Re: [digitalradio] Compressing Data
Is it possible to compress a file and lose even one bit during the transfer and still have something usable on the receiving end when you uncompress? Normally, you must use ARQ to insure perfect copy. Even MT63 or Olivia can take a hit every so often. 73, Rick, KV9U Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: > > > Thinking to myself - when we use a mode such as Olivia / MT63 with > extensive error correction, why don't we compress the text? > > Given that fldigi has the wrap feature then surely compression could > be / should be considered for some modes? > > I think I'll add something in my own code that shows the saving were > the standard ZIP compression algorithm to be applied my gut feeling is > a saving of 80%, I'll report back later today. >
[digitalradio] Band Plans and operating
It is entirely reasonable that there could be world wide band plans as long as the bands overlap the same. Since this is not always possible, adjustments are made in such cases. But the bands are used in a dynamic fashion due to propagation and useage, particularly contests and operating events. We just had some comments about this on another digitally oriented group although discussion was cut short by the group owner due to feeling that it was not applicable to that groups purpose. But it was clear that a number of hams are very upset about contests, specifically RTTY taking up much of the sub band and not allowing them to operate in the manner they were accustomed to during non-contest periods. Some contests have specified limits, but most are realistic to know this is impractical. The sheer numbers of hams that get on for major contests is many, many, times more than the rest of the time. Even then it can be wall to wall activity. Squeezing that down to an even smaller space is simply not reasonable and actually goes against our own rules which are crystal clear about what modes can be operated in what sub bands. What we should ask is what specific spot frequencies and/or sub bands should be avoided? DXer's, QRPers, automatical modes, traffic and other nets, etc., etc.? Once you do that, you are basically saying that those areas are owned by the users of those frequencies. The last thing that I want to see are government involvement in detailing special frequencies for specific modes. This is constantly changing in both the short term and long term. 73, Rick, KV9U Siegfried Jackstien wrote: > > > Hello all in the group > > Just my 2 cents about the bandplans in different regions ….. > > Hamradio is a very old hobby with thousands of hams in the whole world … > > Will it EVER be possible to make ONE bandplan for ALL hams …. With a > place for cw, psk, sstv, qrp … etc. etc. ? > > With different bandplans maybe only for contest weekends > > With places for ragchewing … and also an area only for the dxers > > That is a thing we should think about … discuss in our local clubs, > find a solution for all … > > If somebody has an idea … mail it to the iaru > > Greetz and cu on the bands > > Best 73´s de dg9bfc > > Sigi > > . > > > > *Von:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *Im Auftrag von *Alan Barrow > *Gesendet:* Montag, 20. Juli 2009 02:17 > *An:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Betreff:* Re: [digitalradio] New 40m Band Plan > > Cortland Richmond wrote: > > > > > > I do hope digital users avoid interfering with the North American 40 > > meter QRP CW frequency on 7040. > > If I recall there was a (largely ignored) push to get the ARRL to work > with the IARU. The US is now way out of alignment with the IARU plan if > I recall now, even though our Representatives approved it! > > Have fun, > > Alan > km4ba > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.20/2250 - Release Date: 07/20/09 > 06:16:00 > > 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. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes and old husband's tales
Digital modes are similar to any other modes whereby increasing power levels can mean the difference between no copy and solid copy. Because of the sharp line of demarcation of printing or not printing correct data, which can be only a dB or so, I guess that in that respect the digital modes are even more critical compared with other modes such as CW and SSB. There are a number of rigs that are designed to operate with 100% duty cycle for FM and RTTY and they can operate key down at 100 watts for an extended transmission. Running them at reduced power may extend the life of the transmitter, but it may not be a significant amount. If you start transmitting with ALC action, you are probably just starting to degrade the IMD, but maybe the tradeoff is acceptable if you are right on the cusp between printing and not printing. I completely agree that we should follow Part 97 (or whatever rules your country requires) and use the lowest amount of power necessary for effective communication. There have been a few (very few) times that I even used an amplifier to increase the power beyond 100 watts in order to keep the QSO going. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > > The replies to Ralph's question about audio levels appear to be sound > advice and certainly in keeping with what has been advised since sound > card digital modes burst upon the scene. I wonder how accurate it is > though?I have seen a few serious hams argue that "no ALC" is not > really the case, that some ALC can be OK. I have also seen mention > that the no ALC issue applies to some modes (like PSK) but not to > others like (JT65A). I also wonder about the half-power advice that > some advise. With my homebrewed interface, I could never get much > above 40 watts before some ALC began to show. When I switched to a > commerical interface with good isolation (Microkeyer by Microham) I > can almost always get 100 watts output without any ALC action. I have > not received any negative reports about my signal . If I run 100 > watts SSB for phone contacts, why would I not want to do the same for > digital modes assuming the signal was "clean" ? . Yes, I would agree > I should not run 100 watts if communication was possible with less > power, but I don't think a brief PSK CQ at 100 watts is going to do > much more harm to my finals than a 3 minute ragchew at 50 watts, phone > . Right ? > > Comments ? > > > > -- > Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.13/2236 - Release Date: 07/13/09 > 17:57:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Possible Purchase
As was mentioned, construction may be impractical for many hams. In my case, I have been soldering since around age 13 or so with my first crystal radio kit and later many kits and dozens of projects over the years, so it is not too difficult to make a simple interface. Today, because of my age, it is increasingly difficult to do close work without special help. I normally wear trifocals and the close-in distance is for book reading at around a foot, but it is very much at the bottom of the glasses and difficult to use so I sometimes use magnifying googles. Due to an error in having some bifocal "computer" glasses made, with computer on the main portion and the full lower portion for reading, it turned out that they cut the lower part so that the focus was more like 8 inches. This actually slightly magnifies things but the downside is that I have to work extremely close to the work which also means that I need to be careful with any solder splashes, etc. Speaking from personal experience, one should never solder without eye protection as I have had splatter several times, which would have been catastrophic without glasses or some shield. I might mention that for about 25 years I built and ran an electronic/AV/computer repair shop, so exposure was significant. The largest project I ever built was the Heath HERO robot, which was a very large undertaking for educational use through my employer. Realistically, most new hams do not do construction of electronic projects and many no longer own soldering equipment, so it is actually quite rare to find those who are both interested in such things and also interested in the communication aspects (much less the digital communication aspects) of ham radio. If you don't need full rig control, and can build the simplest possible kit, I recommend the Unified Microsystems SCI-6 Sound Card Interface at just over $30 delivered price here in the U.S. It would be difficult to build it from your own separately purchased parts at that price point. It includes both audio lines transformer isolated, which is not always true of other products, and it has a socketed optoisolator for PTT hard keying. It does require a COM or USB to COM port, however that may be preferable to VOX keying. The most difficult part is making up your own cables, and that may not be easy for some to do. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Use the *$%#ing RS ID!
