Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: > I have seen the same thing. One of the problems is that 20 and 15 are the > two dx freqs in the daytime, where we might reasonably contact other > scouts, in the rest of the world. I.E. That is the typical Scout If those bands are open, 17 meters will be open. I have had pileups of Europeans call me on 17 meters. For most of the recent DXpeditions, 17 meters has been the "money" band. Lots of rare DX on there. You can work DX all night long on 30 meters after 20 is closed. It is also great for DXpeditions. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
Alan Barrow wrote: > > I do radio with boy scout troops when camping. And find increasingly, > that contests are making weekend operation very difficult. It's hard to > find a weekend without a major contest, sometimes more than one. Have you tried 60, 30, 17 or 12 meters? No contests there. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
Alan Barrow wrote: > Rick Karlquist wrote: >> That reminds me. During the CW Sweepstakes 2 weeks ago, I was trying >> to operate on ~7030 and bursts of RTTY-sounding stuff kept coming >> on the frequency for 5 or 10 seconds every once in a while. >> Is that ALE? > > That was not ALE, as the common frequencies used for ALE are up in the > higher parts of the band for US ops and for all unattended, in the > "automatic" sub-bands as defined by the FCC. > > Might could have been Euro ALE, but I doubt it, and you are in their > voice band, so all types of QRM could be there. > > Likely it was exactly what you described it as: RTTY of one form or > another. > > Have fun, > > Alan > km4ba I think I was actually on 7040, which someone else pointed out is an automatic frequency. BTW, the Euro voice band is now 7100 to 7200, but it was never as low as 7040 except during Phone contests. If all automatic stuff is confined to 7040, I think it can coexist fine with contesters; we can just avoid that frequency like we avoid the slow scan frequencies on 20 meters. It isn't worth arguing with the 14.230 MHz frequency police. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] Moderator comments : Listen-Don't listen
Andy obrien wrote: > Before we go down the path of debating "listen first" or not. I will > remind folks that most of the argument has been stated before. Aside > from the legalities of the issue, there are camps that strongly > advocate that every hams should also listen first and not transmit if > the frequency is busy, and those that feel some modes have such short > initial identifying bursts that listening first is not necessary , and > perhaps antiquated. I think we should acknowledge both viewpoints, I would note that the noises on 7040 drove me off that frequency, and I suspect drove everyone else off that frequency, since the whole band was wall to wall signals except for that frequency. Any RF source that can hold a frequency like 7040 during a major contest cannot be considered inconsequential or "de minimus" as the lawyers like to say. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] 7030 QRM
Andy obrien wrote: > Rick, not likely . ALE mostly uses > > 7040500 > 7065000 > 7099500 > 7102000 > 7110500 > 7185500 > 7296000 Actually, now that I think about it, I was trying to use 7040. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] 13 pin DIN plug switch box?
Gary A. Hinton wrote: > Hello Tony, > > Your not going to find one of those type of boxes. They just don't > exist. > You can build one easily. Go to your local thrift shop and pick up a > RS232 > switch box use for switching printers used in the past. It contains > the switch > that you need and the box.also. Buy a pair of 13 pin Din receptacles, > plug, > wire and some solder. Can't be much easier than that. > > 73 Gary WB6BNE A viable approach, however, I have decided for my station to make everything controllable from the computer. So instead of mechanical switches, I always use relays. I also convert all connectors to D-subminiature or 3 conductor 3.5 mm stereo jacks. So what I would do is buy a cable with a 13 pin DIN plug on it and wire a DB-25 to the other end. The box would have a DB-25 and two DE-9's. The DE-9's would connect to the ancillary equipment (assuming that no individual piece of equipment needs more than 9 of the 13 pins). The control for the relay bank would be via a 3 conductor 3.5 mm jack. I can get cheap 3.5 mm patch cables and D-sub cables at the swap meet. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
> Charles, > > Your constant efforts to spread disinformation about ALE use in ham > radio shows how little you know about how hams are using ALE. > > If you are really concerned about lids on HF, start with the #1 primary > source of QRM: contesters. > > Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > That reminds me. During the CW Sweepstakes 2 weeks ago, I was trying to operate on ~7030 and bursts of RTTY-sounding stuff kept coming on the frequency for 5 or 10 seconds every once in a while. Is that ALE? Why am I as a contester "QRM" and that stuff is not QRM? Rick N6RK
RE: [digitalradio] ZS pigeon 'faster than broadband'
> > A Durban IT company pitted an 11-month-old bird armed with a 4GB memory > stick against the ADSL service from the country's biggest web firm, > Telkom. > > Winston the pigeon took two hours to carry the data 60 miles - in the same > time the ADSL had sent 4% of the data. > A related story I saw a few years ago compared a pony express rider carrying a saddlebag full of DVD's to a T1 line. The pony express rider blew away the T1 line in terms of bit "rate". Rick Karlquist N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] New 7MHz IARU Region 1 Bandplan
