[digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!
Well according to the official RAC bandplan: 40M - bandwidth 6 kHz 7.000 7.035 CW 7.035 7.050 Digital 7.040 7.050 Intnl packet 7.050 7.100 SSB 7.100 7.120 Packet R# 2 7.120 7.150 CW 7.150 7.300 SSB + So that's where the problem lies. It would be nice to have co-existing band plans. It was something that Canada and the USA cooperated on for a number of years but I don't know if they bother talking to each other now. They have a hard enough time talking to their own operators. So according to the official RAC band plan in Canada I am not supposed to operate digital on 7.070. That's where common sense comes into play. Anyway sorry that a Canadian station did that to you. I hope it wasn't intentional. Paul VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker wrote: > > Skip > You bring up very good points. > > I for one would really would like to see a world wide band plan > of CW - PHONE as well as DIGITAL all in the same part of the band. > > I just have got feed up with trying to have a digital QSO on 40 > while on the same freq some VE is calling CQ on phone. > > At some point someone has got to give. > > Still thinking about sellingEVERYTHING cheap. > > John, W0JAB >
[digitalradio] Re: Re : ROS is bigger and better
Well I have to admit I have been guilty of ending a Phone contact in CW if the contact fell below the noise... just to be polite and say goodbye. We Canadians are a polite bunch hihi. That was about 20 years ago or more though. It was actually quite common in Canada to do just that... but I haven't heard it done in years. Skip has an interesting perspective on that... and I appreciate his input on it. Live and learn. Paul VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "raf3151019" wrote: > > That's true Skip, it is historical, its a leftover. How many people have we > heard in the last 10 years in Europe, with such a vitally important message, > that when conditions are too poor to continue to use telephony they conclude > by using Morse code ? Er one maybe ? > > Mel G0GQK >
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I disagree with the statement that in a regulation by bandwidth that there is no phone band. Yes there is. In Canada we have bandwidth only restrictions. I would no sooner transmit Pactor in the phone band than transmit SSB in the CW band. Why? Its because commonsense prevails most of the time and we adhere to a voluntary band plan which is laid out by Radio Amateurs of Canada. If Canadian operators, or any country in the world for that matter, just arbitrarily decided they they would no longer adhere to some internationally recognized band plan just think how fast they would be jumped upon by the rest of the amateur community. Even with band restrictions only laws you have to have agreed upon mode restrictions on certain portions of the bands, because otherwise you'd have anarchy. It works in Canada and other places around the world because most of the amateur operators want to work cooperatively with the rest of the planet. And one more thing, for which I will probably loose my Kanuckistan passport for saying... if we didn't have the FCC regulating the US amateur community then we'd probably have huge problems around the world trying to adhere to gentlemanly band plans because there are a lot of unreasonable people out there, some of which are licensed... Paul VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k4cjx" wrote: > > > Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, > anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by > mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth > regulatory environment, there is no "phone band." > > BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the > proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. > it will return as we move toward a digital future. > >
[digitalradio] CB/HAM RADIO used 4 survival explained in article.
Hi, here is the link to the site. http://www.todayssurvival.com/ I was surprised to see that they listed using CB & HAM radio for survival in the contents of the current audio production of their show. They have a list of articles archived & easily accessed right on their home page. They use MP3 audio & do podcasts. Loads of neat info on the site. Enjoy. 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster BPL BAD, KILL BPL, KILL BPL!! SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL Handihams LiveFreeUSA NRA (If its good enough for Glen Beck & Sarah Palin, its good enough for me!) 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA ;-)
[digitalradio] Re:Streetlight RFI found with AM portable
I live near the Atlantic Ocean in "Slower Lower" Delaware. Our problem here is that during dry weather, we get salt spray on the power lines and transformers, leading to all sorts of noise. A good rain helps. I have a small Yaesu VR-500 wide band receiver. It works very well for tracking down RFI/EMI around the house as well. Good way to find offending "wall warts," and the like /paul W3FIs
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 and CCW w/LotW and eQSL?
I checked out the configuration file that you suggest but the release date on it was 2008 and it doesn't have Contestia in it. It's the same group of ADIF modes that I had previously so I must have had the up to date file already. Anyway I suggested to ARRL that they consider updating the file to reflect the new modes but they haven't responded to my email. Paul VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave wrote: > > Have you downloaded the configuration update for TQSL that supports a wide > variety of extra modes. I'm not sure that ALE400 is included, but I know > CONTESTIA is > > Log into your account on the LoTW website, go to "Your Account", then "Your > Certificates"...click on the "Download current TQSL Configuration file" to > you computer. Then, open TQSL Cert and import that new certificate. It adds > support for a LOT of data modes. > > Dave > K3DCW >
[digitalradio] Re: ALE400 and CCW w/LotW and eQSL?
Hi Jeremy: I asked LOTW help the exact question the other day and this is their response: "Open TQSL Select FILE - PREFERENCES - ADIF MODES Click the ADD button on right. In the mode window enter the mode as it is expressed in your logging program. Use the drop down menu to select the mode that you want it to represent. [DATA] Click OK - Click OK Now you can sign the log and upload the TQ8 file." However, when I looked at the answer, I began to have my doubts that it would work. Contestia, ROS, Thor, to name three, aren't recognized by LOTW as modes. Thor isn't recognised as an accepted ADIF mode. If we linked Contestia to a DATA mode, by doing the above we'd be credited with a DATA contact but only if both stations made this change. That's not going to happen in the real world unless you know the individuals and you both make the same change. Or am I missing something? There is problems right now because modes are being created faster than ADIF is adding them, or the logging programs are updating them. LOTW doesn't recognise a lot of modes that have been out for some time. In my case I don't really care if I get an award credit for the QSO, all I want is a QSL confirmation. Even E-QSL has a wider range of accepted modes. So not sure what to do or say. Anyway I am not an expert on logging, ADIF or LOTW. So maybe I am missing something in the above method. I am a digital operator and it's frustrating when either the logging program or LOTW won't accept a mode that you're using. (ROS won't be accepted by Logger32 for instance.) And it happens every day here. So I have to try and manually make notes of the real modes I used and at some point write out QSL cards by hand because that's the only way for some modes. I log ALE400 and ALE141a as Ale contacts right now. I also log CCW as CW with a note in my log. Ale I think is accepted by LOTW. (I think.)I am not sure about CCW but I don't think it's a "valid" ADIF mode. Anyway I am kind of shooting blind here so anyone that has solutions to these issues would be greatly appreciated. Paul VE9NC BTW Jeremy... tnx for the ccw-fsk and Ale400 modes. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > Hello, > > I just made my first ALE400 and CCW QSO today but when I went to sync > with both LotW and eQSL I received errors about unknown modes. I logged > them as ALE400 and CCW. > > Any thoughts on how to properly log and report these QSOs? > > Thanks, > > Jeremy > KB8LFA >
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
[digitalradio] Re:The cost of digital mode interfaces
Just my 2 cents, but I use the SignaLink USB interface. Considerations in its choice: 1. Cost -- $99 from DX engineering. Mine was back ordered at that time, but showed up in 3 weeks. 2. Included the interface cable for my FT-817ND in that price. If I want to run another rig, I'll simply get another interface, though cables and the header block for the jumpers are available separately. 3. Gets power from the computer (I use an Acer Aspire One with Windows XP) 4. EASY setup -- just set the jumpers. Major problem was finding my good tweezers and a hemostat to push in the jumpers. I am at the tri-focal stage of my life. 5. Documentation in clear, and in PDF form -- I keep it on the Acer for quick reference. 6. The "PTT" problem is nil, as the card senses a signal and activates the PTT on the FT-817ND. 7. I marked the proper settings for the levels and delay with a small dot of white paint. Haven't had to change them. 8. Works perfectly with JT65HF, wsprnet, HRD/DM780, MMSSTV, Fldigi, Spectran (just for monitoring), etc., etc. ONLY problem I have found that some software doesn't allow you to properly select the sound card... mostly older stuff. However, a "work around" is to disable the default sound card, turn all sounds "off," and this presents the SignaLink as the ONLY sound card seen by the software. Separate control cable is needed for HRD to FT-817ND. As my net book has only USB connectors, I made it a point to get the interface cable that "fakes" an RS-232 connection, which is what the FT-817ND presents to the outside world. This is quite a separate issue from the SignaLink interface. I have been using it for 18 months now with nary a problem. /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia trivia
That is my understanding... /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Re:Olivia web site
The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Re:Netbook or Laptop better?
I have/do use both. A full sized Dell Vostro, or an Acer Aspire One, both on Win XP. I have gravitated to using the Acer for my FT-817. However, reaching the trifocal stage of my life, for home use, I have attached a separate monitor to it for better visibility. However, for field use, the Acer is much nicer to cart along. At home, I use the Dell for monitoring wsprnet, and QRZ.com for lookups, etc. For traveling, I tend to take the Acer, just because of its size. BTW, the Acer only cost me $300, so if it didn't work out, I wasn't out a lot. The acer is somewhat slower than the Dell, but running HRD/DM780, wsprnet, JT65-HF, etc., ONE AT A TIME presents no problem. /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Fw: [IN_Foxhunt] Fw: [IN_DHS_ARDC] ILLEGAL RADIO OPERATERS
Any1 out in the BedFord, In area have APRS? Any1 out in the BedFord, In area set up to do some good ol fashioned Foxhunting? Any1 out in the BedFord, In area have a 2m beam they can aim at these turkeys to get a beam heading on them? Any1 out in the BedFord, In area set up for "Finger Printing" on 2m? Like my late maternal grandmother used to say, "Give them enough rope & they will hang them selfs." 1 of my favorite sayings is (& this is for those foul mouthed radio prirates out there near Bedford. In) "What goes around, comes around, make sure your sins find you out, because you will get yours". They can run, but they can't hide. Somebody out there knows who this turkeys are & where they are. "Maybe you can solve a mystery" (Robert Stacks, host of Unsolved Mysteries). 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA ;-) --- On Fri, 12/25/09, customgraphicsinc! wrote: From: customgraphicsinc! Subject: [IN_Foxhunt] Fw: [IN_DHS_ARDC] ILLEGAL RADIO OPERATERS To: in_foxh...@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, December 25, 2009, 10:55 PM relay :) - Original Message - From: mike k To: IN_DHS_ARDC@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:48 PM Subject: [IN_DHS_ARDC] ILLEGAL RADIO OPERATERS ON THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 25 AROUND 11:30 PM.I HEARD A GROUP OF PEOPLE TALKING ON 144.114 2 METER FM IN THE BEDFORD AREA.THEY ARE USING VERY FOUL TALK.AND USING CB CALLS LIKE GERONIMO APPLE BIG RED CRAZY8.DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHO THE ARE OR EXACTLY WHERE THEIR AT.BUT LOOKING FOR SOME HELP IN CATCHING THEM.
