RE: [digitalradio] Re: CSS to release The PK-232 25th Anniversary Software CD

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

Appears to me a sarcastic comment reflecting that they are selling and
repackaging all their very old, DOS based software products, nothing
obviously new, for quite a lot of money.  I would have liked to see some new
software, as well, for the high cost.  

 

Michael K3MH

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of "John Becker, WØJAB"
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:30 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CSS to release The PK-232 25th Anniversary
Software CD

 

  

At 12:11 PM 1/9/2010, you wrote:

>What a deal! Just the thing to run on your 8088 PC.

What are you trying to say?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Need your help picking HF radio.

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

John & Alan,

 

First, I have to congratulate you on venturing into digital modes.  I cannot
tell you how many older hams scoff at the newer digital modes as if they
were nothing but teenage fads.  I started in 1972 and I also started with a
Kenwood TS-520S and an SB-220 (my third rig, the first one was a
Hallicrafters TX and National Rx).  I am still somewhat new to digital
modes, but my perception is that most digital modes work through the audio
in/out either rear panel or through microphone.  The newer radios have
specialized input and output in rear panel and I cannot recall if TS-520
did.  Choosing a radio with this interface makes life a lot easier.  I have
not yet used the digital I/O of my ICOM 756PROII and I think I still use the
audio I/O for digital modes.  

 

In some ways, the older tube radios a little better suited to digital modes
b/c the tubes are more forgiving for a longer duty cycle operation.  While
you should not be transmitting more than 20-30 watts, mostly to avoid
splatter on the PSK band-slice, you can push the power a little and not
worry about thermal shutdown on the earlier transistor radios.  I also
refound SSTV.  My first SSTV unit was a handbuilt LC circuit that changed
voltage based on KHZ off resonance to decode SSTV and a small reel to reel
tape recorder to save transmissions.  But now with a computer and built-in
sound cards you can have a blast even without much interface.  

 

Anyway, welcome and thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

Michael K3MH

 

 

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Alan Wilson
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 8:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need your help picking HF radio.

 

  

thanks for the info, I recently got a like new 520SE but never considered
using it for digital work..73, Alan

  


Hello to all Group Members...

I am new to the Group - a 74 Yr Old -just returning to Amateur Radio, after
an absence of nearly 40 years, licenced in 1956, when 'Digital' was just
RTTY, and using 'proper' Teleprinters - Such as the Creed 7B (Anyone
remember these 'clatterers' ? !).

OK - I am new also to Digimode - so perhaps my unbiased view on the topic
here may be helpful (or not?).

I accidentally discovered PSK 31 about a month ago, and since then have
downloaded the many Digimode programs from the net for evaluation for my
needs, and read all I can on the topic, to get insight and knowledge. I
started by just listening (or is it 'watching'?).

I now have bought a 'proper' interface, and just this week have started
transmitting. Only able to work contacts around Europe - Italy, France,
Germany, Norway, Russia, etc on 40M at present, but am sure I will get
further when my antenna is upgraded from a 20ft length of copper wire end
fed through a 9:1 Balun at 15ft hight, to something better I am building.
Plus when (and if!) the Bands 'Open Up' - I don't hear European stations
working anything outside Europe at the moment, so I am quite happy that all
is working as it should!

So - after a long winded pre-amble - here is the reason I write all this, in
this thread ! ... The Thread starter was wanting to know what
Transceiver to buy for Digimode, that was good and cheap . Answer from
me I am using a 150 dollar (off Ebay) Kenwood TS 520SE 'Boat Anchor' -
and love it. It does all I need and more, it has all the facilities and
Specs that I need - and more, and - It was cheap !!!

Sorry to 'ramble on, but when you are 74, you have earned the right to bore
the ass off everyone !!! 