We discussed RS ID quite a bit when first developed but only being on Multipsk, it was not that popular. From my testing a year or two ago, I can confirm that it works extremely well and there is nothing really technical to understand. The RS ID transmit, adds a burst at the beginning of each transmission that has the special coded information. (Fldigi adds the burst to the beginning and ending of each transmission). Then there is a corresponding RS ID receive that decodes the burst, switches to the correct mode, and can move your waterfall frequency to the RS ID frequency within a few Hz. This can be of great benefit for modes such as MFSK16 which require very close tuning, even with AFC. I would like to be able to easily turn off the transmit feature, since once you make the contact, you don't normally want to to keep sending RS ID transmissions due to the time it takes to send the burst(s). The transmit ID's can be nested several layers deep in the menu. My understanding is that the RS ID receive is turned off automatically once you are "captured" by the other station. Otherwise, you could get captured by someone else right in the middle of a Q and moved to another frequency and even a different mode. I couldn't find information on HRD/DM780, but the Fldigi information is at: http://www.w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/ConfigID.html 73, Rick, KV9U Phil Williams wrote: > > > I agree with Andy's recommendation. Also, might I suggest a sharing > of experiences with using RS ID with the group to share knowledge and > build confidence. Anyone wishing to experiment with modes using RSID, > please drop me a line. > > philw de ka1gmn >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
While I somewhat agree that there is a perception of ARQ modes being slower, this has not been based upon my actual testing of FAE400. The ability of FAE400 to work at least as deep into the noise as PSK31, and probably a bit deeper with its memory ARQ capabilities, not available in any other sound card mode at this time, and its much greater throughput, often makes it difficult to keep up with the flow if your keyboarding speed is much below 40 wpm. If you want to send a file or an image, you need to have ARQ, but it really does appear that most hams just want relatively quick boiler plate contacts. On VHF, you have more tolerance, but I have found PSK31 to be less than desirable since any multipath (aircraft, hills, etc.) can make it scramble data. The WRAP program makes a lot of sense when you do not want a connected mode, such as a one to many bulletin. Using MT-63 on phone circuits will work because you typically have very good signals. If you did not have this, you could not use phone as well as MT-63. But for weaker signal applications, MT-63 can not compete well with other modes. I do not agree that the learning curve is too great for FAE400 compared with NBEMS or any other system. If you are a user of Multipsk, then only a few things need to be learned. The clutter of the program does mean that very few hams are moving in that direction anymore. Even myself, who at once time mostly used Multipsk, have moved to fldigi and for almost total rig control as well as non-ARQ digital modes find Ham Radio Deluxe to be the best for a completely integrated program. Nothing else can come even slightly close for now. But if you want to run packet radio at 300 or 1200 baud, or FAE400 and the faster FAE (2000) and similar modes that have a basis from the old ALE protocols, the only freely available program is Multipsk. One the other hand fldigi has the unique capability of non only being the only cross platform multimode digital program, but acts as the core program for NBEMS and PSKmail. What is complicated that to get basic rig control and centralized logging, quite a few programs need to be running and that is quite complicated. Bottom line: If you don't use a given program and mode on a regular basis (daily or at least weekly) you are not going to be using it for public service either. And if we are to ever develop ARQ BBS systems that can work with sound card modes and provide a superior solution to 300 baud packet on HF, we have to have these technologies. 73, Rick, KV9U wrote: > Rick, > > ARQ is perfect for being sure emcomm and other messages are delivered > error-free, but for chatting, most people will not want to slow things > down waiting for an acknowledgment. Rather, they just ask for a repeat > when it is needed. In addition, we can correct errors (a single > apparently misspelled word, for example) with what we think is the right > word, or fill in a missing word with our brains (since we can visualize > things in context). Overall, this is usually faster than using ARQ and > good enough for casual conversation. > > However, for sending pictures, ARQ is sometimes absolutely necessary, > especially with a compression technique in which a single byte ruins the > whole picture. > > The Western Pennsylvania emcomm group has fully implemented NBEMS over > both repeaters and simplex, but mostly over VHF, and, because VHF tends > to be more constant and tends to be much more error-free than HF, did > not want to spend the extra time (on any mode or speed) to slow down for > ARQ, so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end > of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. > > On our MARS emcomm net, MT63 on HF usually produces error-free copy on > the statewide net, and Wrap is useful with MT63 also just for verifying > that there were no errors, or indicating that a resend is necessary. > > However, far enough away, there may always be some stations, under poor > conditions, that either need a repeat of the whole message, or need to > have ARQ used to repeat bad blocks if there are many. The advantage of > Wrap is that a one-on-one ARQ link is not needed except when that is the > only way to get the message through. Bulletins can be transmitted in > MT63 and received error-free by most stations, with others needing a > resend, or perhaps a relay. > > On VHF SSB weak signal phone, it is common practice to use "vocal FEC" > (to coin a term!) and just repeat callsigns twice or "over" twice to > accomplish the contact during poor conditions. The standard call on CW > is a 3x3 call, which is a type of "manual" FEC to try to get at least > one of each callsign through. > > Most files these days are very large, compared to those in DOS days, and > with the bandwidth limitations on HF, it just takes too long to send a > very large file, even using a fast mode and ARQ, so I think there is > little i
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
It seems that there are only a handful of hams who have any interest in ARQ modes for chatting. There don't even seem to be many interested in even using this for public service communications either and quite frankly I am very concerned by this. There is nothing wrong with using older techniques and technologies, but when breakthroughs occur that move us much farther along the path to having the ability to both keyboard and send files error free for the first time with a sound card mode, it tells you that hams really are not interested in this after all. I have brought this up on a number of other groups with nearly no response. FAE400 is not that new since it has been around for several years. Maybe part of the problem is that it is only available on one program that is less popular, but I have not been able to get much interest from other multimode digital mode developers. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > > You should have called Rick! That was the first RV ALE-400 QSO for me. John > tells me he's touring the country working digi-mode from his motorhome. > > Tony -K2MO > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.2/2215 - Release Date: 07/02/09 > 18:06:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Good copy on both Tony and John, W2KI from here in the north central U.S. Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > > > All, > I'll be QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode this evening starting 2230z -- > 14074.0 USB +/- QRM. > Tony -K2MO >
Re: [digitalradio] The best of all features - SdR
Hi Bill, Do you have some thoughts on how an amateur mesh network would be better than non-ham? Maybe less congestion? But in some areas, no one near enough to connect to? Over the years, I have had one of my students who took one of my ham classes and expressed an interest in some kind of community network. He lives on a farm like I do, so we are not that close to other hams (5 - 10 miles is about the closest), assuming that the nearest hams would even consider mesh networking. I am skeptical that enough hams would have this interest though I probably would try it if we could get some interest. Is there any readily available software at this time? SDR is growing well and it seems to primarily be oriented toward HF rigs at this point (Flex Radio and other architectures of competing products). I don't see any possible interest in higher speed links from the hams I have spoken with, but maybe your area has enough for a "critical mass" of interest? With internet access (wired or wireless) of 1 Mbps, some more and some less, it would be impossible to compete with that anymore with anything we could possibly set up on the ham bands. As I mentioned earlier, there has to be a reason for adopting new technology. While you may have the bleeding edge folks doing it ... just to do it ... that won't provide enough for that critical mass. I base this on over 40 years since I first started hamming and SWLing, experimenting, etc. We have had an amazing number of changes, but I have found exceedingly few hams like myself. In fact, a peer of mine and I were just discussing this in the last few days. The new hams are not necessarily technologically oriented. They just want something that is primarily plug and play and just works. In most cases that means a 2 meter FM rig. Ultrawide modes would be anything that exceeds current rules or takes up a large percentage of a band. Normally, the widest modes tend to be a communications quality phone bandwidth. Some modes can exceed that with higher speed, such as 9k6 or faster packet. Whether the rules are antiquated or not, that is what we must follow unless some one petitions for change or as I mentioned, gets an STA from the FCC if you live in the U.S. Few hams would ever support wider modes on 2 meters and below than we already have. The rules seem about right as they are in terms of bandwidth. My big beef is that we are limited on the type of data we can transmit, depending upon the part of the band we are operating. That is simply nuts now that we can transmit phone and image digitally and yet can not transmit data/RTTY but I am in the extreme minority on that one it seems:( The widest modes have been FSTV, but few hams do that so it is tolerable to allow multi MHz bandwidths for a local frequency. I have not seen any ham modes much wider than that. And you can not use such modes below the 440 band. Going to higher bands is possible, but as you note, the propagation distance becomes a major impediment. As we all know, who have used WiFi and WiMax systems over multi-mile distances, everything has to be mostly line of sight. Bottom line question is what is really practical and adds to our capabilities that will be used? Nothing wrong with idealism, but practical matters often trump everything else. What will I be able to do with a high speed network that I can not do now? And why will this appeal to other hams? It seems to me that what we really need are not wide modes, but adaptable modes that change automatically for the constantly changing conditions on HF. VHF and up could run faster modes all the time since the propagation is more stable. You mention QAM 64. Surely you are aware that this has been available as a sound card mode for several years with a relatively easy to use program that handles QAM 4, QAM 16, and QAM 64 and can send and receive error free files from one to many and has after the fact ARQ? 73, Rick, KV9U Bill V WA7NWP wrote: >> What do you think such a mode would be used for, Bill? >> > > The latest brainstorming is a community mesh network. Put a little > box in the attic with Ethernet on one side and an antenna on the > other.Build a whole VPN with video, vip, whatever.. Given the > bits the options are endless. If the price is reasonable many hams > in any neighborhood would participate. > > >> I have increasing doubts about what hams really want with new modes or >> capabilities. It does not seem to be improved speeds or accuracy based >> on what they actually use, compared to what is actually available right now. >> > > There's some impressive activity on the SDR front. Given more RF bits > we'd see a lot of the old guard come back to play.. The current > 1200/9600/56000 was getting long in the tooth in the mid 90's. It's > time to breakloose > > > >> There has to be some purpose for having a higher speeds. Also, there >> seems to be no exceptions where