[digitalradio] Fw: [KA9QJGREPEATERS] Differences between netbooks & notebook/laptob computers
An interesting article about portable puters. I didn't know this stuff. It is worth knowing so you don't buy the wrong item & are dissatisfied /surprised when you get it home & find out it doesn't do or have what you expected 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA ;-) --- On Sat, 12/5/09, Norm wrote: From: Norm Subject: [KA9QJGREPEATERS] Differences between netbooks & notebook/laptob computers To: ka9qjgrepeat...@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 5:37 PM Differences between netbooks & notebook/laptob computers Many people are confused by this and Generally, laptops and netbooks look similar. And manufacturers often try to blur the differences. But there are significant differences. For instance, netbooks are less expensive than most laptops. Prices start around $280. And they weigh only a couple of pounds. They typically feature 10-inch screens. Most laptops have 13-inch screens or larger. The size difference is obvious if you compare them in a store. But, if you're shopping online, size can be difficult to determine. Netbooks are less powerful than laptops. Most netbooks use Intel's Atom processor. This is a low-power, single-core chip. It can't compete with powerful processors like the Core 2 Duo. Likewise, netbooks' graphics aren't as strong. Nor do netbooks feature built-in optical drives. However, some retailers bundle external drives with netbooks. A netbook is fine for basic tasks like e-mail and surfing. You can also do word processing and use spreadsheets. But netbooks aren't recommended for gaming or video editing. Your son also will want a laptop if he does much photo editing. Netbooks dont have a highend sound card either and that can mean poorer copy on soundcard digital modes such as psk,rtty,olivia,etc,for this kind of stuff and general computer work i would recomend a medium to highend notebook as i use here at kb9ygd which will cost you much more but you will get much more and be satisfied in the long run. Kb9ygd
[digitalradio] Packet Question
Hi, I thought that I would try & help Brian out but I don't know the answer my self, so I am passing this along. Thanks. 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA ;-) --- On Fri, 10/30/09, KB9BVN wrote: > From: KB9BVN > Subject: Packet Question > > Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 12:23 PM > I have a KAM all mode TNC Version > 5.0 > > I have the manuals. I have a Yaesu FT-2600. I have an > IBM laptop. > So let's say I want to get on 2m Packet. > > I see where I need essentially a modem cable from the 9 pin > male serial port > on the laptop to the 25 pin female port on the > TNC. No problem, I have > that cable. > > Now I need to connect the radio to the TNC. The FT 2600 has > a 9 pin data > port: > > Pin 1 - Squelch Signal Output > Pin 2 - Packet RX data Output 9600 > Pin 3 - Packet TX data Iutput 9600 > Pin 4 - Packet RX data output 1200 > Pin 5 - Ground > Pin 6 - Nothing > Pin 7 - External PTT Signal Input > Pin 8 - DC Output (5v at 50ma for powering an external > device) > Pin 9 - Packet TX data input 1200 > > The KAM has a 9 pin male data port: > > Pin 1 - AFSK out - Carries tones to the audio input line of > my radio. > Pin 2 - XCD - Used to connect squelch line from radio, if > desired. > Pin 3 - PTT - Controls the PTT line in my radio. Switches > rig between xmit > and recv > Pin 4 - Same as Pin 5 > Pin 5 - Audio Signal input - use with external speaker > jack, or pin 4 of the > radio? > Pin 6 - Ground > Pin 7 - +12VDC input - can be powered here instead of a > external powe > rsupply. CUT OFF if not using. It is HOT when > TNC is on. > Pin 8 - Same as Pin 6 > Pin 9 - Same as Pin 6. > > SO...do I have this right? I need a cable that has: > > KAM Pin 1 to Radio Pin 9 > KAM Pin 2 to Radio Pin 1 > KAM Pin 3 to Radio Pin 7 > KAM Pin 4 to NOTHING > KAM Pin 5 to Radio Pin 4 > KAM Pin 6 to Radio Pin 6 > KAM Pin 7 - Not Used > KAM Pin 8 - Not Used > KAM Pin 9 - Not Used > > I appreciate any help I can get. The KAM > software is on 5.25 floppies. I > do not have a computer that can read these... > > HOST MASTER 64 is one diskis that for a Commodore > 64? Version 1.18 > 64/128 COMBO SIDE 1 and 2 - I have no idea what this is. > > 73 de KB9BVN > Brian Murrey
Re: [digitalradio] ARQ FAE ALE400 - New Test Version Available
how do you set it up to work. i have a kenwood ts680 radio and signalusb. thanks paul --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Steinar Aanesland wrote: From: Steinar Aanesland Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARQ FAE ALE400 - New Test Version Available To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 3:37 AM Contest again %#&%¤% :( :( ! ! la5vna Tony wrote: > All, > > Patrick has made some improvements to the ARQ/FAE ALE-400 mode and would like > to see if it's working ok (see below). > > You'll need to download the latest test version of Multipsk: http://f6cte. > free.fr/MULTIPSK _TEST_13_ 08_2009.ZIP > > I'll be QRV this evening on 14074.0 +/- QRM starting 2300z. Skeds welcome. > > Tony -K2MO > > _ _ _ _ ___ > > > > >> Hello to all testers, >> >> In the new test version of Multipsk (see below), I improved the ARQ FAE mode >> and fixed some bugs. I would like to check if all is OK. >> >> >> http://f6cte. free.fr/MULTIPSK _TEST_13_ 08_2009.ZIP >> Paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or equivalent. Download the file. >> Create a tempory folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the file in it and >> start C:\TEST\Multipsk. exe (the auxiliary files will be created >> automatically) . >> >> Experimentation of the ARQ FAE / ALE400 >> For experimentation, I will call, saturday, on 14075 KHz USB HF 1000 Hz AF >> +/- QRM, in ARQ FAE / ALE400 for QSO since 10h00 UTC until 11h00 UTC. >> It will be sent previously to each ARQ FAE frame a RS ID, so PSE push on the >> "RX RS ID" button. >> >> http://f6cte. free.fr/ALE_ and_ALE400_ easy_with_ Multipsk. doc >> http://f6cte. free.fr/The_ ARQ_FAE_beacon_ easy_with_ Multipsk. doc >> >> Don't hesitate to send your own Call ID or Prop ID. >> >> TKS for reports! >> >> 73 >> Patrick >> >> > >
[digitalradio] Re: More on RS ID ... the pleasure of
I have to admit I have become really attached to the RSID. I did find that I forgot to turn it off once in a while when I switched to PSK so I did up some new macros specific to PSK for calling CQ, and embedded the RSID in the marcos for the rest of the modes. That way I don't have to bother switching it on and off... (Great feature Simon) So for now if I am using anything other than PSK or plain Feld Hell I send the RSID automatically. Basically I have a whole new list of modes that are available on DM780, thanks Simon, and I want to see how they all perform. So the RSID is a no brainer for me. I have worked quite a few exotic digital modes that otherwise would have gone unanswered. It makes a huge difference with Contestia and Olivia. It used to take me a while to figure out which mode, which tones, etc. and by the time I figured it out they were gone QRT. Now it's rather easy with RSID. So I am a big big fan of RSID. I am also seeing more people using video ID lately. That's great too although video ID will eventually be superseded by RSID. It would be great if call signs could be added to RSID but even as it it's a great tool. See you on the bands. Paul VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" wrote: I heard NO signals on the band > but within the first minute I saw " RSID:THOR 16 f=2Ø4ØHz " I > clicked to allow the RS ID and saw > > "CQ CQ de VE9NC VE9NC > CQ CQ de VE9NC VE9NC" >
[digitalradio] DRM sites
Hi all, I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: "Many changes to the JA stations" http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Digital sites updated
Hi all, I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com **NEW** SSTV / DRM news page: http://www.g0hwc.com/sstv_drm_news.html
[digitalradio] DRM "Digital SSTV" Contest
Hi All, DRM contest from 00:00 UTC 3rd October to 24:00 13th October full details: http://www.g0hwc.com/sstv_drm_news.html Good Luck Paul G0HWC
[digitalradio] DRM sites updated
Hi all, I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] DRM ftp sites
Hi all, I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Digital SSTV sites "DRM"
Hi all, Hi All I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Fw: [InHam] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ET Docket 09-36
Hi All, I read the article about the medical device using UHF, it said that there would be extra precautions taken to reject unwanted signals from outside sources. Thats all fine & good, if it works. My concern is what happens when a patient who has this technology installed in his/her body & is exposed to a strong UHF signal & something goes wrong? I would not want to key up & have some body start having uncontollable involuntary movement &/or the lack of proper movement of a limb that could cause them to have an accident that results in injury &/or death. I am not so worried about interferrence from a device like this, because the power level would be so low. They are probably using somesort of digital mode anyway & I don't think that it would be on all the time. I am glad that they are working on ways to help people that have physical problems. But this is something that we should keep an eye on. Anytime anyone wants to use any of our bands for a non amateur radio purpose is always cause for concern. Thanks for the soap box. 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL AARP NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, USA ;-) --- On Thu, 4/2/09, Chris Read wrote: From: Chris Read Subject: [InHam] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ET Docket 09-36 To: "KY Ham" , in...@mailman.qth.net, "IndyHams" , sharonbro...@mchsi.com, edwel...@insightbb.com, "Bob Poortinga" , j...@iglou.com, "Phil Racine" , "Rickey Singleton" , kj4...@gmail.com, ww4...@insightbb.com, "K4UOL" , ktsteven...@gmail.com, jflin...@juno.com, w...@yahoo.com, "Larry Brown" , "kevin kaufhold" , wb4...@amsat.org, kc9...@verizon.net, vale...@csinet.net, "Edwin Scott" , "DELBERT FELIX" , k2...@comcast.net, "Steve Jewell - WR9G" , "Stephen D. Jewell, WR9G" , "Todd Sprinkmann" , "KB9UFG Mike Levato" , cbrx...@hotmail.com, "Dan Evans" Cc: "Ben Read" , w...@yahoo.com, "WA9FDO Mike" , "Don Stewart" , "Edwin Scott" , wb4...@amsat.org, "KB9UFG Mike Levato" , "WD9DAN Dan" , "Steve Jewell - WR9G" , "WB9OPR" , "K9YDO" , "WA9ZCE Dave" , kj4...@gmail.com, "N9EHT Doug" , ww4...@insightbb.com, "K9JRI" , "K4UOL" , "Richard OAndrews" , "N9JSU" , "Rickey Singleton" , "WB9VIF Preston" , kc9...@verizon.net, "KC9CQU" , "John Gardner" , "Hank Wolfla" , k2...@comcast.net, "Johnnie C. Mayfield" , "Gary Hughes" , "John Mayberry" Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 8:44 PM FYI On March 20, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), ET Docket 09-36, which proposes a medical micro-power network service (MMNS) using four 6-MHz wide channels in the 413-457 MHz range. One specific band, 420-450 MHz, is problematic for Amatuer Radio Operators, because it includes the 70cm band. This micro-power service would use implanted neuromuscular stimulators that would communicate using the bands listed above. See the attached file; notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), ET Docket 09-36 7 3 Chris ~ WD9BGQ -Inline Attachment Follows- __ InHam mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/inham Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:in...@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