If - by some strange reason, you are interested in reading about my setting
up the current station, all about the Kenwood TS 520SE Line, and my Amateur
Radio 'Blog' - there are three really big pages of it among all my other
interests on my web site at www.John4Music.TV

All the best to everyone in the Group, for the coming 2010,

Kindest regards,

John G3OBU

..
--- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, "kd7jeh"    wrote:
>
> Merry Christmas to the Group,
> 
> I am looking to buy another HF radio for PSK/digital. I am asking what
features I look for and why. Next question, what radio offers more bang for
the money and why? 
> 
> I would like to buy new but will consider a used one of older model not in
current production.
> 
> Kd7jeh
>






-- 
Keep up with Ham radio in the Bitterroot:
http://bitterrootra  dio.ning.com/

RE: [digitalradio] I Hate Computers and Radio!!!! Interference.

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

Hi Kevin, 

 

Truly a frustrating problem.  RF interference is one of the most maddening
problems hams encounter. suggestions, some art, some science

 

Get on e-bay and get some very long VGA extension cords, a wireless
mouse/keyboard or buy some very long extensions and move the PC 6-8 feet, or
more, away from the shack/antennas/coax.  RF fields decay at inverse log of
distance.  Since really, all of the motherboard and power supply designs are
essentially the same these days, you need to focus on case, in first
iterations of this.  

 

Go to Fry's or other similar stores and replace the PC case with a heavier
duty steel case, with fewer openings, which is the expense of $50-80 and the
effort of rebuilding the case.  But RF will come out of any wire or any open
hole. Ferrite beads make a small, but incremental difference on all cable
coming close to the hamshack.  In my case, the problem was the VGA cables
since there is a lot of switching of TTL coming through the cables, but,
unlike your situation, my noise got progressively worse when windows loaded.


 

Next, get online or local RF store and buy some very high quality coax
cable, LM-470 double shield cable or other very well shielded coax and
replace everything with it.  More expense of connectors etc. but worth the
expense.  Again, all your cables cannot use more than 20 feet of cable and
at $1-2/foot, not a huge expense

 

Obviously, just my opinions.  RF is an art form, not a science.  I am sure
others will have more scientific suggestions,

 

Michael K3MH

 

Michael Hatzakis, Jr MD
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

 

Owner and Medical Director
Rehabilitation Options of Issaquah
1495 NW Gilman Blvd Suite 4, Issaquah, WA, 98027 

 

"Team approach to treatment of back and neck pain, sports and workplace
injuries"

 

425-394-1200 Ph
425-394-0100 Fax
m...@hatzakis.net

 

http://www.rehabissaquah.com 

 

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:42 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; win...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] I Hate Computers and Radio Interference.

 

  

HI All,

 

I have been trying for the past week to get my radio quiet from the computer
noise, WITHOUT any luck.

 

The computer is a ASUS P5B Deluxe P4-3Ghz w 2.5G of ram, and 3 H/Ds with
just under 1TB of space.

I have an onboard Sound-card, but I brought a SignaLink-USB which arrived
last week for digital modes.

I am running Win7 RC (far better then Vista and even lets me run 3
monitors(handy for HRD), which by the way are not causing the noise tested
them by switcvhing them on/off and did not interfer with the radio)

 

I believe the power supply in the case is causing the problem because when I
turn it on (before any software loads) the radio generates a S7 noise level
on 80 and 40, a little better on 20 and above, but still there.

Currently it's a waste of time even trying to listen for any digital traffic
on 7080, 14.070/112 a bit better. Was even going to try WINMOR, but from
what I have been reading I had better get the best RX I can first.

 

I have tried another computer and even though it did generate some noise
there, it was bareable with about an S2.

 

As of yet I have not tried another power supply as this would require me to
buy a new one (wife might get a bit upset about that one), I could pull one
out of a spare computer but it's not as big as the one I have.

I am about to do some googling to see if there is any mods on quieting the
RF from them.

 

Is there an easy; simple way to making this DAMM computer quieter Any
ideas would be a help.

 

Regards

 

Kevin, ZL1KFM.

 

It is coming in through the antenna because when I unscrew the coax from the
radio the noise disappears.

 

 

RE: [digitalradio] been thinking about an oscilloscope

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I had a 465 for years, great scope, loved it.  Had some issues with the
transformer and the display, but was a work-horse.  It is not an expensive
scope.  

