Re: [digitalradio] Re: The worlds nastiest PSK signal
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 18:40 +, raf3151019 wrote: > I see some like that, and surprisingly they are often like London buses, you > have two or three appearing at the same time ! The other day an horrendous > load of krap was being generated by a German station and I told him three > times, in an hour, about the poor quality of his transmission. But he > continued on regardless, and made contacts and I don't think anybody else > mentioned it. Its quite obvious then that I'm too fussy ! If I can look up their email address, I take a screen shot and email it to them. That usually gets their attention. I've gotten many thank you's back from op's that just didn't know.
Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu - thank you
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:22 AM, J. Moen wrote:
>
>
> I think you got some great answers, with the general theme that Linux is an
> excellent operating system AND people have written native Linux ham programs
> that also are excellent. Bottom line -- hams will be more than happy
> running Linux as their prime operating system.
>
> There was one replier who felt the need to denigrate Windows ("You will be
> rewarded with inexpensive secure software that is very robust and stable.
> Something you never had with Windows and it's what makes Linux great.")
>
> That part is kind of hard to understand. My Win XP SP3 machine has never
> crashed, not even once over these many years. At work, our Vista machines
> never go down, except when Building Maintenance decides to cut power to the
> mains. And I have used wonderfully robust Windows programs for many years.
>
>
You are either very lucky, very careful or you have serious malware and
virus protection running on those machines.
In the 1990's RainForestPuppy disclosed a vulnerability in all versions of
Windows that was so severe that Microsoft had no choice but to respond with
an operating system that literally could not run almost all previously
written Windows software. That operating system was Vista. It's third
incantation is Windows 7 (I count the second version as Vista SP2, the first
version of Vista that actually was stable at all). It looks like Microsoft
may have gotten it right with Windows 7. I like it a lot, but all previous
versions of Windows were either buggy or rife with vulnerabilities, like
needing to run with administrator privilege to install and run most
software.
It's not a secret that Windows systems are swiss cheese because of this
whole group of issues. Closing our eyes to these problems doesn't make them
go away. Running Windows without third party malware or virus protection
will lead you to a disaster in a short amount of time. This is common
knowledge.
When you talk to people that are not experts in running computers, I bet you
suggest to them to make sure their computer protected with virus and malware
protection and that they are up to date and run often.
None of this is necessary with Linux.
I make my living supporting Windows systems for a Fortune 50 company. Tens
of thousands of them. Yes, we keep them generally stable. But not without
the cost of serious firewalling, malware detection, virus protection and
policy administration. And even then, when a Windows system becomes
unstable, our second line of defense after a few minutes of troubleshooting
is to wipe the drive and reinstall, then reinstate just the data. We do this
because it takes far too long to troubleshoot arcane issues and often simply
wastes time. This is virtually never done on our Linux systems.
>
> The fact that Windows is both stable and robust does not mean I think Linux
> isn't. In fact, since I first read about Unix in 1977 and in the 80s played
> with various PC ports of Unix, and later Linux over the years, it's been
> fascinating to see this platform flourish and grow. It IS an excellent
> operating system.
>
>
I'm glad you've had great luck with windows. My experience, as well as most
everyone who runs Windows, is that without external support, it will fall
down quickly and become a victim of malware or viruses. And if you run with
administrative privileges, you have opened the door for anything that
attacks you as a user to also attack the entire system. The very design of
Unix and Linux prevents this kind of issue.
But you did get the general point that expecting Linux or any other
operating system to act like Windows is a poor stance that will make that
operating system disappoint you because it doesn't meet your preconceived
outcome.