What are these comments based on? They are not consistent with the April QST article. Do you know something the ARRL doesn't know or isn't telling? BTW, the 41 meter band is not being removed from SWBC, only moved. Based on what I read, that wasn't the controversial part. The tough sell was getting the fixed stations out of the new SWBC band. Rick N6RK expeditionradio wrote: > > Some comments and notes on the new bandplan > de Bonnie KQ6XA: > > 3. The shortwave broadcast stations of Africa, > Asia (especially China, etc) or South America will > probably not move out of the 7100kHz-7200kHz band soon. > They will continue for a long time, to make this part > of the band nearly useless from evening to morning. > Some countries opposed the removal of this band > from shortwave broadcast... they are the most likely > ones to be reluctant to move out... or they may > never actually move. > > 4. Placement of the Emergency Centre of Activity > Frequency at 7110kHz is interesting. However, it > will be plagued by strong QRM from rogue broadcasters > of various nations for years into the future. The > bandplanners might have been naive to remove the > existing 7060kHz Emergency Centre of Activity > Frequency from the 2006 bandplan. It would have been > better to list both frequencies during the next > few years of interim changes in spectrum use. > > 5. Unfortunately, like previous years, the bandplan > committee paid scant attention to the needs of the > auto digital ham community. The plan provides only > one channel for high speed data in a shared > overlapping area of the band where SSB voice will > continue to be widely used by the operators of > Region 1 (and 2, and 3). Although some auto data > entities will try to meet this suggested change, > the reality is that this leaves most operators > involved in the constant volume of fast data > activity with little choice other than disregarding > the bandplan's suggestion. > > 6. Many countries of Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3 > likely do not plan to update their ham radio spectrum > allocations, and it may take many years for it > to happen (if ever). In the interim, it is more likely > that the band will continue to be used by 3rd world > bootleggers and pirates... as well as government > entities. There is really not much recourse for hams to > deal with those problems. > > 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Cheap PC source
"John Becker, WØJAB" wrote: > Rick > same here in the St. Louis area. That is why all 7 of my > computers are Dell's. Just punch in the "tag" number and > their site will tell you what drivers you need. Load the OS and > drivers and your done. Since you can now load XP on any > number of computers it's no problem. VERRRY interesting about XP being "opened up". I didn't know that. Can you get us details? Has the activation thing gone away or what? I've been sticking with Windoze 2K just to avoid the activation hassle. Rick N6RK > > I have a harder time loading DOS onto the main shack computer. > > John, W0JAB > > At 07:26 PM 2/19/2009, you wrote: > >>Here in Silicon Valley, there are various stores that sell >>used computers with the drives wiped. You not only have to >>own a standalone copy of Windoze, but you have to find the drivers >>on your own. >> >>I need a computer, not a project :-) >> >>Rick N6RK >> >> >> >> >> >>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >>http://www.obriensweb.com/sked >> >> >>Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk >> >> >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Cheap PC source
John Gleichweit wrote: > I get about 90% of my stuff from http://www.pacificgeek.com They have all > kinds of refurbished computers from desktops to laptops to servers. > > -- > John "Smokey Behr" Gleichweit FF1/EMT, CCNA, MCSE So everything they advertise is refurbished, not new or used? On the refurbished stuff, does it come with the operating system and drivers installed, and do you at least get a recovery disk with it? IOW, just like when it was "new"? Here in Silicon Valley, there are various stores that sell used computers with the drives wiped. You not only have to own a standalone copy of Windoze, but you have to find the drivers on your own. I need a computer, not a project :-) Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] 10 MHz Ham Radio Balloon Flight to Europe from North America, Sunday April 6th @ 0000 UTC
What is the call sign of this beacon? Rick N6RK Mark Thompson wrote: > SNOX V 10 MHz Amateur Radio Balloon Flight > > The Spirit of Knoxville V (SNOX V) balloon will launch Sunday 6th April at > UTC, from Knoxville, TN in an attempt to cross the Atlantic. > > It will carry Amateur Radio beacons in the 10 MHz and 144 MHz bands using > RTTY & CW. > > Please visit http://spiritofknoxville.com for more information and live > flight tracking. > > This will be the last SNOX flight this season, the trans-atlantic jet > stream wind is slowing as warm weather arrives. > > 8PM EDT Saturday April 5 > ( UTC Sunday April 6) > > Thank you, > > The Spirit of Knoxville Crew > http://spiritofknoxville.com > > > > > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster > Total Access, No Cost. > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to Cross the Atlantic
The FCC encourages self-policing. Rick N6RK Steinar Aanesland wrote: > and there is always a "FCC policeman" hiding in the bushes > la5vna Steinar > > > Brad skrev: >> Picky picky picky. So many naysayers around this group, it is a >> wonder anyone achieves anything new! >> >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Looks to me like it should be operating on 28.20–28.30 MHz according >>> to 97.203d. Also, if the balloons path goes over the National Radio >>> Quiet Zone, 97.203(e)/97.3(a)(30) it looks like permission is >> supposed >>> to be obtained. Lastly, does foreign operation come into play and >> the >>> need for reciprocal licenses when the balloon reaches Europe? >>> >>> Jim >>> WA0LYK >>> >>> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Rick Karlquist" >> wrote: >>>> Mark Thompson wrote: >>>>> - Forwarded Message >>>>> From: John >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 4:50:26 PM >>>>> Subject: Balloon Launch >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to cross the Atlantic >>>>> >>>>>> The balloon payload will include a GPS unit and CPU that will >>> regulate >>>>> the balloon's altitude and send telemetry on 10.123 MHz in CW >> and RTTY >>>>> formats. >>>>> >>>>> The 10 MHz transmitter will run 3 watts output into a half wave >> dipole >>>>> hung below the balloon. >>>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Rick N6RK >>>> >> > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to Cross the Atlantic