 

I later upgraded to a Tek 485 which has a lot higher speed and can be had
for around $200 - $275 on e-bay, which is where I bought mine.  No
comparison, the 465 is 100mhz and the 485 is 400mhz.  Well worth the few
extra $$$.  This way I can also work on my 2 meter and a little bit on my
220mhz projects.  I love them both.  Important to get good probes though and
if you fish around, you can get some for a good deal.  Be sure you are not
confused by the TAS 485 which is a new, solid state scope.  Check e-bay
number 220193548691 and 230213764989

 

Michael  K3MH

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tooner
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:48 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] been thinking about an oscilloscope

 

I've been thinking about getting an oscilloscope. I've got some idea
of what to look for in one when using it with amateur radio, but am
wondering about one I've found several of for under 200 bucks.

It's the "Tektronix 465 dual trace oscilloscope".

Here's the specifications: http://tinyurl. 
com/2jxwux

Think this will do everything I would want with servicing and
analyzing my old Kenwood hybrid (TS-830S) rig?

Frank, K2NCC

 

[digitalradio] Icom IC-9AD

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I'd like to load my IC-91AD with scanner freq's and have made a programming
cable as the outfit I ordered the ICOM cable & sw package through is very
back-ordered and I'd like to get started.

 

I've read that many people make their own cables, but what do they do for
software?  Are there alternatives to the ICOM s/w?  Basically, all I want to
do is load up the memories with scanner frequencies as there are too many to
enter by hand.  I'd like to cut and paste them from the scanner web sites.

 

Michael K3MH

 

[digitalradio] Programming Icom IC-91AD

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

Has anyone figured out how to program the Icom IC-91AD without the software?
I've made a programming cable since the outfit I ordered the cable/sw
through is way back-ordered.  

 

I've read about the "d-starcom" software on the forums.  What do those of
you who've made your own cable, do for software? 

 

Basically, all I want to do is load up the memories with scanner frequencies
as there are too many to enter by hand.  I'd like to cut and paste them from
the scanner web sites.

 

Thanks, Michael K3MH

 

 

 

RE: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

tentional 
interference. Ironically, they did! And I helped test this with the 
SCAMP mode three years ago for Winlink 2000's sound card mode. This was 
not only completely abandoned, but the busy frequency detection software 
was not used for Winlink 2000 either. The HFLink/HFLinkNet group (made 
up of just a very few hams even though they claim huge numbers), has 
also said that they do not support busy frequency detection. These 
groups are anathema to what amateur radio is all about. It is time for 
thoughtful and reasonable balance for a change.

My hope is that those who are clearly in the super majority view, will 
write their comments to Mark's superbly correct proposal which can fix 
the harm that these modes have done without hurting technological 
advancements. Remember that the wide modes still operate in the 
voice/fax/image portions of the bands and can be quite wide unless the 
FCC forces us to move to to the 2700 Hz bandwidth band plan of IARU in 
Region 2 and other parts of the world.

73,

Rick, KV9U

Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this 
> proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more 
> use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the 
> licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the 
> bottom ends of the band will really be in 50 years with CW operators?
>
> 
>
> I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for
>
> ham radio.
>
> I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on
>
> the HF bands.
>
> I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for
>
> the following reason:
>
> 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use
>
> of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding
>
> in this spectrum.
>
> 2.) The automatic PACTOR II & III modes are an invaluable service
>
> to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication
>
> may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators.
>
> This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical
>
> operators.
>
> 3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really
>
> necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than
>
> completely ban them. 
>
> 4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase
>
> the number of available operating modes to encourage further
>
> hams use of HF spectrum. 
>
> 
>
> 
>

 

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

<<< The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this?

In response to this question, there is data to suggest HF usage will
continue to decline.  

This is taken from:  http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/aug/growth.html.  I
cannot authenticate the source of this data, but it is a trend I have read
about from many other sources, but do not have those other references handy.

<< The U.S. Amateur Radio Service just made a switch from being HF-centric
(for nearly 100 years) to being VHF/UHF-centric. This change will accelerate
as many HF-capable Amateur Radio operators reach the end of their life span.