Re: [digitalradio] re: Ubuntu
No, this is not true. Linux is not windows and even though there is an emulator named Wine, it is a kludge and is no guarantee that any windows software will run properly on Linux. Some does really good, some is buggy, some doesn't start at all. Trying to make Linux work like Windows will always be disappointing. Instead, try to find what makes Linux great and stick with Linux based software. The way to do this is instead of thinking of Windows program names you know and trying to get them to run, find Linux programs that perform the same function and learn how they work. You will be rewarded with inexpensive secure software that is very robust and stable. Something you never had with Windows and it's what makes Linux great. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM, n0alo wrote: > > > About other programs, well I also like mmtty, mmsstv, easypal, kgstv and > several others. > A friend told me that Ubuntu should also run those with no problem, is this > true? > Lynn >
Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: [30MDG] Help NEEDED with a Signallink USB
The SignaLink USB is not a rig control device, it's only an audio device. It has a built in VOX circuit to do the keying. Rig control must be done with a separate device. If you got the audio to show up, you are there. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: paul_g0uzp > Date: Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:25 AM > Subject: [30MDG] Help NEEDED with a Signallink USB > To: 30...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Hi all, > > A ham friend of mine (M0UTD) has bought a signalink USB interface. Tried to > install it. It comes up with audio codecs ok... but does not assign a > comport. I have tried all I know, without success. > However it is picking it up as a USB Human Interface ? > I am pulling my hair out here.. > Can anyone give me any pointers please... > > Laptop is a Toshiba Sat Pro. with Win xp SP 3.. > > tHANKS IN ADAVANCE > > Paul G0UZP > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:56 -0500, Andy obrien wrote: > "Some people think to keep telling lies on Internet blogs is going to > go free. People still trying to outlaw ROS although the FCC has given > approval will not be able to make any QSO with ROS or any of the > projects I have designed for the future. > > “Non Grata” List: > > K5OKC, AA6YQ, M6RDP,PE4BAS,KQ7W,ZL4PLM,DL4PLM,GM4PLM,NN4RH" We dare not point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothing... Pathetic.
Re: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 19:17 -0500, Andy obrien wrote: > I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on > several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with > enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a > way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here > is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could) > > Commander (or HRD) > Winwarbler (or Multipsk) > DX Keeper > Spotcollector > Pathfinder > DX View > Weather Watcher > Firefox > Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console > Fldigi > WSJT/JT65-HF > Dimension 4 In a word, no. Modern operating systems are very good at seemingly doing several things at once, even though you may only have a single CPU. If you are concerned with this, get a multi-core CPU so you can give your operating system more parallel capabilities. Also having a great graphics card with a proper driver can lift a lot of CPU responsibility. I prefer nVidia with the nVidia drivers. You don't say which operating system you are running. XP has a natural limit of 2 CPU's. Windows servers have an option to buy support for multiple CPU's. Linux can use all the CPU's it can find. From what I read, Windows 7 can support 2 sockets and each socket can have a multicore CPU in it. That means it would be possible and even reasonably inexpensive to have a pair of 4 core AMD Opterons running under Windows 7 or Linux. I'm running a single quad core AMD Phenom 9600 under Linux and it's loafing all the time, regardless of what I'm doing. I have yet to see any CPU lag on this machine. It has an Nvidia 9600 video card. Generally speaking, RAM is more important than CPU so make sure you are not ram starved before you blame the CPU.
Re: [digitalradio] Need your help picking HF radio.
On Fri, 2009-12-25 at 15:46 +, kd7jeh wrote: > Merry Christmas to the Group, > > I am looking to buy another HF radio for PSK/digital. I am asking > what features I look for and why. Next question, what radio offers > more bang for the money and why? > > I would like to buy new but will consider a used one of older model > not in current production. Definitely consider one with a digital IF section. That gives you the maximum filtering possibilities without buying a bunch of filters. It's great when you can narrow your filter down to 50 hz and pick out a single PSK-31 stream. An added bonus is if the rigs AGC is derived after the digital filtering. I know the IC-746pro can do this and I'm sure there are many more that can, such as the IC-756proIII. It's a huge feature for digital work.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Techs on HF digital
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 14:56 +, ke4d wrote: > Now, can some of you guys help me get started with these digital > modes? LOL. Actually, I have had equipment for years starting with > some TNCs back in the dark ages to work digital modes, but just made > my first PSK contact two days ago. Although I have been using APRS for > years and was one of the early packet users, most of the current modes > are foreign to me. Be gentle with me, I have screwed up more than once > trying to make everything work. Now that I have reached retirement > age, I have more time to play with my toys and I'm exploring our > digital modes as a way to expand my radio skills. Besides, living in > an antenna restricted community, these modes give me a chance to keep > up with the big boys with my more modest station. The biggest place that people mess up their digital signal is to overdrive the rig and turn down the input to try to make up for it. Here's my suggestion for setting your starting point 1. Set your power to max and leave it there. 2. If you are coming in through the mic input, set it to about half gain. 3. All power adjustments are done by either changing the output level of your sound card or by placing an adjustable pad between your sound card output and the input to your radio. 4. Adjust for about 25 watts peak out. That will get you a pretty good signal. The rest is learning how each mode works.