Re: [digitalradio] The best of all features - SdR
What do you think such a mode would be used for, Bill? I have increasing doubts about what hams really want with new modes or capabilities. It does not seem to be improved speeds or accuracy based on what they actually use, compared to what is actually available right now. There has to be some purpose for having a higher speeds. Also, there seems to be no exceptions where a higher speed leads to greatly improved robustness. Even the fastest modes that can adjust for conditions, generally revert to a minimal number of tones, with a good example being Pactor 3. How far can you expect an ultra wide bandwidth mode to propagate? We already have relatively high speed modes that don't even require a ham license. You are not going to be able to run 192 kHz modes on 2 meters and lower without some kind of STA here in the U.S. The only interest might be FSTV. I have done some experimenting on 2.4 GHz with WiFi type image transmissions from a portable set up to a laptop computer, but it is not very compelling. 73, Rick, KV9U Bill V WA7NWP wrote: > > If we could get access to 192 KHz with a special sound card and some > minimal hardware - couldn't we really open up the high speed data > possibilities. Something simple to get on any band from 10 through > 220 MHz would be way cool! > > > Bill - WA7NWP >
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Cards
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. My personal lowest cost solution is to use an add on 24 bit sound card that connects to a hard keying PTT optoisolator interface. If you are handy at simple kit building, I can heartily recommend the Unified Microsystems SCI-6 Interface at only $25 plus about $5.50 US S&H. I have almost all ICOM equipment, so I also use the West Mountain RigTalk USB to CI-V interface for an elegant way to provide the rig control interface connection. In order to do this you will need two COM ports or two USB to COM adapters, but it gives you the flexibility of being able to key the rig even from software that does not provide rig PTT keying via rig control. As mentioned elsewhere, the ARRL had tested several sound cards, however as I recall they found that for digital modes, of the ones they tested, all worked equally well. (They did not test the SignaLink USB, however). They did find that a very high quality card is needed if you are using it for interfacing with DSP systems such as Flex Radio. 73, Rick, KV9U lsumners wrote: > I am looking at upgrading my Dell on board sound card. Any suggestions for > digital radio? > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.76/2183 - Release Date: 06/17/09 > 05:53:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New version of Mixw
Buddy and Rick, What you are describing seems to be flidigi more than any other program. Have you tried this program? And unlike Windows-only programs, fldigi works on more platforms than any other program of its type. Maybe the RAC CD won't work on fldigi though. Fldigi is ultra clean and very simple compared to the eye candy type of programs. Most all the programs now can do rig control but you don't have to use it. But if you are letting the program do the logging of frequency and mode, it is very hard to give up, HI. What are the "strange" modes? MixW has at least one orphan mode compared with other programs, but fldigi only has very common modes, plus modes like THOR which are an enhanced type of IFK with FEC and mostly to be used with ARQ transmissions for those sending messages or files. I am not sure, but MixW may not directly support Olivia without a separate set up. Fldigi, HRD/DM780, and Multipsk work out of the box. But since the other programs are at least as good, or, even better in some respects, at least the ones you indicate you prefer, it is hard to pay for one product when the others are freely available (but you can donate). 73, Rick, KV9U F.R. Ashley wrote: > My 2 cents worth: > > I have tried them all and still prefer MixW. It is a simple program yet > does everything I want it to. It is neat and orderly in layout and > appearance. It will use my RAC CD, a lot of logging programs won't. I > just click on a callsign and the logging info fills right in. > I've tried MultiPSK, and to be honest, it does a lot, but gawd, that is one > UGLY looking program. I don't even like to look at it. HRD is nice, but I > don't need all those moving screens and options.. again, it is just too > "busy" for me. I don't need a computer program to change frequency for me, > I can turn the knob myself. I don't need a program that is packed with a > bunch of strange modes that are rarely, if ever, used. Fldigi won't run on > my computer, but I notice a few things that would keep it from being my main > digital/logging program. > We all have our likes and dislikes, none of us are right or wrong, just > different in what we like to use. Since MixW is not free, that alone will > drive some guys to HRD, etc.MixW's attraction for me is it's simple, and > does it all. > If the authors of MixW decide to abandon it, I'd keep using it unless > another progarm came up with something really great that would entice me to > change. > > 73 de WB4M > Buddy > > and It is all about the visual simplicity of its interface . . . elegant in its minimalism. And I say that truly as a complement. Although I like HRD and MultiPSK both for other reasons, MixW is easier to use. More pleasing to the eyes especially versus MultiPSK. Rick - KH2DF
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New version of Mixw
chas, What are the MARS operators using MixW for? Are there modes that are not available on other programs that they find compelling? I downloaded MixW again today, but it looks about the same as it did in past years. It is a fairly clean interface (albeit, that is a subjective thing for an individual user to determine), but maybe not quite as nice as fldigi, which I think has the best interface in terms of simplicity and understandability of all the multimode digital programs. The font rendering in the text windows is terrible. but I have not looked into the details of whether this can be changed. I would be surprised if it could not, but the default is very poor. MixW is nowhere near as polished as Ham Radio Deluxe, and yet they expect substantial payment for MixW. The world has completely changed in terms of readily available free and often open source software. MixW does not have the FAE 400 ARQ modes only available in Multipsk. That is one mode that I would think MARS might find useful. The one thing MixW can do over all other software is add in the Q15X25 mode, but unfortunately that mode has not been practical on most HF circuits. Does MARS even use the Q15X25 mode? Some things I like about MixW - provides general logging from the program, some thing that even fldigi can not do for non-digital modes - includes packet, however, this is also available in Multipsk I guess what you have not answered is what does MixW have that the other programs do not have? Is MARS use different than for amateur radio use? 73, Rick, KV9U chas wrote: > Rick W wrote: > >> What is the attraction of MixW now that we have so many other multimode >> digital programs that are freely available with one program even open >> source and cross platform? >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> > > Rick, nearly all members of Texas Army MARS and Region 6, are using > MixW. idly curious, what else is out there that can even almost > compete with Nick's software?? > > look and feel is not a consideration but what else has all the > features of or even is better than, MixW? > > special interest in an OS-X ported version?? > > thanks > > chas, k5dam > > > > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.70/2177 - Release Date: 06/15/09 > 05:54:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New version of Mixw
What is the attraction of MixW now that we have so many other multimode digital programs that are freely available with one program even open source and cross platform? 73, Rick, KV9U Andy obrien wrote: > Nothing that I have heard. Nick is somewhat more active, as his > health has improved, but I hear that the focus of Mixw improvement is > on the logging aspect. > > Andy > >
[digitalradio] MMTTY VS MMVARI, et al.
After all these years, I finally downloaded N1MM Logger and spent some time with it today. Even logged a few contacts during the ARRL June VHF Contest. Previously, I could not get it work with Vista. The web site might even lead to believe that it may not be supported on Vista. But after doing a search on Vista + N1MM, I found a detailed tutorial from Bob, W1QA, that showed that I was mostly doing things correctly ... except for one little security procedure that I have never had to do with any other program and would never have figured out on my own, HI. And it turns out that the program is not as complicated as I had thought. In fact, the interface can be kept quite simple for the entry window. From what I understand, N1MM requires either MMTTY or MMVARI if you wish to interface via a soundcard for RTTY and some digital modes. Apparently, other digital sound card programs, such as fldigi, can not work with this logger as it is tailored to the MM programs. I am not sure that there are any cross platform contest logging programs so it means you almost have to stay with MS Windows, especially for what I would consider to be ultra high end programs such as N1MM. Can anyone give us a comparison of MMTTY and MMVARI? I understand that Dave, AA6YQ, has been able to update MMTTY. But then I have read that some hams have found MMVARI to decode better under some conditions. And I get the impression that only MMTTY will be updated with MMVARI "frozen" in beta (but a pretty darn good beta from past experience). Also, does anyone have some first hand experiences with how the HRD Logging program will work as a contest logger compared with N1MM? Lots of questions, but I bet some of you have the answers, HI. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Boot discs for emcomm/ham radio