HF operation will continue to be important to Amateur Radio - but is no
longer the defining characteristic of ham radio nor the lure for attracting
new members. >>>

Michael

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:11 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

Michael,

There is an incredible amount of FUD going on with Bonnie's posting and 
it has been repeated over and over by many posting to the FCC web site. 
The major part of Mark's petition *IS* to correct the Winlink 2000 
automatic stations from transmitting anyplace in what is becoming 
narrower text data portions of the bands. Here in the U.S. we just lost 
over 50% of the 80 meter band for text digital and 25 kHz of 40 meters 
as well. The intent of the petition is to reduce the extremely wide 
modes from operating in what used to be the narrow mode areas of the 
band. And to keep them in a narrower area, not throughout the band as 
they now operate. But it is still a compromise.

A more realistic solution would have been be 500 Hz maximum bandwidth, 
and then wider modes up higher, but the FCC has made that more difficult 
with their recent ruling that took away some of these privileges from 
all hams on 80 and 40 and gave them to Extra class hams (some to 
Advanced class yet you can no longer get a license for that class) for 
voice/image. It is true that those of us who are Extra class, can 
transmit digital data in the voice/image areas just above the text 
digital areas, but we would have to use such modes as ALE signaling, or 
image, and of course, digital voice, which is permitted throughout any 
voice portions of the bands.

The text digital modes that work well with weaker signals tend to be the 
under 500 Hz modes. Examples are MFSK16 and MFSK8, PSK modes if the 
conditions are stable, Olivia modes, and ini the past few weeks, the ALE 
400/FAE 400 modes which are truly amazing and only require around a 400 
Hz bandwidth, yet work deep into the noise, far, far, better than MT-63, 
standard wide mode ALE, and can compete for the first time with Pactor. 
And that is using an old technology that is tweaked down to operate at a 
slower 50 baud rate that works when 125 baud does not work at all.

Note that even Pactor 3, defaults to much narrower mode when it drops 
down to Speed Level 1, well below 1500 Hz, when it can not operate in 
the wide, higher speed modes, due to deteriorating band conditions.

The HF bands are not going to become quiet. Where are you hearing this? 
We have low sun spots right now, but the will change in a few years and 
you will hear a lot more activity on the higher bands. Probably more 
than you might want at times. Look what happens when a contest occurs on 
the weekends. Suddenly an explosive number of operators on whatever 
modes are promoted by that contest.

Digital is useful in some cases, but in other cases, particularly 
complex systems using digital, it may not work very well. Just because 
something is new, does not always make it better than the existing 
technology.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> I agree; a little unnecessary drama. I think we can stay rational and 
> have an educational discussion. I've learned from this debate and this 
> is the most useful purpose for sharing opinions, even if I disagree 
> with some. Even still, let's use the FCC web site and exercise what 
> democracy remains on the use of the airwaves and register our opinions.
>
> I am hearing the major objection to PMBO's is their inability to 
> listen to other stations, not just other PMBO's, before they occupy a 
> frequency. So why isn't the proposed rulemaking oriented towards 
> solving THESE SPECIFIC problems rather than abolishing them? Seems 
> this would be consistent with FCC intended rules and would be a 
> no-brainer to get passed. I agree, this community may not have played 
> fair, so regulate the activity that is a problem.
>
> HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are 
> very useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished. I 
> agree, their use needs to be fine 

RE: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I agree; a little unnecessary drama.  I think we can stay rational and have
an educational discussion.  I’ve learned from this debate and this is the
most useful purpose for sharing opinions, even if I disagree with some.
Even still, let’s use the FCC web site and exercise what democracy remains
on the use of the airwaves and register our opinions.

 

I am hearing the major objection to PMBO’s is their inability to listen to
other stations, not just other PMBO’s, before they occupy a frequency.  So
why isn’t the proposed rulemaking oriented towards solving THESE SPECIFIC
problems rather than abolishing them?  Seems this would be consistent with
FCC intended rules and would be a no-brainer to get passed.  I agree, this
community may not have played fair, so regulate the activity that is a
problem.

 

HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are very
useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished.  I agree, their
use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems draconian.  With all
our innovation, why not spend our energy on their fair and more efficient
use rather than chasing them away.  