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Cards
On 06/17/2009 08:44 PM, Tim N9PUZ wrote: > How old are these units that have been modified to work properly? > > Tim, N9PUZ > Mine is now about 1.5 years old, but I voided the warranty about 5 months into ownership with the modifications.
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Cards
On 06/17/2009 05:17 PM, Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] wrote: Rick W skrev: You could use an external device as others have suggested. I don't generally recommend the SignaLink USB due to the low frequency noise problem, however many hams either ignore it or are not aware of it. Further, after some considerable denial on the part of Tigertronics, they may have corrected this in later versions, but I can not yet confirm that. On the other hand, I do recommend the SignaLink USB for the simplest possible portable unit such as might be used for public service/emergency communications and you don't want to be concerned about COM ports or USB to COM adapters. Just plug in the USB to the computer and plug in a rig specific cable and you can operate. If you really like the simplicity of the SignaLink USB ( I do), you can fix it's various problems, see Here: http://www.frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/SignaLinkUSB-mods.html I did these mods on my SignalLink USB. It made a huge difference, just like the article said it would. Since I stole the transformers out of old 8 bit modems and I had a little toroid to wind up the inductor the total cost was about $2.50. I repainted the outside shell at the same time and the Hammertone dark grey paint cost more than the parts. I hated the putty color.
Re: [digitalradio] Wine/Linux and HRD/DM780 anyone?
Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: > Hi Doug, > > Try Windows 7 - it really is a smooth OS. It is fast - I use it on my little > ASUS EEE PC 1000H with HRD/DM780 and it really performs. > > HRD/DM780 will not work with WINE I am afraid, I wish I had time for the > debugging. Oh, me too! The only reason I keep a windows machine in the shack is for your software.
Re: [digitalradio] Really beating the AGC issue with PSK ?
Andy obrien wrote: > From time to time we have had discussions here about the problem with > PSK (and other modes) when a strong stations appears to grab the > waterfall and wipe out all the other stations within a 2-3 Khz range. > Because of this phenomenon, when I purchased a new rig, I looked for > one that could have AGC totally off (when needed) and one that can > employ narrow DSP filtering. I must say that I have not really solved > this issue . I can see a marginal difference with AGC turned off but > strong signals still essentially desensitize other stations in the > waterfall. The DSP features do better and I can get rid of the > phenomena by turning to a narrow filter. However this does not help > if the offending station is with 300 - 500 Hz ( a lot when dealing > with narrow digital modes). > > Does anyone have any advice on how to once and for all solve this > issue? My rig is a TS2000 IF DSP is much better at handling this than AF DSP. On my IC-746Pro, the AGC sees only signals that make it through the filter, which can be narrowed to 50hz. Allowing for the sharp slope setting, this is pretty effective at limiting to about 100hz down to about 25db down from the peak. Of course, you can't fix a splattered signal that is actually interfering on the frequency where your weaker target it. Nothing can fix that except to clean up the transmitter that is battering the spectrum.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK interface
Jerry Rappel wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. No it's not a NOMIC interface. > Has no markings on the case except "/Soundcard interface for PC > generated / > /PSK-31 and RTTY modes, PTT support on serial port RTS line/". > Black box is about 1" X 2 ". (maybe it was a kit, put together well). > Has a TXA level set. Just bought it from a ham who used it on a FT1000MP > (that he no longer owns). I can get my radio to tune when I go into > the sound card ... sometimes. Maybe it's a sound card setting? > Receives fine. Sounds like a Rascal from Buxcomm.