David Little wrote: > Howard, > > I am a member of Army MARS in the state of Georgia. > > Actually, I should say Region 4 MARS, as we are now under the Region > concept and are merging into a Tri-Service organization. > > So far, AF MARS has completely revamped their call-sign structure to > adhere to FEMA Region numbers. > and all Navy/Marine Corps guys are Zeros. > > Don't ask me why the zeros are leading the pack; they seem to be immune > to change. > > David > KD4NUE > Navy / Marine Corps *callsigns* generally use a zero as the digit... but that's just the callsign. Most Navy MARS callsigns don't indicate anything about the station's location. The organizational structure, though. shifted to the same as FEMA several years ago. I know of several Navy stations here in Region Five that have experimented with Easypal... 73, Paul / K9PS / NNN0___
Re: [digitalradio] Unintended Consequences: Recent FCC Order on Repeaters
I suspect I know what you're thinking of :)... probably the same thing I was thinking of when I read the Order: A digitized voice mode where the transmit channel data rate is sufficient for transmitting at least twice what is required for the compressed voice; packetizing the voice into something that requires less than half of the available bandwidth, an having a "non-repeater" re-transmit the signal in the intervals between the packets it receives. Setting a 'has been retransmitted' bit in the packet would prevent double packets messing things up on receive if the receiver hears both signals. Sounds like fun. Or, if that wasn't what you were thinking of, sounds like there may even be *more* fun out there. 73, Paul / K9PS expeditionradio wrote: > The FCC recently posted on Order clarifying > what it believes a repeater is. > > Due to the "law of unintended consequences", > while this recent FCC order closes one > small perceived loophole for D-Star and > P-25 signals, it simultaneously (pun intended) > affirms something else... the existence of > an opportunity for other type(s) of digital > voice relay systems that will absolutely not > be considered "repeaters" by FCC! > > I'm not going to spill the beans on exactly > what RF digital methods or other techniques > this speaks to, but it has far-reaching > ramifications for wonderful new developments > in ham technology on HF/VHF/UHF. > > I will say that I'm quite gleefully watching > what happens next... this is going to be fun! > > 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA >
[digitalradio] Digital SSTV sites updated "DRM"
Hi all, I have been updating my pages displaying world digital sites. Europe: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA, Canada and Carabean: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html one page for all: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Some new sites added and others updated. If your site is missing or has any errors please let me know. Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Re: Unfamiliar mode...
Ok, couldn't figure out what it was either. Thanks! /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Digital SSTV
Hi all, I have updated all the digital SSTV sites pages All world sites on one page: http://www.g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Please advise me of any errors or missing sites Many thanks Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Re: Winter field day advice
See this link: http://www.spar-hams.org/contests/winterfd/index.php /paul W3FIS
Re: [digitalradio] Specification of Frequency for Net Announcement
Kent VE4KEH wrote: > Our ARES group is having difficulty specifying an operating frequency for a > PSK31 net. Is there any website which explains the relationship between the > actual signal frequency, the transceiver frequency, the audio (waterfall) > frequency, USB and LSB for digital operation? > > In my net announcement to our group (via email), I simply specified a net > frequency of 3581 kHz. However, there seems to be some confusion among us, > even among the experienced operators, what that means. It seemed obvious to > me at the time what I meant, but I've been clueless before... > We have the same issue in Indiana with our twice-a-year State RACES exercise. Our upcoming exercise will use, quoting from the announcement "3.580 kHz PSK31, USB, Stream at 800Hz", which isn't "correct", but is adequate to get participants on the right frequency. I'll be on the right frequency (3,580.800 kHz), but I'll do it with 3,579.3 kHz USB and the PSK centered on 1500 Hz. Do you specify the frequency in the way that describes it best technically, or the way that will most likely result in operators being able to make it work? My suggestion: do both. It's not all that verbose to state "3581.0 kHz PSK31 (e.g. 3580.0 USB with 1000 Hz tone)". Many of the emergency-communications-oriented hams are primarily voice ops. They are probably not even aware that convention for sound-card modes is USB (particularly confusing on 3.5 MHz and 7 MHz where voice is generally LSB). The USB suppressed-carrier-frequency with tone specified will get those less familiar with digital communications on the right frequency (and acquaint them with the USB convention), while the digital ops can just look at the 3581.0 and get on the right frequency with whatever set of parameters they prefer. At least that's my 2 cents worth. 73, Paul / K9PS
[digitalradio] Digital SSTV DRM pages updated
Hi all, I have been updating my pages that display digital sites latest RX image from round the world. Please let me know of any errors or missing sites. Many thanks Paul G0HWC Home page : http://www.g0hwc.com All world : http://g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_world.html Europe : http://g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_europe.html USA/Canida : http://g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_usa_can.html Australasia: http://g0hwc.com/digital_sstv_australasia.html You will also find pages for Analogue SSTV. I hope you all have a happy Christmas and good New year. Don't drink and drive, you may spill it.
[digitalradio] Re:You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
We have started to play around with PSK-31 on HF (40 and 10 meters) for local back-up to our 2 meter repeater. Anybody else doing this? /paul W3FIS "Slower Lower" Delaware
[digitalradio] Re: Sound card question
If I run one of the calibration routines - what MixW supplies or Multipsk - will it store/save the correction between applications? That is, is it a "one time" fix? Or does each application/mode have a correction field that I must adjust - then it saves it for recall like a preference? I mostly use WinWarbler, MixW, Multipsk, PSKDeluxe, and if I get a Pentium IV class machine, DM780. I also use CWGet as backup on when working CW. If I have a choice between a 16 bit external soundblaster and a 24 bit external sound blaster, which should I use at what setting for best results? Back when I just plugged into the internal sound card - simple, no choices. Now I've got options. Thank you and 73, Paul PS: I apologize if I asked this a few weeks ago. I haven't had access to my computer since then and the mind wanders.
[digitalradio] Re: Sound Card general question - follow up
If I run the calibration and it suggests and adjustment, I'm guessing there is some button push that implies, "Make it so." If I do that, will the adjustment be global? That is, apply to all the other Ham software I use that employs the sound card? For example, my PSK programs and CWGet? Also, I have a 16bit external sound card box and a 24bit external soundcard box. Sometimes bigger isn't always better. If the 24 bit is better, or even if it isn't and I have to use it, are there any configuration changes I need to make or can I just select it in the SoundCard popup menu of choices and be done with it? Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re:SSTV
Here in the UK i hear SSTV on 14.230 most of the day I upload what I rx live to my website 24/7 Paul G0HWC Check out my website www.g0hwc.com *Echolink node MB7ICL-L "381900"*
Re: [digitalradio] Grouply's comment
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > FYI... The Grouply message says: QUOTE As far as security goes, we carefully protect your Yahoo password - we do not phish or do identity theft. We use it only for discovering your group list and retrieving messages - we will NOT use it for anything else, like your Yahoo email. UNQUOTE Using it to facilitate "will you be my friend" messages to people on the groups must not be "anything else"... And QUOTE People cannot read messages in Grouply unless they are a member of your Yahoo Group. Part of the reason we need your Yahoo ID and password, is that every time you login, we go and check Yahoo Groups to see which groups you have joined and which you have left UNQUOTE They forgot to mention that if THEIR database gets hacked (and we have no track record on their security, do we?), somebody's gonna get a boatload of Yahoo userid's and passwords. Every person SHOULD be responding to their website with: HAVE YOU LOST YOUR LAST FUNCTIONING BRAIN CELL? OF COURSE YOU CAN NOT HAVE MY USERID AND PASSWORD FOR ANOTHER WEBSITE!! Nobody gets my passwords. Sounds to me more like a social engineering site than a social networking site. Just my $.02 73, Paul Schmidt (CISSP) Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup 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/
[digitalradio] Streaming shack cams ?
Hi all, Im sure that many hams have live streaming webcams or updating cams in their shacks or back yards. I am looking for links to these cams so I can have a page on my site with links to them. If you have one or know of links please can you send me the links direct via my website. http://www.g0hwc.com I already have pages with SSTV cams and UK streaming webcams. Thanks for your time Paul G0HWC Live SSTV 24/7 http://www.g0hwc.com
Re: [digitalradio] Path Simulator Test - PSK FEC31
Why would one use a 3 kHz bandwidth for a <100 Hz wide mode? Wouldn't it be more realistic to do comparisons based on a noise bandwidth that is the same as or just slightly wider than the signal bandwidth? - ps Tony wrote: > Mark, > >> If the SNR is negative, how is it that you can copy any signal? > > The path simulator adds Gaussian white noise to the input signal to simulate > a signal-to-noise ratio through a 3KHz band pass filter. If the SNR is less > than 0, it's below the noise level. > > The signal is still there, it's just weaker than the noise. > > Tony, K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digitalmodes?