I use Linux and MS Windows XP and Vista here in the shack with a KVM switch. I have never used Windoze, but I see some hams claim they know about it. Linux can be fairly easy to reload, but that is only if it supports your equipment. For many years this was not possible for my computers/monitor until Ubuntu/Kubuntu 9.04, which I consider to be an OK OS. Maybe not as good as Vista, which has been the overall best OS that I have used over a 20+ year period, but rating on OS depends upon your requirements and what you value. Linux has some features that I favor over MS (probably more secure, much lighter and responsive on older machines, etc.). But realistically, what is most importantly for most of us is that MS OS's natively run the programs that most of us want to use and Linux can not do that as well, sometimes not at all. The one program I mainly run on the Linux computer is the PSKmail_server which can only run on Linux. If I did not use that, then it would be difficult to justify having multiple OS's since it greatly complicates things. (Other than the hobby aspect, which I feel is legitimate, even if not that practical). Since an increasing number of programs are cross platform and run well on either OS, there is less of a compelling reason to move to Linux. One exception might be the netbooks. No matter what MS claims, even with Windows 7, lightweight Linux variants will run much better on those low powered computers. If fact I have read that MS would like to characterize netbooks as low powered computers rather than netbooks because they know their OS's can not be tailored as well for that environment. I have reloaded Vista several times due to playing around with Linux and damaging the MBR (and not knowing much about fixing it, HI), and it is much easier and surprisingly fast compared with previous MS reloads. And by the way, I always reload any MS product after a BSOD. Of course, I have actually never seen a BSOD for years and years even though some claim they have this happen regularly, HI. If the seller of the PC did not include full back ups of the OS, my solution to your concern about reloading is to be sure to make a backup disk with the necessary drivers. I agree that it can be very difficult to get the right drivers, but once you do, I have found future reloads are relatively simple. Good luck with your computing. 73, Rick, KV9U Toby Burnett wrote: > > > I also would be interested as to booting windoze from a memory stick > like a live cd of Linux. > > It takes so long for me to re install everything should I have a > system wide crash. Just to get back back onto win XP pro I have to > load XP home first and then all of XP Pro. With that and all the > driver disks etc and whatever else you loose in the process it can > take a good day at least just to get back to a blank windoze system > with everything working. My Laptop which I just got (Vista) gave the > option to make a recovery disk set (4 DVD's!) which took the best > part of 4 - 5 hours to create. That's a lot of data even for a memory > stick and I dread the day I have to use them. > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM-8000 v.0536
I notice that they have the 75 bps very robust mode implemented. Has anyone tried this and compared it to Pactor 3's most robust mode? 73, Rick, KV9U dmitry_d2d wrote: > New releases RFSM-8000 v.0536 on http://rfsm2400.radioscanner.ru > >
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Wouldn't the variability be due to not knowing the conditions we operate when on the air vs. the controlled and known conditions during the test? There are times that a given mode just can not work in a real world environment, even though you might be able to hear the signal just find. It just can not print well, and yet another mode that can handle the conditions of Doppler and ISI multipath can work FB. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > > > Jose, > > > maybe Tony could devise some measurements to compare them. > > I'm not sure why, but on-air tests with ALE-400 seem to be a bit > more robust than my path simulations indicate. Need to test this mode > more. > > Tony -K2MO >
Re: [digitalradio] ALE400
I am probably too close to John on 20 meters as I never have any luck connecting. I am calling CQ and monitoring 14.074 with FAE400 right now (2115Z) and will try and have it on for a few hours when I am not experimenting with PSKmail_server. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > > now that the dah-dee-dah –dee dee dah dah’s have all gone away, am > listening on 14074 dial @ 1625 hz . > > copied N9DSJ and K3MO last night…… you can connect to me even if I am > not in front of the rig, also will respond to an ARES net call. Give > > it a try. > > Am on now (2100Z ) to probably 0400Z or later since I tend to leave > the rig on ready for response. > > John > > VE5MU > > > 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. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] More on ALE 400 FAE
Andy, The FAE modes are not really all that new. I had promoted it back in July 2007 on one of the eham forums when I asked if other public service operators planned to use this protocol. There have been very few hams interested in such a mode. My personal preference is to refer to it as FAE, unless it is actually used for Automatic Link Establishment. This is partially to avoid the confusion with ALE operation, and to defuse the hostility that most hams have toward ALE operation. Of course, it theoretically could be used in an ALE system, but I don't see this happening all that much for most ham purposes since what we mostly do is the opposite of ALE. As we gain experience, we know which bands are open (or can quickly check) and then cast out our RF or answer some other stations RF on shared frequencies with varying bandwidths. For public service use we are likely to set up a specific frequency of operation, but having several frequencies on different bands is always possible. I heard Tony, K2MO on this evening working a station near 14.074 using Olivia, but then he switched to FAE40 and called CQ. We were not able to link as the band appeared to be dropping out by then. I called him back and also called CQ to no avail. One other important, and convenient thing about these modes is that the convention was retained to always center on 1625 Hz audio frequency, so your dial frequency is the frequency of operation. 73, Rick, KV9U Andy obrien wrote: > First, is it really ALE as used currently? I am not sure that the > recent tests of this "mode" have actually used it in the form of > establishing an automatic link. I know it can be used this way , but > do not see this. If it is not really ALE, what should it be called ? > > Second, the performance of ALE 400 FAE file transfers between Sholto > and myself last night was simply astonishing . Late at night (0400 > UTC) we passed a files east coast to west coast USA with audible > signal levels around S1 or less. 20 meters , I was on a vertical > running 90 watts. 100% copy (it is ARQ) in a fairly reasonable amount > of time with expected amounts of re-tries. So, regardless of whether > this mode is used in automatic link establishment , it really has to > be considered as a very reliable method of transferring short files > under very poor conditions and much longer files in good conditions. > Well done Patrick! > > > So, in addition to NBEBS ARQ MFSK16 and ARQ PSK, we now have and even > more robust mode that beats its way through the QRN and low sun spot > conditions. > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.43/2139 - Release Date: 05/28/09 > 08:10:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
Say, John, you also use Pactor 2 and 3 which are always 100 baud PSK modes. Do you find that these modes work through the ionospheric conditions when sound card modes, even those with similar modes do not? I find PSK to be rather poor at times here at 44 degrees N latitude, unless you are close to the MUF with a stable ionosphere. I have never seen any published information or other comparisons of P2 and P3 in terms of how much multipath or Doppler can be tolerated, but I suspect that it is not all that much, and there are going to be times that some sound card modes work (albeit slowly) and P2 and P3 simply will not. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > > I live at a higher latitude than many folks in the US and find that > PSK is susceptible to aurora flutter/multipath more often than most modes. > > There are time up here that nothing will decode PSK despite the fact > the band is open and active. I’m not technically competent enough to say > > why, but the fact of the matter is PSK at times will not work, when > MFSK and ALE400 will. Go figure. > > BTW I’m at almost 51N latitude > > John > > VE5MU > > ** > > > > 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. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] PSK-ARQ versus ALE-400
With any new mode or system, I tend to factor it with a view toward public service. But that does not mean it should not be used for what the majority of hams use day to day. Anything you are familiar with and use regularly will have much more value than something that is only used infrequently. Over the years, we went from mostly individual mode programs to multi-imode programs which kept adding new technology. At one time there was primarily one freeware program that did this the best and of course that was Multipsk. That is because Patrick developed a number of the modes himself and incorporated many modes under one "roof." But they are only available on his program. If you want rudimentary rig control beyond PTT, (frequency, mode) you must run a program such as DXLab Commander. If you want a high end logging program you may want to run DXLab DXKeeper. I admit that it makes Multipsk fairly complicated to set up for many users. And most hams consider the interface to be very overwhelming and look toward alternatives. Currently, the most popular integrated multipurpose program is Ham Radio Deluxe/Digital Master 780. It is an incredibly sophisticated and has powerful integration with an imminently to be released improved logging system in addition to satellites and total rig control that no other freeware program can even slightly match. Needless to say, if a particular mode is not available in HRD/DM780, it will be difficult to compete with modes specific to one software. New modes have to have some exceptionally compelling new value or they may not succeed. Fldigi is an alternative program that is very clean, organized, and I actually prefer the most in terms of the user interface. It has its own rig control, but nothing like HRD. It has the advantage that it is being used as a central program to support NBEMS with the flarq program, and also PSKmail with its program. At the same time, this also makes it more complicated too, but more flexible. Similar to Multipsk, there are bridge programs that allow you to use high end logging programs such as DXLab DXKeeper as your central database. This is mandatory if you wish to log non digital contacts (SSB). Otherwise, fldigi's built-in log would probably be good enough for many of us. For general contacts you really want to choose one digital program if at all possible since switching between programs can be very difficult and inefficient due to various commands, icons, etc. being totally different in appearance and location. None are necessarily better than another, but you do need to get used to them. After a lot of comparisons, especially on faster machines (which you need particularly for HRD/DM780), I don't find much decoding difference as I once thought I did on a lesser computer. Winlink 2000, even with a sound card design, only handles e-mail at this point. That is something that might be useful for public service, but on a very small scale compared to point to point communications that is typically used to route local and regional traffic. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup Note: this group was formed to take discussion of public service off of the digitalradio group due to complaints of too much discussion of public service issues on digitalradio, HI. John Bradley wrote: > > Andy wrote: > > “. I still think that a better option would > > be the increased development of NBEMS PSK and MFSK with ARQ as > > implemented in FLDIGI. While perhaps not as robust as ALE 400 FAE , > > it is far more likely to be used by hams if there is more publicity > > about NBEMS.” > > I always look at these modes with a view of using them for emcomm > traffic, and in doing so they have to be able to be used by > inexperienced hams who > > might be on the second shift… operators only. The software has to be > “bomb proof” and not require any extensive computer knowledge to run it. > > ALE400 is not the best mode for this, not because it is a poor mode, > but because the user interface is very difficult to use and has turned > off many potential operators. That said, Patrick likes the user > interface the way it is, so it will likely stay that way. As a result > , ALE400 and the other modes on multipsk will never be used by the > mainstream ham community and cannot in good conscience be recommended > for emcomm. Those modes are great too use if one has the patience to > overcome in user interface. > > MFSK ARQ would have possibilities, but I think the standard for emcomm > will remain winlink/winmor/paclink for now > > John > > VE5MU > > > > > > 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. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the w
Re: [digitalradio] ALE-400
Hi Tony and group members, Based on the use (or non use) of ARQ modes for general ham use, suggests to me that they are going to be primarily used for messaging. This is something that we must have for public service/emergency communications, but there are relatively few who are oriented toward digital modes (speaking from considerable experience). This is likely due in part to the use of VHF as the main part of the spectrum used for such activities. It is actually a very new concept in terms of these newer technologies (developed in past year or so) that work with weak signals rather than the older packet systems that required fairly good signals to work over modest distances. Even so, it is very difficult to get operators to even try the new technologies because the great majority are satisfied with only using VHF/UHF phone. Even the zero interface approach is a hard sell. Some of us on this group have used FAE400 on HF with success but three or four users is not enough, HI. Also, in order for new modes to become practical to use, they must be available on the programs that are being used. Based on comments from developers, it appears that FAE400 will only be available on Multipsk and this is more of an experimenters program rather than one used by public service or the average digital user. It may not be practical to build a team of operators, whether local or regional, etc., to use multiple programs where they use one program for e-mail, another one for packet, another for messaging, another for chat, etc. That is why I believe that we need one program that has this capability, and it would need to be simple to use, very basic layout that is understandable to the average ham. I believe that we are coming closer and some groups have standardized on certain programs. Even after we have the "perfect" program (until the next "perfect" one comes along), it will take an enormous amount of promotion to effect major changes, HI. One question for Tony: when you tested the "ALE" mode, was this actually the FAE mode? As I understand it, the FAE modes (wide 2000 Hz and narrow 400 Hz modes) are considerably faster than the older ALE modes due to improved compression, even though they use the same 8FSK modulation. And they are more sensitive, plus the memory ARQ feature of FAE adds additional weak signal capability. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup Tony wrote: > > > John, > > > Hey man you are preaching to the choir!!! > > It seems that way om -- first QSO was yesterday so it's all new to me. > > > ALE400 is a great mode, even at higher latitudes such as I am. > > Simulator seems to indicate that John. Not as robust as other mfsk > modes, but beats the pants off of 300 baud HF Packet!!! > > Are you available for a contact? I'm on 14073.0 USB + 1000Hz. ALE-400 >
Re: [digitalradio] SSB Phone versus other modes
When it comes to emergency communications, phone is not an option, but a necessary mode for most conditions. It is the only practical mode that gives you the instant knowledge that someone has received your information. Nothing else can ever take the place of human speech in such cases due to the immediacy. But phone has its limits with speed of transmission and requirement of very good signals. Most communications during emergencies tend to be fairly brief. Where is your location? We need 35 cots at the shelter here in Newton. The disaster triage site has one ambulance leaving for MHCS with 2 patients with following conditions. These are not communications that are practical to send in a timely manner with most digital technology. Also, you absolutely must at least insure that another human actually received the information. You would not use e-mail /BBS types of technology to handle that kind of traffic unless you just had no other choice. On the other hand, digital communications gives us the ability to send larger amounts of data that would be difficult or even impractical to send via phone transmissions. And it can be more accurate if using ARQ modes. And newer digital technology works with much weaker signals than phone, sometimes rivaling even CW. And CW requires very savvy ops at both ends and that is something nearly impossible to find with the ever shrinking number of CW savvy operators who would be involved with public service activities. If the information is being relayed through different operators to a distant point, then it helps to know what modes will be used. For multi mode relays through CW, digital, and voice, (or if you don't know for sure) there are often severe limitations to the type and length of data. That is why ARRL Radiograms or something must be used in those cases. From what I have seen over the last 45+ years since I was first licensed, many more of us are involved in public service communications on a regular basis, particularly the rather substantial participation in Skywarn and weather related spotting. We also may support other public service communications, such as rendezvous, large scale runs, bikes, adventure racing, etc. Emergencies occur almost every day but are taken care of by government protective service employees. It is not often that we will be called upon for an actual communications emergency, but it does happen from time and to time and realistically we will only be ready to use our regularly developed skills. We may also be asked to provide non-communications services such as Disaster Assessment. Most participants in public service today tend to be the newer hams who are VHF/UHF oriented. This tells us where the focus of our use of technology must be. From repeated queries, I have found that most weak signal enthusiasts, particularly VHF, tend to stay focused on that interest and not much interest in public service. And I also agree with David, that those who do not have keyboarding skills will not be involved in most digital communications. This may not be a problem with new hams since there is a good chance that they will have at least rudimentary keyboarding skills. In my rural area, there has been a resurgence of interest in a horizontally polarized SSB phone only VHF activity night due to the promotion by a ham about 200 miles away who often provides NCS duties. Even so, I have only found one or two hams who had the necessary interest in any VHF digital activity at this time. Not enough to make a critical mass of digital operators for a practical deployment toward emergency communications. Of course I keep trying and will be having a club demonstration again in November, HI. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup David Little wrote: > > > Andy, > > This is a topic of discussion that is raging on behind the lines in > Emergency Communications also. > > The fundamental thing that many miscalculate is how the Intel that is > to be sent digitally is gathered and relayed to someone with the > capabilities to "digitize" > > In this debate, a lot of babies have been thrown out with the bath > water already. > > Please keep the most rudimentary concept of communications in mind in > this discussion. It is like factoring to prime numbers. > > One day, everyone will have a total mobile digital station as an > option in their cars at point of purchase. > > However, we aren't there yet, and we have to rely on what is available > if we are to offer a useful service to the community to pay for our > keep (and spectrum). > > Voice Ops will always be an option; especially in the first 96 hours > when everyone is scrambling to restore enough damaged infrastructure > to get back on the air. > > Again, as "hunter gatherers" someone must collect the Intel or "ground > truth" that is to be sent via digital means. > > However,
Re: [digitalradio] [Fwd: Your comments on Polar Paths and Digital Modes]
It was 1425Z here in SW Wisconsin and I was copying JA1RZD on 14072.5 + 1500 Hz with near 100%, but he could not hear me. Very low noise and no S-meter reading on my end. After calling him a few times, he did ask QRZ and later KC7?? but I can imagine that noise levels might be much stronger on his end. Also, his web site indicates he can run 350 watts on MFSK and I am only running 25. OK, kicked it up to 200, HI, but no luck either. Hearing WF7T, but not zero beat with him and did not link up. Maybe that was the 7 station that JA1RZD heard? 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > > > All, > > Received the following email from Ken, JA1RZD. > > Tony -K2MO > > Hi Tony, > > Thank you for the QSO on March 27 MFSK mode. I happen to find your comments > on Polar Paths and Digital Modes on the following page. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/digitalradio@yahoogroups.com/msg19939.html > > Your comments are exactly the same as I experienced over the past several > years. > > I would like to point out one downside of MFSK. It is very difficult find > stations on MFSK mode. I normally call CQ on 14.072.5 MHz plus 1500 Hz audio > but it is rare to be called from the USA. European stations are much more > active. If you know the active frequency of MFSK, please let me know. Or > _please inform to the subscribers that I call CQ on 14.072.5 MHz USB plus > 1500 Hz MFSK_. > > I hope to see you again on MFSK mode. The 20 m band is open from 14z to 17z > to the USA and Europe from Japan. > > 73 de JA1RZD, Ken > > P.S. Please visit my page on QRZ.com. Navigate to the map and zoom in to > max on picture mode, you will see the satellite pictue of my antennas. > _ > ??25GB?? > http://skydrive.live.com/?showunauth=1 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card systems for ARES