Re: [digitalradio] Question for the Linux gurus
Dave wrote: > I posted a different question a few days ago, and a respondent suggested I > use Linux. Here's a follow up question. > > I have an older laptop computer on which I may want to load Linux. It is a > Pentium II operating at 366 Mhz. It currently has Windows 98 as the OS. I'm > thinking of loading a version of Linux to replace the OS. This presents > several questions. > > What version od Linux will run with the limited RAM and processor this has? > > There is no NIC, however it does have two USB ports. I have a USB interface > that connects to my cable modem, but it doesn't have a Linux driver available > for it. Can anyone guess if it will work? It's a Linksys model USB10T > > I'm trying to locate additional memory for the laptop, but unsure if I can > find any. Also, this is being done on a shoestring budget, so the advice "buy > a new one" won't help much hi! The purpose of this project is to have a > backup for my main PC should it go down, allowing me to at least check email > and hopefully run a digital app or two for the radio until the main PC is > back on line. > > I loaded an old copy of Puppy Linux from the CD, and it worked fine, leaving > 44M available for apps, so it appears it will work at some level. Ham apps > and internet connectivity are the two remaining questions. > > Any and all assitance appreciated! Please download and try Xubuntu. It is made for limited resource running and is very fast on older hardware that has limited ram and cpu.
Re: [digitalradio] "Who Is Where Now" : Idea, needs inventor
Andy obrien wrote: > Take at look at this "fake" web page http://www.obriensweb.com/whoiswhere.html > > I was thinking about the idea of a "reverse DX cluster" or an > expansion of the concepts behind hrdlog.net . A plce to see who is > QRV and where they are on the bands. Not DX spots, just who is where. >I had some private emails with a few people about the varying ideas > and one correspondent crystallized the thoughts by using the term "who > is where, now" ? It was further suggested that what is needed to > facilitate the concept is a very easy uncomplicated process that does > not take a lots of resources or bandwidth. An idea that is easily > enabled in most common log book software after one configures that > software to interface with your rig. The idea would take the > frequency/mode info that all moderns rigs send, and populate a webpage > via use of TCP or UDP, possibly in to a XML format. > > I created the fake webpage in the link above to start the idea > rolling, an idea of what it may look like . The page I put together > is fairly crude, just something to start the idea cooking. > > This would be a idea that is "free" , no having to pay an annual fee > like some logging programs already require. > > So, do we have any talent here that could take the idea and create it? > Then we could host it (I would volunteer) and try to persuade popular > logging/rig control software authors to support it by adding the > ability to send the data strings from their software. > > Anyone take the idea further? > > Andy K3UK > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. > The groundwork to make more than half of this application work from a life feed from HRD is in my freely available software FreqMode2HRD. At least the part of the software that can listen to or take readings from the rig is all there. Once you have the data, forming an xml packet and shipping it off to a port via UDP is cake. It's a neat idea, but I'm zapped for time at this time. If it's reading from HRD, the logging program connection is moot.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Psk Mail Help someone!!
Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: > I doubt it *very* much! Interest would pick up. That's pretty funny.
Re: [digitalradio] Announcing the 5th Annual (2008) Digitalradio Awards :
Andy obrien wrote: > Digital Mode Aid - Innovation of the Year : Philip Gladstone's PSK > Reporter . Integrated with DM780, this tool is one of the most useful > for those days when you wonder if you are getting out!Find it at > http://www.hamspots.net/30m/ or within DM780. I think you wanted http://www.pskreporter.info
Re: [digitalradio] OFF TOPIC
aat3ol wrote: > I AM LOOKING FOR A USED BUT WORKING 2 METER VERTICAL How about building one? It doesn't get much cheaper or easier than this one: http://www.hamuniverse.com/2metergp.html And as far as I can tell, they work as good or better than any j-pole because you don't need any choke to keep the RF off the feedline. You might also find this one to be of interest... http://www.ac4rc.org/2M CPFL Antenna.pdf
Re: [digitalradio] 8 ohm or 600 ohm audio transformer?
doug_tara2005 wrote: > Hi, > > I've been experimenting with various audio interface(s) from my radio > to my sound card. Some suggest using 8 ohm transformers and some > suggest using 600 ohm transformer. I'm confused as to why would they > suggest using a 600 ohm transformer. The audio output from radios are > 8 ohm. The audio output from sound cards are also 8 ohms. Why would I > use a 600 ohm transformer? > > Right now I built the interface by KD5ZUG with 600 ohm transformer > and it seems to be working correctly, but I'm wondering if it could be > better. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. > > Line level outputs and line level inputs are generally closer to 1000 ohms. You should be using line level inputs and outputs whenever possible, rather than speaker outputs and microphone inputs.