I've got to agree with Jose here. AX.25 works pretty well on VHF, but falls apart on HF. But AX.25 is a link-layer protocol, not the whole suite of stuff that got crammed into a TNC. AX.25 may have been derived from the X.25 landline protocol, but using the obsolete landline modem under it is the real problem. Tacking "some kind of FEC" onto the current 300-baud FSK modem that is generally used in the TNC's implementation (but has little to do with AX.25 other than being a common physical layer to hook it to) is a bit of an oversimplification. But using a carefully designed FEC layer on top of a more appropriate baseband signal -- then hooking it up to the AX.25 link layer and whatever else goes on top of that -- that sounds like a quite reasonable approach. In fact, putting ALL of the TNC (soft Z80, I/O ports, as well as a re-designed physical layer) into an FPGA, then running the existing TNC firmware on the soft CPU, sounds quite workable. A drop-in replacement TNC for BBS, etc. operation -- which could support both "new" and "old" modems. Rud Merriam wrote: > Again, AX.25 is not suitable for many reason so a new standard is needed. > > It is based on X.25 that assumes a reliable link which is obviously not the > case with RF. Simply tacking some kind of FEC onto AX.25 will not suffice. But putting an appropriate type of FEC to make the link "reliable enough" should suffice. Maybe viterbi-encoded data with a Reed-Solomon code on top of it (such as is used in satellite links). > AX.25 includes message routing which is inappropriate for that level of > protocol. Which doesn't have to be used. The "connect to xyz via abc and def" was more of a hack to get by until something better came along. One shouldn't be digipeating on HF, anyway. Use it for point-to-point and that's it. 73, Paul / K9PS
Re: [digitalradio] Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digital modes?
I hadn't thought of trying a high-speed VHF/UHF modem :) Maybe that's because I live away from what most people call civilization and there aren't many VHF/UHF signals around here. I'd figured on using a CPU personality for overall control, and doing the "work" in hardware. Is the Spartan-3E starter kit (Digilent/Xilinx) the one you're using? 73, - ps John B. Stephensen wrote: > The ADC and DAC are certainly adequate for audio so it will work. > > I've been interested in VHF and UHF high-speed modems so I have > a starter kit outfitted with a high-speed ADC and DAC that plug into J3. > So far I've tested the DDS and am in the middle of testing the second > version of a 16-bit soft MCU. After that, I have a lot of Verilog code > imported from a Spartan-3 project and converted from ISE 7 to ISE > 10 that needs to be integrated and tested. That should eventualy result > in an OFDM modem that operates at up to 2 Mbps. Real-time signal > processing is done in dedicated modules for filtering, FFT and CORDIC, > but in this design the soft processor is to handle everything between > the FFT and the Ethernet port. Think of it as an Intersil HSP50214 plus > an FFT and MCU in one FPGA. > > The soft MCU would probably be enough to process 8 ksps audio for a > modem as it has a MAC instruction. 3 or 4 would fit in an XC3S500E. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH
Re: [digitalradio] Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digital modes?
John B. Stephensen wrote: > FPGAs are useful for signal processing as you can do many operations in > parallel. FIR filter, FFT and CORDIC modules are available in the free > development software from Xilinx. They are very good for processing > wideband signals or digitizing an entire amateur band and then filtering > the result. Unfortunately, the starter kit has only low-speed > low-resolution ADCs and DACs. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH Speed and resolution are, of course, relative :) While those chips are capable of crunching on half the HF spectrum at once, I was thinking initially of just audio (for which the on-board converters would be fine) - kind of a super-TNC, with capabilities (speed/bandwidth) similar to Pactor-III with no patents, open-source software, and significantly lower hardware costs. Sound card modes, of course, have gained popularity due to their flexibility and low cost - but can't handle the tight timing needed for pactor-type modes. It just seemed to me that something like a commercially-available low-cost FPGA board might be able to get the best of both worlds. Yeah, I'm suggesting a minor paradigm shift. Scary. 73, Paul / K9PS
[digitalradio] Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digital modes?
I've been thinking about getting an FPGA board to play with and see what it will do as far as hosting an HF modem, or at least the A/D and DSP portions of one. The board I'm considering has a Xilinx Spartan 3E FPGA and all of the peripheral hardware (A/D, D/A, VGA, ethernet, serial, etc.) one would probably need to do it. http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?Prod=S3EBOARD&Nav1=Products&Nav2=Programmable Anyone tried (or thought of trying) something like that? 73, Paul / K9PS
[digitalradio] Re: What was on 30M last night - dual highspeed CW?
Shoto, I think Patrick's suggestion of CCW-FSK comes closest to the mark. I could clearly see two carriers so I don't think I had one half of something - though at first I did when I thought it was a single High Speed CW signal. I didn't launch Multipsk but I will next time. Thank you both, Shoto and Patrick, for your reply. 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul, > > I think what you heard was one half of a 75bd 850Hz shift FSK > transmission. This is a non amateur transmission. It has been a regular > visitor to 30m for many years. I hear it every day up in Washington. > > 73 Sholto >
[digitalradio] What was on 30M last night - dual highspeed CW?
Last night around 10.131Mhz from Central Oregon I heard what appeared to be two highspead CW signal pretty wide appeart sending simultaneously. At first, only one was in my bandwidth and I thought it was just highspeed CW. CWGet clocked it at about 60wpm but no "text" was appearing on the display. As I tuned off to look for something else, I discoved I was only "seeing" part 1 of two. So the total picture was two strong signals sounding like highspeed CW. I went though all the modes in MixW and nothing turned up English print - though I didn't try all the setting choice for each mode. Any idea what that was? Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re: How to choose Olivia tone/bandwidth parameters -- an idea
Oops, I should have read the rest of the posts first. Video ID - got it. I'll understand it more when I first see it. Thank you and 73, Pau --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jose, > But does that mean you need to be "listening" in Hell mode? Or does it > display on the waterfall regardless of the chosen mode? > Paul > > > > > Paul, > > > > Some programs are capable of sending a "Video ID" using Hell, so, you > > can read the ID as a text preamble from the waterfall. > > >
[digitalradio] Re: How to choose Olivia tone/bandwidth parameters -- an idea
Jose, But does that mean you need to be "listening" in Hell mode? Or does it display on the waterfall regardless of the chosen mode? Paul > > Paul, > > Some programs are capable of sending a "Video ID" using Hell, so, you > can read the ID as a text preamble from the waterfall. >
[digitalradio] Re: How to choose Olivia tone/bandwidth parameters -- an idea
I think I missed the memo on how to "...display that code as text..." Are you suggesting calling CQ in a different digital mode than Qlivia, then switching over? If the listener can read the (Olivia) "Text" then they are already reading at the proper BW/Tone?? 73, Paul > If we allocate a code for each > tone/bandwidth combination, and display that code as text in the > waterfall immediately before transmitting the Olivia signal, it will
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > My reading of the message is that Morse code is "authorized" NOT > mandated. It seems a reasonable decision for a organization often > dependent on volunteers, if they want to use it.. let'em. MARS will > continue to use MT63, ALE, PSK, and many other digital modes. > > Andy K3UK > That's exactly the correct reading. Another tool for the toolbox. Digital modes (ranging in complexity from WL2K and ALE down to PSK31 and RTTY) will carry the bulk of the traffic. But if the computer goes down and propagation stinks, CW certainly beats "nothing". - ps
[digitalradio] Re: WSPR New Digital Mode - QSO Completed
I'm puzzled. When I checked the link, it seems WSPR is some kind of automatic RX/TX connection reporting mode - Just reports what other WSPR stations it "sees". That is, there is no back and forth QSO like PSK31 and others. Did you actually have a QSO - chat back and forth - with this mode or was your QSO just and automatice send/heard connection? Thank you and 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WSPR QSO Completed > > > WSPR is a new digital mode that hams have been experimenting with on HF and VHF bands over the last few months. Joe Taylor K1JT has been the driving force behind this weak signal development. >
[digitalradio] Re: 4D' Ionosphere Map Helps Ham Radio Operators
Not sure if this is the link but there is a least one with respect to the google earth ion overlay that has some options. One is "radio" and the other is MUF - but they seem to cover the same thing. How are they different? Thank you and 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 4D' Ionosphere Map Helps Flyers, Soldiers, Ham Radio Operators > > Start your own flight at > http://terra1.spacenvironment.net/~ionops/ES4Dintro.html. > > >
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Jeff, Found it. Look here: http://mmhamsoft.amateur-radio.ca/ It was the MMSTV software that auto-decodes the SSTV signal. By auto- decode, I mean it determines the proper protocol for you (Scotty 1, etc.) 73, Paul I've spent hours runnng MultiPSK trying to figure out which variation of SSTV a signal is only to be rewarded with nothing. I've pretty much given up on SSTV for that reason. I keep plugging away at the rest of the digimodes, because I occasionally have success at decoding some exotic signal. And the real reward is finding someone in a QSO that wants to try other modes! > > Jeff -- KE7ACY > CN94
[digitalradio] Re: Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Hey Jeff - your neighbor K7NHB here. Don't give up on SSTV. One of the software packages I use - not MixW - automatically determines the correct SSTV mode. Or, you can pick the Scotty mode and be correct 90% of the time. Once it stops snowing in Bend, I'll get real antennas in the air (both HF and VHF) and I'll be more interested in rekindling my software familiarity. I'm sure others will/can post what "auto-detect" SSTV mode software I'm referring to and can post it here. If I get my computer act together and re-discover it, I'll pass it to you via 2M. It is fun to see the images come across and be tickled at some of the more interesting graphics, scratchy though they might be. 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wI've spent hours runnng MultiPSK trying to figure out which variation of SSTV a signal is only to be rewarded with nothing. I've pretty much given up on SSTV for that reason. I keep plugging away at the rest of the digimodes, because I occasionally have success at decoding some exotic signal. And the real reward is finding someone in a QSO that wants to try other modes! > > Jeff -- KE7ACY > CN94 >
Re: [digitalradio] Vista
Might want to check that one -- I think you'll find it's derived from BSD, not Linux. 73, - ps Ken Meinken wrote: > Actually, the Mac OS is based on Linux. >
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
> Paul, I believe message #26409 answered your question? > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26409 > > Pardon me if I'm wrong, as it was just a quick glance. > > Frank, K2NCC Thank you Frank. I did miss that. It tells me the configuration file will not be overwritten which implies there is an "installer" action going on instead of SelectAll Copy/Paste. It was suggested to ask in the MultiPSK news group and I had long ago. When I saw all the MPSK users here I thought I'd try the quick question again. I'll download 4.7 and go though the install/update process again. 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Much!!! Wow! all these 4.7 Multipsk posts after I asked my question - and no answer. So I'll try again. What is the best way to install the update over a pre-existing registered version. DXLab is slick. You just click update from the launcher and it finds the new version and installs it over the old. with HRD it's pretty much the same thing. Double click the downloaded file and it installs over the old. Same with DXSoft's software. I recall with Multipsk, getting a file that had to be expanded. But after the files were expanded (in a temp folder?) it wasn't clear if then should be moved to the folder of the original install of if there was a Setup type icon that needed launching to handle the rest of it. And if there isn't, wouldn't moving all those new files wipe out existing preferences and license registration files. Please - a step by step on the best way to update this very popular digital mode program? Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK > Patrick, Would you please outline the best way to update Multipsk. I don't do it very often and where the files go gets confusing. For example, do we download your file, expand it to a temporary folder, then click some setup/installer icon in the temporary folder and navigator to the original folder were it will replace everything but keep preferences? Thank you and 73, Paul
Re: [digitalradio] FDMDV confusion
Is your audio level high enough going into the sound card, or possibly the gain on the mic or aux input needs bumped up a bit? I was playing around a bit earlier watching some signals, and if I got the audio level too low, the displays didn't show anything but I was still decoding. 73 Paul / K9PS / Bloomfield, IN EM69na Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: > Sure do! And excellent decode right now on N0GR in Iowa. Just hard > to tune without a visual on the signal. > > 73 > dave > > > Steinar Aanesland wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >> Do you see the signature in the text field ? >> >> LA5VNA Steinar >> >> Dave skrev: >>> I must be missing something here. Decoding several stations right now >>> (1715Z)very well on 14.236 but see absolutely no signal on any of the >>> display types I choose. Hear the decoded voice perfectly, but the >>> display doesn't show any input. >>> >>> Tnx es 73 >>> Dave KB3MOW >>> >>> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date: 12/8/2007 >> 11:59 AM >> > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[digitalradio] SSTV on your website?