Russell Hltn wrote: >> I personally have nothing against them, but they do need to follow the > law. One would think the space program would have settled all of > these questions already. > Legally, it is not a spacecraft because it is less than 50 km high. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to Cross the Atlantic
Mark Thompson wrote: > - Forwarded Message > From: John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 4:50:26 PM > Subject: Balloon Launch > > > 10 MHz Amateur Radio balloon to cross the Atlantic > >> The balloon payload will include a GPS unit and CPU that will regulate > the balloon's altitude and send telemetry on 10.123 MHz in CW and RTTY > formats. > > The 10 MHz transmitter will run 3 watts output into a half wave dipole > hung below the balloon. > 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. Rick N6RK
RE: [digitalradio] Announcing the 2007 International Message QRP Relay Race... August 11: Need teams.
> Any authorized "band" may be used. > CW , SSB- Voice, FM-Voice, AM-Voice, modes are NOT permitted > modes.(WinDRM IS permitted). This is interesting. Various digital proponents have tirelessly pointed out how "inefficient" these "obsolete" modes are. Why not let them compete too and let the best mode win? Rick N6RK
RE: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
That's very interesting, and might be somewhat practical if the transceiver can control the linear band, the SteppIR frequency, and the antenna selection. You would still need some way to turn the linear on and off, turn the rotator, select receive antennas, etc. It is also not clear how a logging program or contest program would interact with the transceiver. Having to have a PC at the remote base is probably only an issue if the remote base is really short on power (eg solar charged batteries). Also, you can connect any rig to an ethernet terminal adapter so that its serial port is effectively on the internet. You can get a Lantronix board for $65 from Digikey to do this. It is not clear if the Tentec solution includes audio over IP. This is very convenient if you have a really good internet connection at both ends, AND you don't use the connection for anything else when on the air. Otherwise, you can get a lot of dropouts. Rick N6RK -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Wilson Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity. This is the ultimate solution: http://radio.tentec.com/Amateur/Transceivers/TT588 - Original Message - From: kd4e To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity. > Here is what I was thinking, to setup a radio at a remote location > that could be "fully" controlled remotely. Ham Radio deluxe has the > capability of controlling my ft897 with a serial interface. A USB > sound card could be used to provide PSK and other digital modes. > By using this remote usb interface > http://www.digi.com/products/usb/anywhereusb.jsp a remote serial > interface and sound card could easily be setup. Is there a way to > pass audio through one sound card to another sound card? > James Wilson K6WRJ I have been exploring the possibility of remote base using a 440 HT without involving a PC or the Internet. It would require at least a MFJ-664 device. Using a MH-59 mic one has control of most important features, though one would need some means to confirm if a change was accepted. According to a recent thread there are no provisions for voice readout. Perhaps someone may build an outboard device. Using a PC or PDA would provide 2-way data flow and I suppose 440 could be used as the control freq. (440 is preferred because it penetrate metal structures better than 2M or 222.) I have also received some interesting suggestions and conflicting opinions as to the FCC regs. Anyone out there seen an entirely wireless remote base using 440 and a Yaesu FT-897 or FT-857? -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ~~ Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com Personal: http://bibleseven.com ~~ *** Warning: This email may contain confidential or privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please understand that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. ***
Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: . > > One thing that Skype does well is negotiate connectivity for the audio. > It can use peer-to-peer UDP or TCP or HTTP[ gateway CONNECT streaming, > or as a last resort, a geographically-located Skype server that both > parties can get too. There some quite complex stuff they do to get > through firewalls without any help from the user. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU Getting through firewells is also the only thing Skype does well as far as ham radio is concerned. Skype is optimized for voice phone calls, period. IP Sound by SM5VXC has a variety of compression formats available. It sounds much better for CW and for noisy phone QSO's. Also, it has a lower bit rate than Skype. On the other hand, the slave end of the channel must be on a static IP, or a dynamic DNS DHCP IP. And you have to select a port that your ISP doesn't block. The default port, , happens to be blocked by Comcast. You can get the best of both worlds by using a free VPN tunnel with IP sound, as described in the IRB google group. People report that this is as good if not better than Skype for getting through firewalls. I have not needed to resort to this to get IP Sound to work. Rick N6RK
Re: [digitalradio] Remotely controlled radio with full connectivity.