Andy, While you could use different systems, it gets very, very complicated for non-digitally oriented hams. Just take some one who has never used this stuff and really is not all that interested, but needs to use it anyway and you will see how challenging it can be, HI. Winlink 2000, even with WINMOR, is not going to help them much either since it does not support the critically needed peer to peer function on HF. Some might think you can somehow use packet radio on VHF but in our area that might give you 15 miles in some directions, so is not very practical. We must have NVIS for practical Section and Regional communications. The only sound card system that can actually do what they want on HF really does seem to be PSKmail although I would consider it somewhat nascent here in the U.S. at this point. I am even toying with setting up a server here in Wisconsin, but not so much because of my central location, but mostly for experimental use, public service potential and certainly emergency use when the peer function is added to the Windows version. As you know, I have not been able to find a Linux distribution that works adequately on my equipment. With the recent release of Ubuntu 9.04, this may be solved after all these many years. While most hams will not consider Linux at this time, and it does have its shortcomings, it does have some advantages and would be needed to operate a PSKmail server station. The really neat thing about all this is that we are coming closer to some really good solutions for casual use and public service use of digital technology. And anything that you expect to work during an emergency, must be regularly used on a frequent basis to be there when you really need it. 73, Rick, KV9U Andy obrien wrote: > NBEMS is the only application that would meet your DEC's requirements, > find it within the latest implementing of FLDIGI. It contains ARQ > PSK31, ARQ MFSK16 and a few other modes. Also facilitates email > exchanges on a point to point basis with the ability to drop email off > in to the Internet. It is all free. > > Then, in a few weeks time (maybe couple of months) expect Winmor to be > added to the Winkink system. Winkink currently handles files and > email via packet radio and Pactor. Pactor II and Pactor III require > expensive TNC's but Winmor will allow sound card digital applications > to connect to a "server" on HF. Thus, with NBEMS you have a very easy > system of point to point error correcting communication. With Winmor > and Packet in Winlink , you have the ability to do everything else. > > The two combined will be about as elaborate as hams can get, ALE > systems notwithstanding. > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09 > 06:28:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Sound card systems for ARES
While we are not there yet, things have improved over the past year or so. You could use packet, but it is a mode that requires very good signals to work. The only sound card packet program without an expected cost is Multipsk. It supports 300 and 1200 baud packet. Multipsk also has the FAE/FAE400 modes that can work with much weaker signals in a full ARQ mode. Not as fast as packet with good signals, but moderate speed is better than zero throughput when conditions get more difficult. Supports both peer to peer chat and messaging, but no e-mail. The NBEMS system (fldigi + flarq) will provide ARQ messaging with several modes but will not support ARQ peer to peer chat which may be important when involved in public service/emergency communications. Their philosophy does not support e-mail. The PSKmail system can provide e-mail (limited number of servers at this time if you are in the U.S.) but if using the Linux client, can also provide ARQ peer to peer. This is planned to be added to the Windows version. I don't know of any other interest from developers who are planning to add peer to peer digital communication in one software program. Winlink 2000 is developing a sound card mode to work with their e-mail system but their philosophy does not support HF peer to peer connections, so the software will have very limited use for practical public service/emergency communication where you need to send messages between peers since you may not have the infrastructure remaining for mail systems. The ideal from my perspective would be to have an easily understandable sound card software program that works on HF or VHF, handles peer to peer traffic as well as e-mail, and adapts to the conditions with appropriate protocols. We are beginning to have the pieces, but no one has bolted them together into one system, HI. Easy to say, but not easy to do. The closest thing that I can see is PSKmail using WINMOR or something similar as the adaptive protocol. That would be a "killer" digital program for public service/emergency use. 73, Rick, KV9U Lee wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I am looking for what you have used or have read about. I have been using > TNCs for my packet operations and now need to know other options using a > sound card. This is for VHF/UHF and HF. > > The software has to be error correcting. Can be used to connect peer to peer > (station to station) and / or to a BBS and / or email Ie:winlink. > > Why I need this. I have ask by my DEC to make a presentation for methods of > using "packet" to send messages for his Area. I have a pretty good handle on > the TNC methods but not using a soundcard. > > So what you got. I will be making my presentation May 30th. > > Thank you and 73 > > > > ---
Re: [digitalradio] Pskmail Server in U.S.
I have to concur with Rein. The impression we have been given in the past is that Skipnet was a short term ARRL experiment under an FCC STA (Special Temporary Authorization). Do a search on ARRL's web site to see the number of references on anything current. My most recent search came up empty. If there really is a network that can be accessed by individual hams, then one would expect the proponents to frequently mention the frequencies on the various bands, the method of access, any procedures to send messages, etc. Curious that this never happens. What is important about PSKmail is the many features that are simply not available on any other system: - it does not rely on 300 baud FSK packet and can use any modulation, including potentially future adaptable modes - works with sound card technology and only a simple interface required - moving toward cross platform with the addition of the javaPSKmail software with fldigi - can set up ad hoc servers on short notice by anyone, not just those who operate a centralized system - can operate on VHF as well as HF And here is something that I just found out from Rein: PSKmail can be set up as a closed system without any access to the internet, if you don't want it to have such access. It can act as a server for a local or regional group, etc. If possible, this discussion may be quite valuable on the group. 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: > I would gladly discuss with you how we can make the systems work together, > with the ultimate goal to increase efficiency and service coverage of both... > > As I cannot find any usable information about SkipNet (other than the generic > definition of several > flavours of overlay networks with skipnet routing) I would be interested to > know > what you are actually doing in that area > > Pskmail is presently an internet or LAN access system for HF, i.e. it uses > existing internet infrastructure as a transport medium wherever possible, and > it provides > efficient 'last 3000 Miles' HF connectivity to various internet services like > email, web access, > twitter etc.+ fully compatible HF APRS messaging and posit beaconing. > Pskmail servers are stateless, i.e they do not retain content, but provide > agents > to interface with internet services. As such I don't think you can compare it > to SkipNet functionality > (but I may be wrong here...) > > There are plans to add DTN functionalty to pskmail in future in order to > bypass the internet > transport in emergency situations, and I am fully open to any form of > suggestions... > > I propose we take this off list... > > 73, > > Rein PA0R > > rein at couperus dot com > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Pskmail Server in U.S. (Rick)
Hi Russell, Are there many other PSKmail stations on the air that are not being listed on the mailserver site? http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/PSKmailservers The only stations for the U.S. that are listed at the moment are: WB5CON KD5WDQ KD4QCL I think it was KD4WDQ that I have triggered a few times when doing a call up of the servers on 10148, but only WB5CON has been strong enough to actually connect to. It seems to take a pretty good signal to make this work well. Do you find that the 250 baud rate works most of the time about as well as the 125 baud rate? Probably less affected by Doppler? But would be more affected by ISI multipsk? Without having an automatically adjustable protocol, all the modes are a compromise much of the time. And the faster modes just can not connect when slower modes would work, even though very slow. But slow is better than zero throughput like we often had with 300 baud packet and why that mode never became usable unless you had a very stable MUF type of path. From what I can tell, a lot of the Pactor 2 and 3 operation is done this way because 100 baud PSK is quite susceptible to ionospheric conditions we often have on HF. 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > > > Rick, Well I went to find the call of the other station close to you > and it was not on the list today I will keep a lookout for it, I have > seen you connect to Fred (WB5CON) at times, the band has not be too > good but if you would like for me to QSY to another band so you can > connect I would be glad just let me know. My server has been on > 10.148, was using PSK125 but now I'm using PSK250, it beacons avery > 20min starting at the top of the hour. My station antenna is a > Butternut so its not the best. > > Russell NC5O >
Re: [digitalradio] Pskmail Server in U.S.
Russell, Where is the Wisconsin one located? I live in SW Wisconsin, but my understanding is that there are 3 PSKmail stations listed as active in the U.S.,? At least on the 10.148 frequency. The main one I can sometimes reach is WB5CON in Mississiippi, but not easy to do on a consistent basis. What we need are many more stations on different bands. Especially would like to see some NVIS stations on 80 meters. Could even have VHF stations as there is at least one in a large city, but outside the U.S. Is anyone considering becoming a server station? If the Windows client gets PSKmail chat, we would be able to have both e-mail and peer to peer messaging using ARQ and could use on VHF as well as HF. That is not available with any other system, much less a completely open system fully GPL'ed. This is the only decentralized system that I am aware of that can do all these things. 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > I was taking a count today of Pskmail Servers in the U.S. and there are four > 1 in Mississippi, 2 in Texas, 1 in Va, 1 in WI, and one in western Canada. > Hopefully there will be more users as time goes on and the word gets out and > more people start getting out and needing to use the mail servers. > > Russell NC5O > >
Re: [digitalradio] Need more drive ??