Hi all, If you are into SSTV and want upload your RX files on the fly to your website, Check out the new Yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ftp_widget/ A help group for users of FTP Widget (KE5RS) and future users of the latest BAT Widget (Under Beta test) Paul G0HWC http://www.g0hwc.com
[digitalradio] Want live SSTV on your web site? Can be used for other modes too.
Hi all, After asking John KE5RS, I have added a new Yahoo group for anyone using or thinking of using FTP Widget with SSTV. Also for help with SSTV web page design. Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or I have put a JOIN box at: http://www.g0hwc.com You can also see the FTP Widget in action here. Paul G0HWC
Re: [digitalradio] gmfsk package for Ubuntu?
Darrel Smith wrote: > Is there any particular reason he is looking for gmfsk? I used that app > for a while but now used fldigi. Gmfsk should be available in the > repository, I know it is for kubuntu. > > Darrel, VE7CUS Yes - fldigi doesn't (at least, not yet) support MT-63. I found the ubuntu repository and the gmfsk package... although I'll have to do some research to tell him how to get it installed. He's a Linux very-newbie, and I'm a Linux old-timer but haven't used ubuntu enough to know how to have it fetch the packages. I shouldn't have any problems getting that figured out, though. I survived the transition from SLS to Slackware's .tgz files to RedHat RPM's :) Thanks for the info. 73, Paul / K9PS
[digitalradio] gmfsk package for Ubuntu?
A friend of mine has installed Ubuntu 7.1 and is looking for gmfsk. Is it available for Ubuntu? (Sorry, I'm a Fedora user and not all that familiar with the places Ubuntu packages are kept!) 73, Paul / K9PS
[digitalradio] Consensus on power/audio setting
Long ago, when I started with PSK31, the word was - use low power. Dial the rig down (approximately 20-35) watts,adjust mic gain for ALC flicker, then back mic gain off a smidge. But I've been out of digital mode for a year or more and my recent searches come up with, "...keep the rig at high power (75 - 85 watts) and adjust the mic gain till power meter reads 25-35 watts? It couldn't be till ALC flickers because that's a standard SSB signal at 80 watts at 100% duty cycle and I don't think that was the goal. There was something about keeping the power level high for linearity. Would I use some digital software like the old WinPSK that has a tune button. Push the tune button and adjust mic gain till forward power meter reads the 30 or so watts? What is today's "Best Practices". Thank you and 73, Paul
RE: [digitalradio] PSKmail save session to CD?
Rein means an UNFINALISED CD Andy. Most CD/DVD authoring software ( Nero, Roxio, VOB etc ) provides the option of finalising or not. If you finalise, no further data can be written unless you either unfinalise or format a CD/DVD-RW disc. If you finalise a non-RW disc then you've had it, no further data can be written to it. Paul MW0CDO. _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: 11 September 2007 09:57 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail save session to CD? I guess I need to learn what an "unfished" CD is Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.-com (QSL via N2RJ) On 9/11/07, Rein Couperus mailto:rein%40couperus.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The key is that you need a CD which is 'unfinished'-. I have not tried this, > but you could take a look at the puppy linux wiki. They claim you can even > save on the CD you boot from, provided it is unfinished. > > Rein PA0R > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 11/09/2007 17:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 11/09/2007 17:46
Re: [digitalradio] Mixed modes regardless of bandplan in an emergency?
Yep - the best way to handle an emergency is to train for it using the modes and methods you plan on using for the real thing. While it might be argued that in an emergency, mixed-mode would be legal, it wouldn't be for drills. - ps Rick wrote: > Maybe theoretically, but if you don't do this on a regular basis, doing > it first at the beginning of an emergency is just not a good time. > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: >> Rick, can't we already do that "in an emergency" ? >> >> Andy K3UK >
[digitalradio] Re: Installing Signalink USB on OSX 10.0???
Cocoamodem is Free, Multimode costs $90. I mostly use CocoaModem for watching PSK when I'm working at the Mac. If I see something interesting I switch over to a dedicated PC I bought for about $50 on an auction site. The ham software doesn't need today's cpu horsepower - especially if you stick to a simplified operating system. I was doing well with a 400Mhz Pentium II running Win98SE. I moved up to Pentium III and Win XP home because, understandably, some authors are no longer supporting Win93SE. I love the Mac and understand about using VirtualPC to simulate windows and Boot Camp, etc. But I love simplicity too. And people are giving away Pentium III boxes that would make great Ham Only gear. In fact, on another action, I'd see 16 Pentium IV computers for about $300 total Buy It Now. They all needed RAM/HardDrive/OS - but at that price, as a club project, for about $100 each, you'd end up with a pretty good hassle free lower profile (not big tower) ham only software control station. 73, Paul > do you have a suggestion? > > any other MARS modes commonly used which would persuade me to choose one form > over another in respect to Cocoa or Multimode. ???
[digitalradio] Re: Installing Signalink USB on OSX 10.0???
As the sound card is in the SignalLink, the sound levels are set via the volume/gain controls on the front panel. You do have to ascertain that the sound control panel recognizes the USB device, then specify it in the CocoaModem configuration - if that's what you are using. 73, Paul > > Has anyone installed one of these on 10.4+? would appreciate a pointer > towards the instructions for sound card settings, etc
[digitalradio] ethernet or wireless
I can either use CAT 5 wire - about 20-25 feet long - to connect my Ham computer to the internet, or I can turn on the wireless feature of my router and connect via the slower wireless portal. Speed won't be an issue - until I try computer control. Will running the long ethenet cable behind my rigs cause more or less problem than going wireless? Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Erik, I'd put the "blame" on contest organizers who establish digital mode (PSK) contest categories like 50W+. If people come into digital modes "up the ladder" - asking someone else - I can't believe most would learn that 50W+ is not being a good neighbor. So what is the incentive? If a contest has a category for high power - hot doggies, I guess that means 75W on PSK is okay after all. You are not alone. 73, Paul --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, list email filter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now, everyone remember their (and my) blood pressure... just a minute > while I get the asbestos armor adjusted... > > > What would the bands be like if say... digital contest points were ahhh > divided by power output, and people started working on operating skills? > > Or does the concept of using the minimal power necessary for reliable > communications really fly in the face of the plug-n-play point-n-click > crowd? > > > I know it's not a new idea, just getting tired of seeing my whole > waterfall blank out to a single station. Honestly, there are stations > out there that are worse than my microwave oven. Oh well, at least I > know how well my IF Shift works, and I've finally found a use for my > narrow filter on the digital modes. > > Well, I feel much better now. ;) > > -- > 73, > > Erik > N7HMS > IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 > > Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo > group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If > you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. >
[digitalradio] Re: KA1GMN on 30 Meters
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > I will be on 30 meters PSK31 @ 10.140 + 1000Hz from to 0100z. > > PhilW de KA1GMN > What is the designation of 10.140 + 1000Hz? When I've looked at band plans I sometimes see 20M psk designated as 14.070.150 More often it is 14.070. When I tune, I tune to 14.070 with a Ten Tec Argo and Pegasus. However, the Drake is different. It doesn't accomodate the offset. For example, on the TT, if I have my sidetone set to 600Hz, and a cw station is on 7.100, I tune to 7.100 and hear him with a 600Hz note. With the Drake, I'd have to tune to 7.100.6 (or 7.099.4?) to hear the station with that tone. So with 10.140 + 1000 I'm guessing with the Ten Tec I'd tune to 10.140 USB but with the Drake I'd tune to 10.141 USB. Is that how it goes? If so, why is it 1000hz instead of 1500Hz? Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] sound card adjustment - once or once for each program
I use a variety of digital software and am setting up a new ocmputer with an external 24-bit SoundBlaster Live. I read in another forum that the 24 bit potential won't get me much because most the software is looking for 11025 sampling rate. But getting it external-out of the computer-seems to help with the noise. In the past, the common method for adjusting/correcting the sound card was to tune WWV and make some adjustment off that signal. Now, MixW includes a stand-alone sound card adjustment application. That is, it doesn't adjust the card, it just reports what the adjustment should be. Given that, I'm guessing the adjustment happens inside the application - like MixW or MMSSTV. The subject question is - do you know if this adjustment is stored at the system level - so if I adjust it or change it in one application, it is adjusted for all applications after that, right? I figure not or MixW would have just had their adjuster program do the deed rather than requiring copying the numbers back into MixW. Thank you and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Re: Digital mode interfaces, which ones ?