Re: [digitalradio] Broken PC question
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Please excuse the non-radio question... > > We have a PC that just stopped working, looking for some possible > ideas. The PC (a desk top) was knocked over by a frustrated teenager > , when plugged back in the power light comes back on but nothing is > seen by the monitor , no Windows attempting to boot or anything, no > beep codes. The fans are going, I do not see the HD LED light up, > and after a few seconds at boot-up, I hear a slight click like the HD > is trying without success. If the HD has gone kaput, would I not get > some indication from the PC rather than just nothing at all ? > > Andy K3UK > Not necessarily. I'd suspect the hard drive at this point. Try to boot on a linux bootable CD and see if that works.
Re: [digitalradio] Accurate time-keeping in Linux. An attempt at a "HOWTO"
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 11:29:17 am Hal wrote: > netdate ntp.demon.co.uk /or/ > netdate time-a.nist.gov > > hwclock -w > > will fix the time. Yes, it will. But ntpdate does much more than fix the time and date. It observes clock drift over a long period of time and applies constant corrections to the slew rate of the clock even when you are no longer hooked to the internet. And when you are hooked to the internet, it is constantly nudging your time to the correct time instead of providing gross jumps which can mess with computers that are doing time sensitive work. It also takes into account latency of the internet so when you are checking time through a connection that is suddenly lagging terrible, it will throw those corrections away until it gets better ones. In short, it's more accurate more often than cron jobs that make your clock jump. -- "Ninety percent of politicians give the other 10 percent a bad name." -- Henry Kissinger
Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio Deluxe 4.0 in time for Dayton
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 04:25:28 am Andrew O'Brien wrote: > The next release of Ham Radio Deluxe and Digital Master 780 will be > made for Dayton 2008 (May 16th - 18th). > > Kits will be available from the US Interface stand #556. > > Downloads available May 19th / 20th (after Dayton is finished). Thanks, Andrew. I've been following along with all of the beta's and it's very impressive. Good job! -- Waiting for sunspots.
Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
On Sunday 20 April 2008 05:03:27 am Laurent Laborde wrote: > Hello, i have exactly the same problem. > > PSK31 is a good mode, but i'm tired of PSK31 only QSO. > I try to use exoctic mode only. > > All flavors of Hellschreiber, > Throb, Ale, Olivia, ALE, Stanag, Packet, ... > > It can take MANY hours to get a single reply in MFSK16 while there is > a lot of psk31 around. > > Frustrating and boring ... > It's all about sharing stupid paper QSL or contesting ... I don't think that's it at all. I think PSK-31 is popular because there are distinct locations to find it. -- In order to ensure a safe police state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed.
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 and Yaesu FT857
On Saturday 19 April 2008 12:19:55 am Leskep wrote: > Hi Alan > This is using the digi port on the 857 with all dsp functions off > but I need 2400 hz of audio passband just to fit the non standard > RFSM8000 signal in and just cant get it from stock standard 857 > Maybe just put it back in my mobile and consider other > options for digital use - at least the FT920 works well on RFSM > Regards > Les I had one of these and it was typical for me to get 2700 hz bandpass from it. Did it all the time. Are you sure the DSP is off? It sounds like the audio DSP is on and set wrong. Even if it's on, you can set the lower and upper cutoffs to min and max settings. Then you can use the IF shift to move the passband left and right in the IF stages. Perhaps the IF shift is not centered. There are three buttons to the left of the display. Hold the middle on in for more than two seconds. That is the IF shift. To start off, it needs to be centered. Move the selector knob (lower left) to get a large dot on the right hand of the freq display. If you are away from the IF center, you will get an up or a down arrow instead of a large dot. Once you get a large dot, hold it in another two seconds to set it. Then select the two submenu items for DSP lower limit and set it to as low as it will go. Do the same for the DSP upper limit and set it to as high as it will go. You should get about 3 khz bandwidth. -- In order to ensure a safe police state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed.