I currently have a remote HF base. I have tried Ham Radio Deluxe which worked fine, but prefer TRX-Manager, which controls the radio, the SteppIR, the rotator, and the band switch for the linear, and the band switch for the antenna. For functions not controlled by TRX-Manager, I use free remote desktop software called LogMeIn. This is just like the more well known GoToMyPC, except it is free. Once I am on the remote PC, I can use RS232 relay boards to select which receive antenna I want to use, etc. The best remote control radios are the Kenwood TS-570, 870, 480, and 2000. Not necessary the best radios per se, but easiest to remote. I originally used the obvious audio solution, Skype, but now use IP Sound from SM5VXC. I am working on doing audio over a phone line. This is the best solution, and long distance rates are now so cheap I can afford to use it. There are many other remote configurations different from mine. They all have advantages and disadvantages and what works best depends on your particular situation. You should probably read the Google group on "IRB" (internet remote base). You might want to start out operating one of the public remote base stations. What is harder than the above is getting an internet connection to the remote base. And getting the remote base venue itself is harder yet. But that is OT for this reflector. Rick N6RK James Wilson wrote: > Here is what I was thinking, to setup a radio at a remote location that > could be "fully" controlled remotely. Ham Radio deluxe has the capability > of controlling my ft897 with a serial interface. A USB sound card could > be used to provide PSK and other digital modes. > > By using this remote usb interface > http://www.digi.com/products/usb/anywhereusb.jsp a remote serial interface > and sound card could easily be setup. Is there a way to pass audio > through one sound card to another sound card? > > In this situation it would be nice to talk SSB using the computer mic and > speakers. Is there a way to speak into a mic and have the sound come out > another sound card and then the reverse when recieving? > > Any help is greatly appreciated I am so excited about this concept. This > would allow an apartment dweller like myself an inexpensive way to have a > completely remote full HF rig. Best case scenario would be to purchase > antenna and rack space on a mountain top. > > James Wilson > K6WRJ > *** > Warning: This email may contain confidential or privileged information > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please understand > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents > of this email is strictly prohibited. > *** >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D
You are still confused about the definition of "orthogonal". Before Orthogonal Frequency Domain Multiplex (OFDM), there are (Non-orthogonal) Frequency Domain Multiplex (FDM). It too used each sub carrier to send an independent stream of bits. The sub carriers were NOT orthogonal. They didn't need to be because their sidebands did not overlap. OFDM squeezes more carriers into the same space by making the carriers and their modulation orthogonal to their next door neighbors. This allows some overlap. The subcarriers in Pactor-3 may indeed be orthogonal (I don't know) but that cannot be deduced from the fact that they carry independent streams of bits. Rick N6RK John B. Stephensen wrote: > I should have said that the subcarriers must be orthogonal because > Pactor-3 uses each subcarrier to send an independent stream of bits. In > someone else's email they verified that the subcarriers are indeed > orthogonal. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > - Original Message - > From: Rick Karlquist > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Cc: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 19:49 UTC > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D > > > John B. Stephensen wrote: > > its orthogonal because the state > > of each subcarrier is independent of the state of the others. > > John > > KD6OZH > > That is NOT the definition of "orthogonal". > > Rick N6RK > > > >
RE: [digitalradio] BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
> -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of expeditionradio > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 7:39 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques > > > BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques > > The Digital Voice formats presently in use by hams are not designed > to be resistant to QRM from BPL (Broadband over Power Lines). The > OFDM digital voice methods require a much higher S/N than SSB. > > In fact, most of our present digital and analog modes are not > resistant to BPL intereference. However, such BPL-resistant or > BPL-Busting digital techniques could be designed into new digital > communication formats for HF and VHF. Here is what ARRL's Ed Hare, W1RFI, had to say about this subject (cross posted from the "BPLandHamRadio" Yahoo group with Ed's consent). In particular note the comment about "white space": Quote: > If BPL were simply a number of static