 

My fear is that if we chase away modes we don’t like, when HF bands become
really quiet because people no longer use CW and the number of hams declines
because the hobby becomes uninteresting, the allocation gets sold to the
highest commercial bidder.  We need to promote diversity to survive.  The
world is going digital and wireless and this is what many new hams enjoy,
like myself.  

 

Michael

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:24 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

 

A little over the top?

expeditionradio wrote:
> First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, 
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a PACTOR operator.
> 
> Then FCC came for RTTY, 
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not an RTTY op.
> 
> Then FCC came for the PSK,
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a PSKer.
> 
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
> 
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
> 
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink. 
com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 

 

RE: [Bulk] Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

 This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those
> who express strong displeasure with Pactor.
> 
> Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its
> bandwidth? 
> 
> Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed
> bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwor  k.net
> 
> 

 

RE: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this
proceeding.  We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of
this spectrum, lest we lose it.  With the elimination in the licensing
requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the
band will really be in 50 years with CW operators?

 

I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for

ham radio.

I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on

the HF bands.

I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for

the following reason:

1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use 

of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding

in this spectrum.

2.) The automatic PACTOR II & III modes are an invaluable service

to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication

may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators.

This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical

operators.

3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really

necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than 

completely ban them.  

4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase

the number of available operating modes to encourage further

hams use of HF spectrum.  

 

Michael

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of expeditionradio
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

 

Read the "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements" 
click here:
http://hflink. 
com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf

File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" 
click here: 
http://fjallfoss. 
fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
Please do your part.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35
years.  I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire
emergency?

 

CW?  How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10
years?  And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to make a contact or
log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how
effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be?  I can tell you,
useless. 

 

Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail
systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams.  How many
hams do we think will be left in 50 years?  Less or more than today?  A
friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and
used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch.  He
had no other communication modes available.  

 

Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
HF spectrum.  How about further band segment segregation? 

 

My $0.02

 

Michael

 

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
Technology?

 


Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band 
modes will work in a dire emergency.

expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band 
>>modes, there must be an investigation.
> 
> 
> You will need to start with the widest modes...
> how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. 
> What about vice-versa?
> Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
> interferes with a wider mode?
> 
> The petition is not about interference.
> It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
> Manual or auto. End of story. 
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 
> 

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I have to agree.  I never thought of the US government as the yardstick to
measure appropriate behavior.  In fact, it has been the Amateur community
over the last 10o years that has helped the FCC drive policy and technology
adoption and this is, partly, why we enjoy so much spectrum and as much
freedom as we do.  

 

Many pushed for elimination of CW to improve access to licensing, but I
really do not believe we should allow this to make us believe that CW is
superfluous.  I mean, PSK31 is not necessary for licensure and is not
considered a necessary skill, and is not a requirement for licensure, yet,
no-one is saying that PSK is unnecessary and should be eliminated.  CW is a
basic form of communication.  Lets embrace it.

 

Michael  K3MH

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Wilber
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:23 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on
3.580?

 

"KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  > wrote:

"Clearly, the FCC no longer considers CW a necessary skill. No
reasonable person can deny that."
==

No "reasonable person" can deny what? That CW is no longer a necessary
skill or that the FCC no longer considers it to be so? If you meant
the former, your arrogant generalization is unfortunate and incorrect.
If the latter, we need only remember that the FCC also considers BPL
to be a benign technology that has no effect on amateur radio to
understand the error of that statement. Any reasonable person will
understand that.

Charlie Wilber
N1AOK

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

<< It is even possible for a deaf person to communicate with a blind person 



I have had a few patients with severe motor strokes but with preserved
cognitive functioning use Morse code as the only means of communication with
the world.  

 

My opinion is that it is hard for me to believe that the tiny bit of
spectrum W1AW uses for code practice is really meaningful to argue about.  I
personally would not like to see Morse code continue to be sunned and
thereby relegated to museums.  We should do what we can as hams to keep the
art alive.  Because you never know how or when this skill will save a life.


 

Michael  K3MH  

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:13 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 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. 
> 
>

 

[digitalradio] IC-910 and TNC connections to ACC jack

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

I have an Icom IC-910H and want to hook up to a Kantronics Kam XL.  I know
there are the ACC sockets and the Data(1) Main-band and Data(2) Sub-band
connections.  