> Danny Douglas wrote: > > The problem with the LIL Rascal, and the reason I replaced mine, is > > that it does NOT have a separate CW keying capability (You can Note that there are TWO parts to this problem. You have the hardware interface - any hardware interface - and the rig it is attached to. For example, I use a RASCAL with my ArgoV and have none of the problems desecribed previously - why - becuause the ArgoV was designed with computers in mind and has a DIN plug in back that gives line level in/out and PTT that can be used to key the rig. So I don't have to unplug anything or change any audio levels when I go to PSK31 For $15-$25 you can buy (or make for under $10) a serial plug with a circuit of about four parts (transistor, diode, resister - all available at radio shack) that plugs into a second serial port (if the first must be use for rig control)and allows CW programs to key the rig through that port. So RASCAL might not work for you, but it is really the RASCAL/RIG pair that is not as streamlined as it might be. 73, Paul
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Announcement
I smell a conspiracy here. Someone at the FCC being paid off by Kellogg's in order to increase their market share in a dwindling market for legacy serial? Are General Mills and Post going to support USB, or is curtains for them? And how long can Kellogg's get by with this, even being propped up by the government? (Have you ever noticed that the conspiracy theories all seem to come from the same people? I'd bet there's something to that...) 73, Paul / K9PS Simon Brown wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> It was announced today that Kellogg's and the Federal Communications >> Commission have signed a pact to issue Amateur Radio Licenses on >> specially marked boxes of Corn Flakes. > > Will make serial port programming much easier as well. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DEX vs. MT-63 -- Linux Version?
The W1HKJ version of gMFSK supports the Domino modes, as well as MT-63 (which fldigi omits - at least the version I've got), 73, Paul / K9PS Bill McLaughlin wrote: > Hi, > > I *have* to use HP-UX at work so I avoid it and anything that reminds > me of it at home; but think your only real choice would be Fldigi > > See http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html > > Others that use Unix/Linux might offer other options... > > 73, > > Bill N9DSJ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What Linux app would you recommend that offers DominoEX, >> especially DEX11 = -12 and DEX22 = -9 with and without FEC? >>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
pcooke2002 wrote: > > $3K for an HT!!! > BREATH, BREATH.. SWALLOW > You mean to say that $3k of my tax dollars are being spent on a HT > that you could have spent $200 on. > > I have to complain to my city council about my police dept going > digital. > I'd more likely congratulate them on having the foresight to spend money (a fraction of what it costs to keep an officer on the job for a year) on something that can make the job safer and more productive. If they've spent $3K on the handheld, that probably means they bought the ones that will support the type of capabilities (e.g. encryption) that they need to support a law enforcement professional. That radio will stay with him when he leaves the vehicle and provide him with communications that could be the difference between life and death. If my local officials were sending officers out on the job with $200 HT's, I'd be looking to replace them at the next election, if not before.
[digitalradio] Re: Newbie to DigitalRadio - Couple of Questions
However one of the most cheapest forms of mode detection is your ears. You can pretty much from the sound of it determine what it is if it's on the amateur bands. That's because most operators stick with the more established modes. Once you can recognise the more common ones then you will be able to pick up gradually on the less common ones. I know that sounds simplistic but it is in a way. When I transmit a CQ I do it on a mode that is easily recognised because I want someone to answer me. If I want to play on a new mode, like some of the ones offered in say Multipsk (got the plug in Patrick) then I ask the other operator if he wants to experiment and off we go. I would recommend listening around and trying to determine the mode from the sound. After you are familiar you will be impressed by how easy it is. If you want to check out a mode you aren't familiar you can always do what I use to do. I use to load Multipsk and then play CQs through my speakers and not over the air. In this way I got to listen to the different sounds each mode made. From this I got pretty good at identifying the various modes as I heard them. You really only need to know RTTY, MFSK, Olivia, analog slow scan television, digital DRM, PSK31 and Feld Hell. Those are the most common on the amateur band. Pactor, Packet and Throb are also good to know. Those are pretty much it for regular amateur use. There are others but you don't hear them that often. After you develop the skills in listening to the modes you will also develop the ability to see them on the waterfall for what they are. Some are harder to see but it can be done for most of the modes. Seeing and hearing... it's that easy. Hope this helps you out but seriously listening to the sounds of the modes is probably the easiest and faster method of identifying them. Crank up your digital program and send the signal to a speaker... you will be surprised how fast you pick them out. I was thinking of what you said about not being able to decode them. If you are using MixW... you should always have your rig on USB. If you don't then the signals are inverted in that program. It is opposite to the other programs out there. That could be part of your problem. Paul Leger VE9NC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > My name is Kevin, ZL1KFM. > I am starting to get back into digital modes after a number of years > away from it. Before was mainly on VHF packet. > Back then I had a AEA PK-232 multimode modem. Back then I loved this > unit for it's many features. > One of the features I liked was the ability to have the PK-232 decide > what the digital signal was, Packet, Amtor, Rtty etc. > > Today I am using MixW, and Ham Radio Deluxe, which are great software > packages, and have just recently downloaded Hamscope (But haven't > tried it yet). But none of these have the feature to allow it to > search and decide the type of digital mode it is. > Maybe it's the number of different digital modes now out there that > make this feature unusable, but is there something out there, or > could it be added? > > Why I ask this is listerning around, I hear what I believe to be a > Rtty, PSK or the others (listerned to the tones from some of the web > sites) and I can not for the life of me to get them to decode. I even > change the modes as it goes to see if this helps, in most cases I am > unable to see anything. My success rate s about 20-25% > > I am using a Kenwood TS-480S, and using the Data connection for RX > and TX to the computer. I get a good pattern on the waterfall, and > can see strong signals when there. > > Anyway I will keep trying to get it working, then I will try my hand > at transmitting. > > Thanks for any help you can send my way. Will hopefully get it > working 100% soon. > > Regards > > Kevin, ZL1KFM >
Re: [digitalradio] Linux software
Clarification... "Except MT63" was reference to fldigi. Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: > Except MT63... > > Darrel Smith wrote: >> I agree with Per that Fldigi does every mode you would want for digital >> modes although I use cocoamodem on my Mac for day to day use as it has a >> few features fldigi does not have yet and macros are easier to set up >> quickly for net use. >> >> Darrel
Re: [digitalradio] Linux software
Except MT63... Darrel Smith wrote: > I agree with Per that Fldigi does every mode you would want for digital > modes although I use cocoamodem on my Mac for day to day use as it has a > few features fldigi does not have yet and macros are easier to set up > quickly for net use. > > Darrel >
Re: [digitalradio] PSK on AM and you get two sidebands for diversity
Don't know... I'll have to do a google search on softrock and see what it is. If that *is* what a softrock is, I may just have to get one to play with :) Jose A. Amador wrote: > Isn't that a Softrock using SDR-1000 or M0KGK software? > > Jose, CO2JA >
Re: [digitalradio] NBFM Packet & Voice on HF?
Danny Douglas wrote: > Why is that? FM is the carrier, afsk is the mode. Just as SSB is the > carrier for an AFSK signal. If you can run AFSK on SSB in the other bands, > why not 10? Does it specifically say NBFM only for voice? That would be an F2D emission. Legal on frequencies where 97.307(f)(8) is referenced in the tables of 47 CFR 97.305 -- essentially 6 meters and up; that section adds F2D to the list of data modes described in 97.3(c)(2) AFSK over an SSB rig would either be an F1 emission (if you're looking at the actual signal being transmitted) or J2 (if you're looking at the method by which it's generated). Both are legal. Now, if someone hadn't confused the regulation-by-bandwidth rulemaking proposal by putting unrelated changes in automatic control in the same proposal, it might have been successful. Had it been, we'd be able to be talking to someone on SSB, and blast them a digital file during the QSO without having to change frequency to the data sub-band. And it *wouldn't* make any difference what kind of information you were transmitting via a particular mode... But all the outcry over the automatic control changes proposed at the same time left us as with the status quo -- the antiquated regulation that doesn't fit the current technology. - ps
Re: [digitalradio] PSK on AM and you get two sidebands for diversity
I wasn't so concerned about whether it's ISB, DSB, or whatever; I was more interested in the comment that it would make the rig easy to build. If a simple rig were built with two balanced modulators from a quadrature RF source (easy to do), using stereo audio with a sound card program designed for quadrature audio components would let you produce whatever kind of signal you wanted to... simple and inexpensive. And the corresponding receiver would also be simple and inexpensive. If you wanted to produce a pair of PSK31 signals separated by, say, 150 Hz, with a pilot carrier between them, it'd simply be a matter of building the appropriate waveforms to make it happen that way. Basically, a cheap software-defined radio, covering a small segment of a single band with a single crystal oscillator. By the way, I just checked part 97 -- ISB is legal (type "B" emission) within certain guidelines... - ps Walt DuBose wrote: > If you place different data on either sideband, its ISB which is illegal or > if > not now, may be in the near future. > > However, if detecting either sideband independently does not produce separate > data streams, then its not ISB. > > DSB would only double the information of one sideband so you would want to > use > the other sideband for more data. > > The question you have to answer is which is better...doubling, being > redundant > as with interleaving or sending characters twice or obtaining a greater bit > rate > or raw throughput. > > Another consideration is what would the bandwidth be with DSB where two 350 > Hz > PSK modes were sent? The bandwidth would be 770+ Hz. > > I think that you would still need a raised cos or filter on the transmit > tones > as well as a brickwall filter on the received signal. > > Noticed I said think because I haven't really had time to totally digest the > use > of DSB but I kinda like the approach. A 100 watt PEP DSB transmitter is > so > easy to build. Using the FCC-2 oscillator as described in the Feb. QST, and > a > low level diode balanced modulator and several stages of amplication, you > could > easily build a 100 watt PEP (50 watts per sideband) transmitter. But the > problem is finding an ISB receiver which you would need. Perhaps a direct > conversion receiver with a Q/I (?) detector and DSP brickwall filter would > work. > > Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] NBFM Packet & Voice on HF?
