.070 or 14.069 every time. Thats their VFO freq, and the real station is someplace a few cycle to hundreds of cycles from that.
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
John, Most of us simply can not possibly know or even care about any particular use of any particular frequency as long as we are properly operating within our subband and mode. The one exception might be the area of automatic operation around the 14.100 beacons and maybe others in the world wide ITU beacon system. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of frequencies that various groups use as spot frequencies. They are only available to them if not being used by someone else at the time. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: At 08:28 AM 2/14/2007, you wrote: guessing the freq is around 1807, but when ? david/wd4kpd Keep in mind that the PropNet folks are using 1807.5...
Re: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
You are right about the FM operation. The main source of information that I had a few years ago was the group that had a web site on this unit and their testing of the data throughput and voice distance. If they discussed any use of analog FM, I completely missed it. 73, Rick, KV9U Tom Azlin, N4ZPT wrote: Sorry, the 1.2 GHz ID-1 is FM, Digital Voice, or Digital Data!
Re: [digitalradio] 160M digital meeting place
John, Is it your understanding that they are running unattended beacons on 160 meters? Under Part 97 rules here in the U.S., it does not seem that you would be allowed to transmit an unattended beacon on that band. And if you did transmit a beacon, the bandplan calls for 1.999 at the very top of the band. Wouldn't there have to be a live control operator and that operator would need to monitor and be sure the frequency is clear before each transmission? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker wrote: Rick I don't care either. I don't use PSK myself. the only reason I bring it up it that the PropNet station broadcast a beacon so many times an hour. I just don't want to see a load of whining and crying when someone gets QRM by one oh the propnet station like they did over the pactor station. At 05:22 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: John, Most of us simply can not possibly know or even care about any particular use of any particular frequency as long as we are properly operating within our subband and mode. The one exception might be the area of automatic operation around the 14.100 beacons and maybe others in the world wide ITU beacon system. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of frequencies that various groups use as spot frequencies. They are only available to them if not being used by someone else at the time. 73, Rick, KV9U