 

If I am using the top display in Sat mode when using SatPC32 and to connect
to ISS and I have the ACC socket to connect to the TNC, it appears to be
outputting signal from the bottom band (in this case, the inactive 440band).
I referred to pages 13 and 52 of the manual and it does not specify which
band is used for the ACC connection?

 

How do I use the top, sub-band, with the ACC socket?

 

Michael  K3MH

 

[digitalradio] Digital havoc with devices in car

[Michael Hatzakis, Jr MD]

I've got a couple of TNC's and radio's in my car that I like to operate with
backup battery after the car's ignition goes off.  I use a charging circuit
to keep the battery charged when the car is running.  

 

This is my problem: when I start the engine, the ignition noise causes havoc
with the TNC and other digital devices.  I have tried chokes, filter caps
etc.  But the spikes are too broad.  I tried a timed delay circuit for
delayed switchover, but this causes too much complexity.  I tried using a
diode so devices can run on the filtered battery voltage while charging from
the mains, but the voltage drop prevents proper charging.

 

I am considering using a PWRGate to smooth that transition i.e., when
starting the car and switching from battery to car's mains but not sure if
it will provide a smooth enough transition.

 

Any other ideas on how I can make this work?

 

Michael  K3MH  Bellevue, WA

 

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

Hmmm, interesting.  on the question of "What would have to change to make
what we do (Amateur Radio - digital)

interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer hobbiest?"

 

1.  HF bandwidth limitations make digital HF too slow for the average Jr
Hi limited attention span

 

2.  And. if they can't talk to all their friends 

 

3.  .and it's not cool (or whatever the current expression of being
widely socially acceptable), ie., "ohhh dad, that is so strange sitting
behind that radio with those strange sounds all by yourself"

 

4.  . and it has a perception of something you have to do by yourself

 

5.  .and it isn't X-Box

 

High school and Junior HS kids interested in HF will be very few.

 

I think ARISS had it right on.  Bring to mainstream.  Bring it to school.
Make it cool.  Get all kids & teachers talking about it.  That is my belief
how we get kids interested in HF/VHF digital and other forms of
communication.  I wonder if anyone tested the number of hams that came out
of schools that had an ARISS visit.

 

My $0.02.  

 

Michael  K3MH

 

FYI:  http://www.arrl.org/ARISS/

 

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bill Vodall WA7NWP
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:11 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

 

> I will also ask the question again:
>
> If we had the ability to send high speed digital data on HF, what would
> we be sending to each other that we don't do now?

Anything. Everything. There's no 'technical' reason we don't do
everything on HF. Discussion groups like this, pictures, favorite
songs, audio/video snapshots.

WL2K is right in one sense that it's good to offload as much as
possible to the Internet as soon as possible. On the other hand, the
"Land Line Lid" folks were right that putting traffic to the Internet
stifles innovation and technology.

My stock question again:

What would have to change to make what we do (Amateur Radio - digital)
interesting and relevant to the typical Jr High School computer
hobbiest? We can talk forever about A1C's and X0Z's but in 10 or 20
years it's going to be that Jr Hi generation that's doing what ever
is being done.

73
Bill - WA7NWP

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[Michael Hatzakis Jr MD]

It is an industry that creates it own demand and, thereby, supply.  MH

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of list email filter
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:33 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

 

Yes! :(

Erik
KI4HMS/7

John Bradley wrote:
> 
> Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry?
> 
> John
> VE5MU
>

 

RE: [digitalradio] SCS PTC-II via USB

[Michael Hatzakis, Jr MD]

It shouldn’t really matter as long
as your particular USB adapter supports all or most of the handshaking and can
keep up.  I have used the PTC using a 4 port USB to serial and works fine, but
mine was a little pricey, not one of these cheap inline cable types.  It’s
one of those, give it a try and see, situations.

 

Michael K3MH

 









From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of w1mnk
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006
5:54 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] SCS PTC-II
via USB



 

Does anyone have any experience using the subject modem with a serial
to USB adapter. Most new PCs don't have serial ports. Thanks for any
responses.

73... Jon W1MNK











Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)







  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.