I was just looking in part 97, (regarding the legality of ISB), and noticed something else... In the US, even though "regular" NBFM is legal above 29 MHz, it's only legal for voice. The entire 10-meter band is still split up between RTTY/Data and Voice/Image like the rest of the HF bands.. So AFSK over FM on 29.xx MHz isn't legal here anyway. Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: > > I haven't tried AFSK over FM on 10 meters, but given what I've heard > on 10M FM during the last sunspot maximum, I would definitely agree > with you that the propagation characteristics -- which are obnoxious > enough on FM voice -- would probably destroy a packet signal. >
Re: [digitalradio] digital voice modem
Sorry Bill, I own the ARD9800 modems, I've never used an ARD9000MK2. Although I have read e-mails, owners seem to like the MK2 more than the older version (the ARD9000). They also believe they are more stable / RFI proof. Now that's just second hand hear say, so take that with a grain of salt. Paul Metzger KQ6EH http://www.hamradio-dv.org -- On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:26, Bill S wrote: > Has anyone had any experience with the AOR digital voice modem > ARD9000MK2? > I'm curious as to how well it works on hf ssb. > Bill S
Re: [digitalradio] PSK on AM and you get two sidebands for diversity
For a simple transmitter, how about a sound card mode that uses the sound card in STEREO mode with I and Q components on L and R channels, feeding two balanced modulators, and build a phasing-type exciter to do J2D type emissions? Maybe not quite as simple as AM, DSB, or NBFM, but probably pretty close. A companion receiver could use the same scheme to produce a simple I and Q output to feed to a sound card. And no crystal filters on either one... - ps kd4e wrote: >> Interesting. Run PSK on AM and you get two sidebands for diversity >> reception and a pilot carrier. This could make building small PSK rigs >> easier... >> Leigh/WA5ZNU > > What about DSB or NBFM, same result? >
Re: [digitalradio] NBFM Packet & Voice on HF?
KV9U wrote: > Good points, Paul, > > One thing that I found with longer distance FM signals on HF, even > though 10 meters can be close to the MUF when it is open, is that there > is a lot of frequency inversion or other anomalies from the ionosphere > that make it rather annoying and unsatisfactory. This is not true with > narrow bandwidth modes such as SSB. If you were just using FM for local > communications it is much more satisfactory and we have found it can > compete well with 2 meter repeaters in some cases. Instead of dropping > out, the signal just gets weaker, but often still readable. Given the comment in the original posting about the older receiver supporting NBFM and therefore it must "have once been permitted", I was reading the main question as the one of legality. I haven't tried AFSK over FM on 10 meters, but given what I've heard on 10M FM during the last sunspot maximum, I would definitely agree with you that the propagation characteristics -- which are obnoxious enough on FM voice -- would probably destroy a packet signal. During the sunspot minimum, though, it might provide convenient local links, although a different modulation scheme would give better results even for that. > This is almost like the attempt to use a mode such as digital voice on > the HF bands. It needs a very good S/N ratio to stay locked in. > > Even digital SSTV/FAX modes which fit into a regular narrow voice > bandwidth will display almost continuous damage to at least some of the > tones at any one time when you observe them on the waterfall. I've watched lots of MT63 on the lower end of the HF spectrum, and observe the diagonal lines from the fading so some extent *most* of the time. With 1200-baud AFSK/FM -- and NO FEC -- you'd get an overall raw data rate of 1200 bits per second *IF IT DECODES*. MT63 (in 2 kHz rather than 15 kHz bandwidth) would do 20 symbols of 7 bits, or 140 bits per second raw throughput. 1200 bps / 15 kHz = 80 bps per kHz of spectrum, compared to 140 bps / 2 kHz = 70 bps per kHz of spectrum: not significantly different for strong signals. But the difference on weak or fading signals would be 70 vs. nothing. So, while packet-over-FM on 10m is certainly legal, I'll certainly agree with you that it's still not necessarily the best idea. 73, - ps
Re: [digitalradio] NBFM Packet & Voice on HF?
kd4e wrote: > Anyone familiar with NBFM Packet activity on 10M, > 29,100 - 29,300MHz ? > > I came upon an old Sonar VFX 680 NBFM/CW exciter > that covers 160-2M and it got me wondering why > NBFM is not included across the Ham HF spectrum > bandplan. I don't believe it is any wider than > an AM signal. It all depends on what you mean by narrow-band. Historically, Narrow-band FM was 5 kHz deviation rather than the 15 kHz that was used on the old 60-kc spaced rigs. More recently, they're 'narrow-banding' FM to 2.5 kHz deviation. The newer definition would be legal under FCC part 97 - the restriction which used to say 'no wider than AM' now says No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency. So the 'new' definition of 'narrow-band' would fit. ... but older equipment would be using the 'old' definition... a roughly 15 kHz wide signal. Note that the restriction on bandwidth is only for frequencies below 29.0 MHz. 5 kHz deviation *IS* legal above 29.0. And, for those not in the USA -- the regs are probably totally different. > Collins Model 75A-1 is an AM/CW/NBFM receiver from > 1946, so NBFM would appear to have once been permitted. > My TS-430S also supports NBFM... and I use it on 10 meters :) Collins may also have had in mind using it with a VHF converter.
[digitalradio] Re: Audio attenuation using Rascal
Dave, I use a RASCAL with my ArgoV and it works great and have no "Level" issues. I'm wondering if the unit you got was specific for your rig. That is, there have been a few different models of RASCAL over the years and I thought there might be more than an cable change between rigs. Also, I believe there is a trimmer that is set. I think RASCALS started out as a Kit, so it was up to the builder to set that trimmer. Without knowing the history of yours - I can only suggest looking at that. I'm using an el cheapo Creative Labs sound card I added to one of the computer slots because I figured the quality would be better than the built in one. Also, most software is designed around Creative Labs. I take the Line In/Out/PTT off the five pin DIN on the back of the Argo so I don't have to mess with or change front panel rig controls. I set the level with the sound card sliders. Just a thought, maybe you have a check box checked to MUTE and by pushing the audio up all the way to the top you are squeeking just enought through. I don't know if Mute acts as an on/off switch or a big attenuator. Also, you have two sliders to set - you have the line in slider and the Master Volume slider. I set mine so they are mostly mid point on their scales. I bet more on one of those two sliders needing adjustment rather that a Mute Check Box. Good luck and 73, Paul
[digitalradio] Morse R&O in today's Federal Register
The info the ARRL got was correct - it's in there today. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-729.pdf
Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23
Nope - General and higher will have all modes. For no-code techs, it's the opposite -- except on 10 meters, HF privileges for codeless techs will be *CW ONLY*: no SSB, no SSTV, no RTTY, no soundcard digital -- except for CW. ON/OFF keying using the international morse code. On 10 meters, they'll be allowed CW and data in the bottom of the band, and SSB-only from 28.3 to 28.5 I suspect most of the techs who choose to come down to HF frequencies will upgrade (written test only) to General or Extra. larry allen wrote: > Assuming the no code licencee can only use voice... what happens when they > loose interest in only being able to use voice > Larry ve3fxq >
Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23
They'll just be on CW and 10-meter SSB. If they were going to put them on 75m SSB, they might be able to get a 10-36 if they could get through all the 20-wpm Extra Class Lids that think they own the frequency they sit on. - ps Chuck Mayfield wrote: > Yahoo, Good Buddy. Can I get a 10-36?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote: > But why stop there, as you say? I'm reasonably sure someone's already > done this (from the scores I see in the contest logs) but it should be > possible to totally automate the RTTY contests. With wide-band SDR > receivers (and transmitters for that matter) it ought to be possible to > work the whole contest automatically. This same concept could easily be > extended to macro-based ragchewing popular on PSK, with the digimode > programs automatically doing search-and-pounce, macro exchange, and LoTW > or eQSL QSLing.The mind boggles! Don't stop there, either! This can be done for nearly ALL Qso's, not just contests. - Scan for unworked stations - Call one when you find one - Search the FCC database or QRZ for name and QTH - Search weather.com for the weather - Search the archive of all the monitored QSO's your computer has ever seen to get information on rig, medical history, family, work, etc. - Search google for off-the-air postings to complete the personality profile - Enter all the data into an AI program on your computer - Have a qso with the clone in your AI program - disconnect. Two-second qso's with rare DX stations could be a thing of the past; a rare DX station could have hundreds of simultaneous QSO's just by allowing multiple connections. Note: QSO's in excess of 30 minutes could qualify you for a synthetic rag chewing certificate. - ps
Re: [digitalradio] Movement toward open digital software?