Re: [digitalradio] Shoutcast of PSK31 - 14.070
On Thursday 27 March 2008 05:15:16 pm Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: > Has anybody set up a Shoutcast or similar Internet radio feed of a psk > radio channel like 14.070? > > I wonder how the latency and jitter on an TCP/IP audio feed would be > tolerated. I just went through the process of setting up an Icecast of a 2 meter repeater here in town. While can't do this to 14.070, I don't mind sharing the setups that it took to get that going on Linux with someone who is interested. -- In order to ensure a safe police state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed.
Re: [digitalradio] 300hz filter - what modes?
On Friday 15 February 2008 09:43:39 am btwlgw wrote: > Besides PSK31 & 63, what other modes can be decoded with a 300hz > filter? Isn't MFSK16 just a little too wide? > Ben,K4GST >From experience, mfsk16 fits just fine in a 300Hz filter. -- "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Re: [digitalradio] UI Design
On Friday 01 February 2008 04:34:57 am Simon Brown wrote: > UI Design is something I am not very good at That must have hurt. I mean poking your tongue into your cheek that hard must have hurt. You have masterful UI design skills. -- "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Re: [digitalradio] Not enough Serial Ports
On Saturday 26 January 2008 01:06:20 pm Barry Mertz wrote: > Questions: I am using an old IBM with Windows 98 operating system. The > computer has two usb ports and one DB9 serial port. This is what I want > to hook up. An MFJ-1275 sound card adapter. I also want to run HAM > Radio Deluxe and control to radios with the CAT interface. A Yaesu FT- > 920 HF and a FT-847 both is CAT capable. > > I would like to study > > CAT on the 920 & 847 two serial reports required I have one on the > computer? > MFJ-1275 to be used on both radios I am thinking a Patch Bay. I will > move the cables if needed. > > I have allot of items that require a serial port and only one, a switch > to switch the Items to the one port. Or is there a better way. > > Can someone help the old "Gunny" KC8SXG Barry These work great and can be found for little money on auctions. http://cgi.ebay.com/Lava-DSerial-Dual-Serial-Port-9pin-16550-PCI-Card_W0QQitemZ320212231658QQihZ011QQcategoryZ41995QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Re: [digitalradio] Opinions please...What is the best interface for PSK31?
On Thursday 24 January 2008 01:36:46 pm Jeff Hochman wrote: > OK, granted this is a subjective question and people could possibly > have various opinions one way or the other, but I'm looking to get into > PSK31 and am shopping around for an interface between my IC-718 > transceiver and my PC. Ideally I'd also like to get a solution that > would also do other digital modes as well as CW, and allow automated > control of my rig via the PC (or even remotely over the internet). > I've seen several interface cables, etc. that connect to the various > ports on a PC and I have all ports (i.e. USB, serial, etc.) to use if > necessary. I just want to find something that mostly works "out of the > box" and doesn't cost too much and is reasonably flexible in terms of > the digital modes it supports. Thanks for any info/pointers.. If you spend a lot of money on an interface, it's because you wanted to, not because you need to. If you are a builder, it's a hand full of parts. If you have any old PC modem cards, you can steal the audio isolation transformers off of them and get past two important parts for free. Or buy something like the Rascal kit and build it. Comes with interface cables and everything shipped for under $50. It's not like it's some complicated piece of equipment.
Re: [digitalradio] been thinking about an oscilloscope
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 12:47:35 am Tooner wrote: > I've been thinking about getting an oscilloscope. I've got some idea > of what to look for in one when using it with amateur radio, but am > wondering about one I've found several of for under 200 bucks. > > It's the "Tektronix 465 dual trace oscilloscope". > > Here's the specifications: http://tinyurl.com/2jxwux > > Think this will do everything I would want with servicing and > analyzing my old Kenwood hybrid (TS-830S) rig? > > Frank, K2NCC See if you can find a used Tektronix 2236a. It's a dual trace 100 Mhz scope with a high quality DVM (4 significant digits) and a Frequency counter built in. Very useful. I got mine for under $300 used.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: been thinking about an oscilloscope
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 02:51:08 am Tooner wrote: > What's the difference between an oscilloscope and a spectrum analyzer? > I use software spectrum analyzers, but still have ambient baseline > noise since it's input is via a soundcard. Can I get the same > benefits with an oscilloscope that I get with spectrum analyzer? I'd > like to be able to evaluate digital waveforms I pluck from the air as > well as have a tool to work on the rigs. Any suggestions if they're > not interchangeable for these needs? An oscilloscope views voltage in the time domain. A spectrum analyzer views voltage in the frequency domain. One displays voltage changes over time, the other displays bandwidth. They are not interchangeable.