carriers, > digital-signal processing could, in theory, remove them. > > Unfortunately, they are modulated, and generally > modulated fast enough that the carrier itself is > only a small portion of the energy. The rest is > ever changing digital information which is, to > other systems, noise. It will appear as noise > and the techniques used to remove carriers cannot remove BPL. > BPL is typically 40 to 60 dB greater than the > ambient noise in an area. As noise, it is uniform > vs frequency. If DSP could copy signals 60 dB > below uniform noise, we would be using it right > now to pull signals 60 dB out of our present noise levels. > BPL is designed to be spectrally efficient, pushing > the Shannon limit on the amount of data that can be > sent on a given communications channel vs frequency > and noise. There really is no "white space" into which > other communication can be interleaved. > The BPL industry cannot even develop a standard > to prevent different types of BPL systems from > interfering with each other, on a channel that they > fully control. How can we expect that radio users > can develop techniques to overcome it? > And even it it were possible to sneak a bit of > information through on the channel occupied by BPL, > what will happen the next time a different > unlicensed use also uses the same channel? > The premise that licensed operation must constantly > adapt to accomodate unlicensed use is flawed, which > is exactly why the FCC has rules that place the burden > of resolving interference on the unlicensed source. > If the FCC had vigorously enforced its rules, we would > not be seeing Part 15 noise nearly as rampant as it is. > Ed Hare, W1RFI > ARRL Laboratory Manager Unquote Rick Karlquist N6RK Rick Karlquist N6 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Very low cost computer
The problem with low cost computers is that they are only low cost if your time is free. By definition, if your time is free, you are not smart enough to do anything sophisticated with computers. The learning curve on any unorthodox computer cannot be justified by saving money on the computer, unless you are going to use many identical ones. Rick N6RK Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Multichannel radio using 6 channel sound card?
I didn't explain the image reject filter right. It will be an RF bandpass filter, not a "phasing" type image reject network. On 160 meters, it is fairly easy to do a bandpass filter because the percent bandwidth is fairly large. Rick N6RK > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose Amador > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:57 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Multichannel radio using 6 channel sound > card? > > > > --- "Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Related question: The softrock receiver has I and Q > > outputs > > to 2 audio inputs for image rejection. If I build a > > hardware > > image reject filter, can I get away with just using > > I, which saves > > an audio input, and halves the number of sound cards > > needed. > > > > Any other way to accomplish this? > > Hardware vs. DSP. Seemingly, for those with a modern > PC, DSP wins, because hardware is simpler, but > bulkier, more labor intensive, and might be more > expensive for a given level of results. > > I am assuming, of course, that you have a suitable PC. > > > Of course, a bunch of passive parts should be cheaper > than a modern PC. > > I have worked with on a SSB receiver with a polyphase > phase shift network and you need 56 RC components for > some 80 dB of opposite sideband suppression. Some may > say that 60 dB (or 40 db) is enough, but certainly 80 > dB sounds like a REAL radio with a good (Collins ?) > mechanical filter. > > The hardware approach also requires some degree of > component matching to achieve the expected results. > For those without a powerful enough computer, it is > the way to go. But using a computer, it is hard to > justify the effort and expense of 56 x N components > for N channels. > > I know of no software that does what you want, > nowadays, but it does not mean it is not "doable", > maybe because it has not been widely distributed, or > no capable programmer has felt the need to work on > it... > > Good luck, > > Jose, CO2JA > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> 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] Multichannel radio using 6 channel sound card?
I just joined the group. Sorry for a newby question: I would like to monitor the same frequency on 4 to 6 antennas simultaneously. Can I use 4 to 6 softrock receivers connected to a Delta 44 or Delta 66 sound card and run multiple instances of a DSP program? Related question: The softrock receiver has I and Q outputs to 2 audio inputs for image rejection. If I build a hardware image reject filter, can I get away with just using I, which saves an audio input, and halves the number of sound cards needed. Any other way to accomplish this? Thanks 73 Rick N6RK Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> 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/