I haven't yet figured out what the supposed incompatibility between versions is all about. For most packages I've run, it's either compile straight from source and install, or do a search and find pre-built binaries that'll run on my system (Fedora 3). The only thing I've had problems with so far is fldigi -- simply because I've never built anything with the fl libraries before. Being on a dial-up, it may take me a while to find time to get the libraries and build it up, but it's a matter of download time, not trying to find the libraries. Between freshrpms, freshmeat, rpmfind and google searches, I've never been unsuccessful in finding libraries. "All those varieties" aren't really all that different from each other. - ps John Bradley wrote: > I rest my case: walt talks about all these different varieties of linux, > RedHat,Mandrake,SuSe, puppy linux and Debian, > all in one sentence. I take it these OS are not compatible with each other. > How the heck can u figure out what runws best with which? > > John > VE5MU >
Re: [digitalradio] Re : Regional Communications
I haven't done much with the 30m allocation -- Rein, PA0R, had some info on it in his posting. In THEORY, it might be good for NVIS during the peak of the sunspot cycle, but this time of the sunspot cycle, NVIS wouldn't be good there. There may be other propagation modes that may provide some short-distance propagation, but generally it should be long-haul these days. The advantage of that band would be low noise and interference, so it might be possible to get some things to work there that one normally wouldn't expect. The subject of this thread has been "Regional" communications - which would probably mean from zero to maybe 200-300 miles. While that's not going to be the 30m band's strong point, that certainly doesn't mean 30m isn't worth trying. 73, Paul / K9PS (most of my operating is 5 MHz and lower frequencies, and almost all of that is in the receive mode... ) Mel wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The posting by Paul K9PS was very interesting. I have a fascinated > interest in 30 metres, primarily because it should be a very useful > band for digital activity, and yet the band is always devoid of user. > s. May I ask Paul if he could advise us when 30 metres is at its best > because its a complete mystery to me ! > > I remember reading an RSGB article when the band was first given to > us and its characteristics were suggested to be a cross between 20 > and 40 metres. As we know both of these bands are always busy, but > the one in the middle isn't ! > > Kind regards, Mel G0GQK > > > > DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Suggested Calling/Beaconing Frequencies: > > All frequencies are USB and assume a centre audio frequency of 1000Hz > (e.g radio dial at 14.077.4 and 1000Hz on your waterfall = 14078.4) > > 20M: Primary : 14.078.4 Secondary: 14.076.4 > > 30MPrimary: 10.142 Secondary 10.144 > > 80MPrimary : 3583 Secondary: 3584.5 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Regional communications ?
The correction/clarification wasn't much clearer than the original, was it? I was thinking of the 80-meter loop when I originally posted the 60-foot-or-so length per side; and was referring to the 160m loop when posting that "at 130 feet or so per side, it's pretty big", etc. - ps kd4e wrote: > > Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote: >> Yep. I was thinking of the 80 meter one. At 130 feet or so per side, >> it's pretty big, but still fits in some lots where there's not enough >> length to do a 160 dipole. I really should restrict things that require >> thinking to before 5:00 PM when I switch the brain in standby after work... > > Did you mean to type "At 65 feet or so per side ..." > when you referred to a full wave 80M loop rather > than "At 130 feet or so per side ..."? > > Just wondering as it confused me for a moment. > :-) >
Re: [digitalradio] Regional communications ?
KV9U wrote: > Paul, > > A full sized 160 loop is not easy to set up since it needs to be around > 500+ feet in circumference (1005 / 1.9 = 528 feet). This would make a > square about 130 feet on a side. Yep. I was thinking of the 80 meter one. At 130 feet or so per side, it's pretty big, but still fits in some lots where there's not enough length to do a 160 dipole. I really should restrict things that require thinking to before 5:00 PM when I switch the brain in standby after work... > After comparing a nearly full size, low height (30 foot apex) 160 meter > inverted vee to a very low (10 to 30 foot) "L," the "L" was good enough > that it worked for NVIS operation. It is directly connected to a > multiband 80-6 meter ground mounted vertical but has quite a few radials > up to 100 feet long and in the clear. > > If you use a dipole that is much smaller than 75% or so from full size, > even with open wire line you can expect some substantial losses in the > tuner. For example, using smaller than 180 feet for a 160 meter dipole > can be lossy. It might be better to use linear loading or lumped > inductances in the antenna. There are always compromises. My dad's running a 75-meter inverted vee fed with open-wire line and an LDG auto-tuner. It works quite well on a 100-mile path near the top end of 160 meters. (It also works quite well at resonance until it's too long after dark and there's no more NVIS propagation that high in frequency!) There are some formulas out there somewhere for computing the necessary loading coils to make short dipoles - I used to have an old DOS program that would do it. Google will probably find an up-to-date version - and as you state, that's probably the best solution. Put up an inverted vee that's as long as the lot allows, and put a loading coil in it to resonate it on 160. Add a tuner to get some reasonable bandwidth and to compensate for the <50-ohm feedpoint impedance. > There are some hams giving out misinformation on low dipoles for NVIS > operation, particularly on the NVIS yahoogroup. They believe that low > dipoles only a few feet above the ground will give you a better S/N > ratio and will actually work better for NVIS. I have done experiments > with 80 meter inverted vee dipoles at 12 feet apex and 35 feet apex and > the higher dipole is consistently superior than the lower dipole with > just about any measurement you want to use, received signal strength, > S/N ratio, and for sure, transmitted signal strength. There *is* a limit to what "low" is for it to work. Get too close to ground, and run into trouble. A 35 foot apex on an inverted vee is still considered low (1/8 wavelength at the top) And at 160, a 35 foot apex is even lower (in wavelengths). My dual-band 80/160 inverted vee is about 40 feet at the apex, and works quite well for NVIS on both bands. > The higher your horizontal antenna can be and still be below 1/4 > wavelength, the stronger your NVIS signal. This means that you would > have to exceed 60+ feet to be "too high" on 80 meters. Double that for > 160 meters and half it for 40 meters. Needless to say, many of us have > NVIS dipoles on the low bands without even trying:) That's a fact that's most often overlooked on the NVIS group. They're always asking things like "how do I use the NVIS mode?" when the fact of the matter is that if they're communicating at all at the frequency and distance they're talking about, they're already doing it :) NVIS has become somewhat of a buzz-word, when it really shouldn't be. It's not magic or anything super-special or complex. It's simply how things work and have been working for all those years before it became a popular subject on internet discussion groups... Thanks for the correction on the loop size... 73, - ps
Re: [digitalradio] Regional communications ?
Follow-up -- forgot 160m antennas. While a full-sized dipole or inverted vee is nice for NVIS, there are options for smaller lots. A full-size dipole is in the ballpark of 250 feet total length, but a full-size full-wave loop is only 60 feet or so on a side. Feed it either in the middle of one side or at a corner. It's fairly close to 50 ohm impedance, and you might even be able to get by without an antenna tuner if you restrict your frequency coverage (1.8 to 2.0 MHz is a 10% change in frequency!) and tune the antenna carefully. A shorter inverted vee will also work well on 160 -- the trick here is to *NOT* try to use coax cable for the feedline. With an antenna that's only half-size, the feedpoint impedance will have a low resistive component but will have a lot of reactance -- meaning the VSWR on the line will be terrible. Feeding with coax will result in all your power being consumed in feedline losses. To get around that, the two common tricks are to use the feedline as part of the radiator (short the inner and outer conductors together at the antenna tuner, and connect them to the antenna tuner long-wire output, feeding it against ground). The other (and, in my book, preferred) solution is to put up whatever size of dipole or inverted vee you can, and feed it with ladder line. Either trick requires a tuner that will handle 160 meters, though. > Andrew O'Brien wrote: >> I do not have real estate for 160M either. So what >> bands and "regular" antennas do you use for this ? >
Re: [digitalradio] Regional communications ?
I've spent most of my ham career on or near 80 meters. The question depends on what part of the sunspot cycle you're in. If sunspots are at max, 40 meters is generally solid during the daytime hours for those distances. At nighttime, 40 meters gets "long" and you will need to shift to 80/75 meters for regional communications. When sunspots are at minimum (like now), 40 meters will too long for regional comms except at mid-day. 80 meters is pretty noisy during the day -- 60 meters works nicely but is USB only. After dark, 80 meters gets too long for regional comms, but 160 works nicely. For NVIS, a low dipole or inverted vee works fine - no need for a fancy antenna. You just want something that radiates UP. (Verticals radiate towards the horizon - nice for DX, but terrible for NVIS). There's a Yahoo group on NVIS that you might be interested in... also, there are websites where you can track the "critical frequency" - the highest frequency where a signal going straight up to the ionosphere will be reflected back. For NVIS, you generally want to be as close to the critical frequency as you can without being above it. Check out http://solar.spacew.com/www/fof2.html Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I am familiar with NVIS antennae but do not have a particular NVIS > installation, I do not have real estate for 160M either. So what > bands and "regular" antennas do you use for this ?
[digitalradio] Win A New ARD9800 Digital Fast Radio Modem !
You now have just a few days left to prepare yourself for the ARRL “HELLO” Special Event this Dec 29th and 30th. This is your chance to win a new AOR ARD9800 Digital Fast Radio Modem which retails for $549.95 at HRO. Visit http://www.hamradio-dv.org for more details. Paul Metzger The Digital Voice Amateur Radio Association
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code
I don't remember the FCC ever before issuing a news release about a report and order without releasing the Report and Order along with it. Maybe the administrative help took off early for a Christmas party or something. I suspect we'll see the Report and Order on Monday, with rule changes to be published in the Federal Register, and effective 30 days after publication. The laws governing administrative procedures for government agencies require the rule changes be published in the Federal Register, require notification periods, etc. I rather suspect that somehow all the I's didn't get dotted and the T's crossed in time to get the R&O out on Friday. But the bottom line is this: the FCC has to BY LAW follow their administrative procedures for rule changes. Because of that, I'm fairly certain that the changes did NOT take effect yesterday -- the only official word was a news release saying the R&O was approved. The R&O wasn't released, and until they actually CHANGE the rules, the old rules are still in effect. As far as giving no-code techs CW-only HF privileges -- that's not all that odd. This order isn't about restructuring license privileges, it was simply about dropping code requirements for licensing. Had they NOT given Techs all the privileges of the Tech-Plus (which differ only in the code requirement which is being obsoleted), it would have created an inconsistency. However silly it may seem (although personally, I think it's a good idea) to give no-code Techs CW privileges, doing so provided the simplest way to make a consistent rule change... unlike the recent R&O which created two accidental inconsistencies (the J3D bandwidth issue, and the digital automatic control subband in a place where digital isn't permitted). I'm glad to see that they caught this potential inconsistency before the R&O was finished. 73, - ps Bill McLaughlin wrote: > I thought the convention was 30 days to effectivity after the > announcement? Although the "press release" is not the conventional > methodology the FCC usually uses to announce a R&O. Unless I am daft > (which may well be), isn't it ironic that the code requirement will be > dropped for Techs who will now have code-only privledges only below 28 > MHZ (the old Novice/Tech-Plus HF privs)? > > Bill N9DSJ > >
Re: [digitalradio] Effective Date ? FCC Drops Morse Code
right now dec 15. Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When does this take effect? Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register plus 30 days ? Andy K3UK __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