Re: [digitalradio] TV Whitespace Testing
On Sunday 20 January 2008 03:54:39 pm kh6ty wrote: > I think it was also used for timing signals > at one time. Seems that there used to be a way to pull down the top of the > screen scan and see the information. That wasn't white space, that was the VITS. Vertical Interval Test Signal.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
On Sunday 13 January 2008 08:15:45 pm John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > The "anti-automatic" and "anti-everything-that-is-not-PSK31" > hams have a very hard time understanding what the rest are doing. Some of us are just ant-Bully In The Neighborhood. You simply refuse to recognize that some modes are a bully on the bands. I'm sure you have rationalized your choice, but that won't change the perception.
Re: [digitalradio] 6000 Users of ALE Channel ZERO in 2007
On Thursday 03 January 2008 06:43:34 am Mark Thompson wrote: > 6000 Users of ALE Channel ZERO in 2007 > > The ALE Channel ZERO website went on the air in August 2007, with reception > reporting of ham radio ALE activity worldwide and a chat room for ALE > operators. > > Bonnie Crystal, VR2/KQ6XA reports that since then > http://hflink.net/qso has had 5971 unique visitors, Unique visits is an uncorrelated figure. How many of those were the same person using a DSL or Modem. You get a new IP address every time you hook up. How many of them were looking for beer and found ale? It'd be more useful to know how many distinct users logged in.
Re: [digitalradio] Fw: [illinoisdigitalham] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Thursday 27 December 2007 04:35:11 pm David Struebel wrote: > especially during contests... Traffic thru put declines severely during > these contests. And this is as it should be. During heavy use, bandwidth is a limited resource. And if you have decent busy detectors and you detect that the frequency is in use, then you were not there first. This is not a new concept. If you are looking for guarantees, there are commercial solutions. Thank you for using the automatic segment and busy detectors.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"
On Thursday 27 December 2007 01:34:56 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If folks would utilize the time they spend complaining learning to be > better operators, Interpretation: Learn to get out of the way of automated stations when they come on frequency without checking to see if the frequency is in use. > learning to work through interference, Interpretation: Learn to recognize when an automated station just knocked you out of an ongoing qso. > learning to master the features of the equipment they operate, Interpretation: Grab that tuning knob and get off my frequency, you clod. > learning to operate alternative modes, Interpretation: On some other frequency. > and most of all, learning to communicate... Oh, I understand what you've got to say. However, I'm convinced that you don't recognize rude behavior even when it is happening right under your nose. It isn't the mode that I'm complaining about. It isn't the frequency I'm complaining about. It isn't the bandwidth that I'm complaining about. It's the rude behavior that exists in the form of unattended stations smashing into ongoing qso's without looking to see where they are going. Y'all stop doing that, I'll stop complaining. If I went into your home and started smashing into things without looking where I was going, you'd soon want me to stop in just the same way.
Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
On Thursday 27 December 2007 02:40:01 am Steve Hajducek wrote: > I would also like to see the > availability of stations involved in the support of Emergency > Communications, during such an event allowed to work multi-mode > Voice/Digital in the Voice segments and not have to move off frequency. During emergencies, any operator, any station, any power, any mode goes. As long as it is in support of the emergency at hand. Since this is already law, I don't understand how emergency operations keeps being brought into the mix. If there's an emergency, all of these arguments are superfluous.