I looked up the interface and it is a solid design with an optoisolator and isolation transformers. May I suggest that hams here in the U.S. who are interested in building their own interface give serious consideration to the Unified Microsystems, SCI-6 Sound Card Interface. This is a kit but you can not really put it all together as nicely for the $25 + $5.50 shipping. International shipping is probably impractical at $20. I have read that some laptops can be a problem with the optoisolator although that would likely be true for similar optoisolators. 73, Rick, KV9U Phillip wrote: > Hi, > I have just built up the sound card interface by Jerry KD5ZUG for use > with FLDIGI etc > http://www.jbgizmo.com/page28.htm > > I was wanting to use it on my laptop a Toshiba Satellite 2140CDS running WIN > 2000 Pro, but there appears to be not enough > drive or pull down for this to work as it should. > > It does what it is meant to on my Desk top, which would indicate that the > Laptop hasn't the power on its RS232 port. > > The strange thing in DOS before WIN 200 boots it does what it is meant to .. > > When the Laptop boots up the LEDS on the board light up as per the docs but > once WIN 2000 screen appears the LEDs go out and don't > light up again . > > Has anyone any ideas ??? > > Many thanks > > 73 > > Phillip > ZL2TZE > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.23/2106 - Release Date: 05/09/09 > 06:54:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Fldigi RSID
Is it possible that one of the needed features to use RSID would be that it could be easily turned on and off for transmitting as it is for receiving? Otherwise you have to go in to several layers of menus to turn it off once you make the contact. If it stays on, it takes time at the beginning of each transmission to send the RSID data burst and I doubt that many would want that overhead. 73, Rick, KV9U aa777888athotmaildotcom wrote: > Yes but nobody ever runs RSID TX ID (except me :-) > > I've spent hours with fldigi RSID receive mode turned on just to watch it > work once (and in entire pass band mode). It's never once made a detection > and I've never seen an RSID burst on the waterfall myself. > > K*B*l*0*0*Q > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Ready for Q15X25 packet test ...
Very good points, Darko, Even though the WINMOR set of protocols has been developed by one group, the protocol is open so that other individuals or groups can incorporate the protocol and may even further develop the protocol as they see fit. If the initial development group decided to not make a peer to peer mode available, and yet prove that this technology will work well, even if only for e-mail, eventually someone will want to do this for sound card peer to peer use. It would not have to be WINMOR, but something similar. It may not happen soon, it could take another 5 to 10 years, but I expect it to happen, maybe even in my lifetime, HI. The most important public service/emergency communication is tactical local and regional peer to peer. Everything else may be helpful, but not vital. Tactical communication has been done mostly recently by phone (with some CW, but mostly in the past) but phone has limitations that could be overcome by the right digital modes, to wit: - weaker signals getting through when phone does not work well or does not work at all - no CW expertise which is now the norm for almost all new hams - keyboarding skills common with new hams due to internet "practice," HI - need to send large amounts of data, such as lists of names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. At this time we do not have optimized sound card digital modes that can do this well. Some are using systems such as NBEMS on HF and VHF and even packet is still used by a few. RFSM2400 (MIL-STD-188-110A protocols) are not legal on HF here in the U.S. "digital" portions of the bands but even if it was, the weak signal modes were not included so it has not performed well with HF conditions we often experience. Also, the program does not provide peer to peer chat (tactical) communications. Whoever comes up with a program that can do sound card adaptable ARQ HF/VHF peer to peer chat and messaging and also connect to a widely available e-mail system will have THE digital public service "killer app." Why would you want to use anything else? 73, Rick, KV9U 9A3LI wrote: > > If WINMOR will be "interface" only for Winlink then it will be useless ! > Sure, that will be pitty ! > > Q15X25 isnt good replacement for old AFSM 300/200 modems. > RFSM2400 cant "link" with other network so useless too, > what will be with WINMOR we can sit and wait ! > :) > > 73 ! > > Darko > 9A3LI > > 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. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test
From what I know about Q15X25, it was planned to be a replacement for packet, but did not work well enough. Maybe some are still experimenting with it, but considering the protocol structure being very nearly the same as the highest speeds for Pactor 3 (Speed Level 6), which I understand is rarely possible to use on many HF paths, it is not a practical fit for the vagaries of HF. That is why it is so important to have a number of fall back protocols to meet actual HF conditions with the appropriate mode. WINMOR may be the solution for sound card technologies. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Thanks Rick, I added it...now what. Where on the band are people using it? > > Andy K3UK > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> I am just using MixW which I downloaded as a test at: >> >> http://www.mixw.net/index.php?j=downloads >> >> then a bit further down on the page is the q15x25dll. I used the latest >> version. >> >> Hearing some odd pulsing transmission like a sort of chug, chug, chug, >> sound that pulses for a few seconds, stops, and then pulses again. >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> John Becker, WØJAB wrote: >> >>> Where does one get the software? >>> >>> >>>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Ready for Q15X25 packet test ...
Based upon the modulation developed for WINMOR, is it fair to say that some of the wider and higher speed modes will be roughly equivalent to Q15X25? It still is perplexing to me as to why Q15X25 did so poorly (based on numerous comments from those that tried it) yet the modulation is surprisingly similar to other high speed modes. Comparing it to other modulation schemes that have automatic adaptability: Digital# of spacing baud modulation mode tones of tones rate Q15X25 15 125 Hz83.33QPSK Pactor 3 18 120 Hz100 QPSK - speed level 6 Pactor 3 14 120 Hz100 QPSK - speed level 4 Pactor 3 14 120 Hz 100 BPSK - speed level 3 WINMOR 15125 Hz 62.5 PSK/QAM WINMOR 15125 Hz 31.25 4FSK Could the answer be that was due to the fact that it can not scale for varying conditions? I have anecdotal comments that P3 rarely operates at SL6. Maybe others who have experience with P modes can give us some idea how often it needs to drop to lower levels. When that happens, it would seems reasonable that Q15X25 would not be possible to use. 73, Rick, KV9U >> >> > > There is no standalone versuion, you can find "driver" for > Flex32 called "soundmodem" too. > You can use that "modem" with packet terminal software > WPP and Paxon. > > But, MixW working much better in decoding q15x25. > Just compare MixW and win-soundmodem with Flex32/paxon. > MixW decode every packet then "win-soundmodem" every 10th > maybe less. > All tested on same PC, Creative sound card and the same RX. > > btw > If here is any station from Europe interesting in q15x25 > you can listen 3591Khz USB, 2500bps, FEC3 (15,5) > Tx only 20W in NVIS antenna (bi-quad for 80m band) > There is Linux JNOS and "kiss" Soundmodem running in test > phase for next few weeks. > > Beacon is active every 90sec, beacon text: > 9A1CRA>ID>UI,C,F0: > 3591 KHz USB Radio Q15X25 [Krizevci, HR] > > 73 ! > > Darko > 9A3LI > > 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. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Olivia
Hi John, WINMOR is an open protocol, therefore it is up to the developers as to what they want to use it for. I personally prefer open protocols because of this, but far be it for me to tell others how they can or can not use a given protocol. The current developers have designed the protocol to compete with Pactor modes. Preliminary information says that it will outperform Pactor, and be fairly competitive with Pactor 2, although at a much wider bandwidth, similar to Pactor 3. Unlike Pactor, WINMOR will have the ability to work within 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and ~ 2000 Hz bandwidths so that it can be used within the IARU band plans. And unlike Pactor 2 and 3, the modes are not including PSK100. We know that PSK modes are susceptible to ionospheric instabilities, particularly if they do not have training pulses. If you have looked at the very interesting mode specifications, WINMOR may have some of this newer technology. I have never seen any tests from SCS as to how much ISI/multipath or Doppler the Pactor modes can tolerate, but I suspect not very much. (Dr. Rink claimed some years ago that it could handle most paths well enough with their DSP, but I suspect that there are cases where the signal strengths are good but Pactor can not work and yet other modes can. As it progresses over the years, there is no reason that WINMOR can not be constantly improved. Unlike a proprietary lock in with a hardware/firmware system, it would be possible to update to newer modes just by downloading new free software. In fact, I would expect that to happen. While I don't see hams using it for casual chatting, but it could be done similar to how we used to use Amtor and even Pactor in the "old days," HI. What I would like to see is the ability to have a superior ARQ sound card mode that can scale speed up or down to meet conditions and do this automatically without user intervention. Since one of my interests is pubic service, if peer to peer connections were designed into the software, you would be able to connect to another station under varying conditions and communicate directly from keyboard and send files as needed. Ability to connect to an e-mail server may be useful, however the first two needs must be met to be of value for local and regional digital communication. And that is something we don't have available to us at the moment. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Rick > I feel you think that winmor was intended to be a chat mode. > It was not and is not nor a replacement for pactor. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.10/2088 - Release Date: 04/30/09 > 06:01:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia