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 06:20:09 am expeditionradio wrote: > First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PACTOR operator. Because it caused interference by operating automatically and interfering with ongoing QSO's all over the world. The FCC never came for the rest because they are not automatic operations. > Then FCC came for RTTY, > and I did not speak out > because I was not an RTTY op. > Then FCC came for the PSK, > and I did not speak out > because I was not a PSKer. > > Then they came for me, > and there was no one left > to speak out for me. This is a classic Non Sequitor. The reason Pactor is being targeted is because it is a nuisance. RTTY and PSK are not. The last one is up for grabs. If the FCC comes for you, it will be because they have considerable evidence of your operating illegally. They are not the gestapo and making such a reference is in truly poor taste, particularly when it is we the people who are the ones clamoring for a solution. Blaming the FCC for this is like blaming the trash collectors for coming to take the trash you left out in front of your house.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:09:28 am Roger J. Buffington wrote: > OK, bottom line, does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink? Good question. Bonnie?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote: > I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band > modes, there must be an investigation. That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference by some specific mode.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote: > > an attempt to prevent the > > destruction of ham radio as we know it. > > The same thing was said by spark gap operators > when they didn't want CW. Yeah, but with some major differences. Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move was to stop the mode that was interfering. Hmm...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 02:44:49 am expeditionradio wrote: > > How will this RM will KILL digital radio? > > It will prevent present digital data technologies that > now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing > of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast > digital technologies than enable many stations to use > the same frequency simultaneously. It will kill > all the great new types of interaction with new > technologies, now and in the future. That's not how. That's what.
Re: [digitalradio] Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
On Tuesday 25 December 2007 11:47:13 pm expeditionradio wrote: > Read the petition: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume >nt=6519008574 RM-11392 part 1 and > > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume >nt=6519008575 RM-11392 part 2. > > Enter your comments: > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi I just Googled for RM-11392 and found literally nothing. No discussions, no arguments for or against, nothing. I'm not a lawyer. Is there an unbuised laymans interpretation of this document?
Re: [digitalradio] DRCC multiplier Numbers / 1/1/08 contests
On Thursday 06 December 2007 10:13:04 am Roger J. Buffington wrote: > I see that you modestly assigned yourself #1. :-) > > de Roger W6VZV It's always best to be the lead dog...
Re: [digitalradio] Dual Boot on Acer Aspire]
On Thursday 06 December 2007 01:42:54 am Shuler Burton wrote: > the boot managers that linux and > variants use works well. the minor problem is that most C drives will be > NTFS file system and linux still likes FAT32 better so if you can convert > the NTFS to FAT32 then linux may like it better. Newer versions of Linux can load the ntfs-3g driver, which works very nicely with ntfs partitions, both read and write.
Re: [digitalradio] 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to Cross the Atlantic
On Monday 05 November 2007, Rick Karlquist wrote: > FCC part 97.203d says that this frequency (10.123) is not authorized for > automatically controlled beacon stations. It is not clear that > this balloon is under any kind of manual control. I see that telemetry > is an OK 1 way transmission 97.111.b.7, but there is the question of > control. > > Maybe someone can educate me how this is legal. I doubt that the FCC has jurisdiction over the Atlantic Ocean airspace. -- Phil Barnett AI4OF SKCC #600 DRCC #51
[digitalradio] Digital Frequencies
I was looking back at the introductory letter and noticed that it never mentioned a lot of bands... * 20 Meters: Primary : 14.078.4 (14077.4 and 1000 Hz AF frequency) Secondary: 14.076.4 (14075.4 and 1000 Hz AF frequency) 30 Meters: Primary: 10.142 Secondary: 10.144 80 Meters :Primary : 3583 (3582 dial) Secondary: 3584.5 Other Bands : To Be Determined. And, on the Digital Radio Interactive Sched page, it says: Digital Mode Calling Frequencies 18102 kHz USB 14077 kHz USB, 10139 kHz USB, 7034 kHz USB International , 7065 kHz USB , 3577 kHz USB Since I never went to the sched page and 40 meters seems to be the most active band these days, I had no idea there was any activity. I've been watching on and off for about two weeks and never saw anyone sign PSK 73 with their DRCC numbers on the two most common 40 meter PSK hangouts, 7.035 and 7.070. Likewise on 14.070. Is there activity on 40 meters in the evenings on 40 around 7065 or anytime around 14077? I guess I'll have to add these to my 'see if there's anything there' list... Unless we go to the common PSK frequencies and include the DRCC# in our 73 macro's, I'm not sure how the general population will know about the Digital Radio Century Club. -- Phil Barnett AI4OF SKCC #600 DRCC #51