Jim, I agree with you completely about Clover II. Some years back, when I would call CQ, I would sometimes get a connection with Ray Petit, W7GHM, (the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II), but with our distance and dipole antennas, could rarely do much more than trade the path information, HI. Clover II just did not have a robust enough mode, which was somewhat surprising since the base modulation was 4 PSK31 tones. At the time the Winlink system used both Clover II and Pactor (some Amtor until that was phased out), but when they switched over to the Winlink 2000 internet based e-mail system, they dropped Clover II support so that really decreased use of the mode. WINMOR is an openly published protocol (perhaps not quite finalized yet) that anyone will be able to develop if they have the ability and interest to do so. This means it could be used in existing programs or even in a new program that would insure ARQ and adaptability for peer to peer communication. This is vital for those of us who have a serious interest in public service/emergency communications. We primarily need the ability to connect to other stations on a peer to peer basis, but having e-mail access to the internet can also be useful, assuming the internet is working where you need to move traffic. Based on the protocols for WINMOR, I wonder if it will sometimes be more robust than Pactor modes of which the most robust, even with P3 is 2 PSK100 tones separated by about 700 Hz. I have never seen any published information on the tolerance for ISI and Doppler and I suspect it may not be all that much based upon Tony's results with various modes. 73, Rick, KV9U jhaynesatalumni wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)" > wrote: > >> Would not WINMOR be an option here? >> >> > Well, except that WINMOR seems to be single-mindedly a message > passing mode. I wish there was some layering so that the modulation > means and the error correcting means and the message passing were > separable. Of course adapting to varying conditions means some > communication down through the layers, changing the modulation > scheme when error control indicates that is needed. > > CLOVER had that kind of operation - trouble is that it (amateur > version) seems to lack the ability to go downhill when conditions > worsen - it's aggressive enough about going uphill when conditions > permit. Times I have used it, it would invariably get stuck > trying to send long blocks that never made it through, when shorter > blocks probably would have been successful. > > Jim W6JVE > >
Re: [digitalradio] Olivia
I think that the reasons that we tend to gravitate toward a given Olivia speed/bandwidth: - need a "standard" to find others on the air. It is easy to determine the BW, but not so easy for the number of tones. - if you use a non-standard speed to start with, you will have a difficult time finding anyone at all (speaking from experience, HI) - once you make contact, switching to different speeds/modes is not always that easy to do with some operators - it is probably best to start off with a robust subset of a mode and go faster if you need to do this, with the plan to return to the robust mode if faster ones don't work, but it can be a bit awkward - operators who have slower keyboarding skills have told me that they find that the 19 or 29 wpm of Olivia 500/16 and 500/8 to be a good fit - I can see where the slower modes of Olivia can be useful for really difficult conditions such as short DX type contacts or for critical public service messaging, but for casual use, the faster Olivia modes may not work as well as other modes, particularly MFSK16 which is also much faster (~ 40 wpm) Also, it is possible that eventually someone might be willing to come up with a program that will use a protocol that can adapt to conditions. Simon mentioned WINMOR which is the only possible protocol that can . This is the serious shortcoming of sound card modes thus far since nothing currently available can automatically scale speed and robustness to meet conditions. The closest thing we had for a short time was SCAMP and the ratio of speeds was fairly limited due to not being very robust at the slowest speed. But WINMOR should help a great deal in moving the bar higher. But from what I can tell, the WINMOR program from the developer is not intended to be used peer to peer, only for e-mail. That won't help most of us who are primarily interested in public service/emergency communication between operators at various locations. As some have found out the hard way, you don't design service/emergency communications to be sent via e-mail since you make a very dangerous assumption that the internet will be operational. At this time, the only options we have for ARQ keyboarding and messaging are packet and FAE modes but as technology advances maybe that one person will be able to develop the killer app for public service? Imagine if a program like PSKmail, which has peer to peer capability (not yet available for MS Windows), switched to an adaptable mode such as WINMOR. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > > > All, > > I'm not sure why, but it seems that most of us tend to stick with the > slower versions of Olivia > even when conditions allow for much faster throughput. The more robust > tone-bandwidth combinations seem overkill when the path is stable so > why go slow? > > I sometimes test the waters by reducing the number of tones > (regardless of bandwidth) to speed things up. One can always increase > the tones again if conditions change for the worse. > > It would be a neat to see some kind of "throughput sensing" where the > speed of the mode changed to suit conditions automatically. > > Maybe an RSID-like preamble that automatically switched the other > stations software to the best mode based on the last over. > > Tony -K2MO > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.8/2086 - Release Date: 04/29/09 > 06:37:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: TAK-Tenna
What really matters with any antenna design is to compare the antenna against another antenna to find out the actual real world performance. Most Tak-tenna users have not done this from what I have been reading. This is probably due to not having the space for a full size antenna, since if they had the space they would not choose something that is less effective. Some of the comparisons that have been done have been, as expected, very significantly below a rudimentary dipole. From my reading on this antenna, which is somewhat similar to the Bilal Isotron, you have an L-C circuit at the end of the coax that gives you a very, very, short dipole. As W9JI and other antenna experts have pointed out, a 2 foot antenna, now matter how many feet of wire it uses, will exhibit the characteristics of a 2 foot antenna. Most antenna designs that reduce a dipole length by more the 2/3 start to exhibit some losses. By the time they are 50% shortened, it becomes substantial. Even shorter antennas that appear to be resonant are likely going to be radiating some from the coax which can give you a sort of vertical or maybe low "L" design. The effective radiated power could be quite low, say, 10 watts or so (-10 dB) which mostly proves that QRP can work. It would be informative to compare a short vertical, which is very easy to install at say half size 16 feet or so high with a decent radial system (assuming ground mounting) compared with a similar height tak-tenna. Based on the height some are putting the tak-tenna, it seems that a simple vertical or even a dipole would be a much better solution. An inverted vee half size 40 meter dipole would fit in a linear distance of around 25 feet, would it not? Or use an end fed 33 foot wire fed against ground? 73, Rick, KV9U David wrote: > I own a Tak-Tenna. I selected it because I have almost no space on my lot > for a dipole. First, it is easy to build. Second, don't try this antenna > without an antenna analyzer. I have the 40 meter version and it works. > During the worldwide SSB contest I was able to talk to Finland, New Zealand, > and Austrialia, but was it the antenna or that these guys had 65 foot and > higher towers with beam antennas? Based on my contacts I think this antenna > does well when the other guy has a beam on a high tower. By the way, there > is enough public domain materials on various versions of this antenna around > that you could build your own pretty easily. > > >
[digitalradio] Remote control
Years ago, I used to have a very light and small SW receiver (but of rather low quality) that I had next to my bed and I could listen to SW or ham communications. Today my equipment is much heavier and bigger and the lightest I could come up with is to "borrow" one of my wife's ICOM IC-7000 rigs. Is there a simple way to interface one of my ICOM rigs (756 Pro II and III or 746 Pro) in such a way to at least tune the rig and listen to audio using my home wireless router system? Of course it would be cool to do more, such as talk on a mike or send digital data, but the main thing would be to at least control the volume and tuning and hear the audio. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] "finding someone to have a qso with"
I always assumed that it had a lot to do with the amount of activity vs. finding someone. CW or other operators wanting to make a specific contact on a band or location, such as for an award, need some way to find a similar operator. There is a smaller subset of digital hams and those digital hams mostly use PSK31. They only have need for extra help if they want to go beyond PSK31 and work less commonly used modes or for awards perhaps? No matter how much we have tried to promote the newer modes, some of which have special attributes such as being far more robust than PSK31, have ARQ capability that is not available to keyboard chat modes, etc., the reaction I have personally gotten from other hams is that PSK31 is good enough and when it doesn't work, they do other things. As a recent example, a ham from a nearby community is was introduced as the digital expert so I was very interested in seeing if he would be interested in working some of the new modes, especially because a large focus of his group was with public service communication. I was quite surprised when he seemed almost annoyed with me for even suggesting that any other digital modes exist than PSK31 or should even be used on the ham bands. Since most digital hams use only PSK31, and there are well known watering hole frequencies on the popular bands, they never need any help with internet coordination. If a given band is open, they can almost always find someone. By the way, what is the LOTW group intended to be used for? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > -My sentiments exactly Bob. I have tried and tried over the years and cannot > figure out why the digital part of the K3UK Sked page is not used more. As > you know, the SKCC and LOTW K3UK Sked pages are used constantly. The irony > is that the SKCC and LOTW pages were established as after thoughts, the > digitalradio sked page was my first goal and the initial design code was > provided gratis by a member of this group N8FQ. > > Another irony is that the LOTW page that you suggested is quite often the > group that spurs people to try digital modes like Feld Held for the first > time. There are more digital mode "skeds" made via the LOTW page than the > digitalradio sked page. > > Andy K3UK > >
Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT
Thanks for that heads up, Rick, I knew that the ICOM 718 rigs could not do PTT via the CI-V, but sure did not realize that was also true for the 706 series. The 746 and 756 series ICOM rigs work well with CI-V CAT control using one port to handle total rig control. One thing that I really like with some of the new rigs (ICOM 7000, 746 Pro, many VHF FM rigs, etc., is having the 6 pin mini DIN jack and since all manufacturers agreed to standardize the pin outs, one cable fits all. It provides audio in and out and PTT for a minimalist connection to many rigs. My wife has found it very useful when we use it for digital communication on HF from her mobile setup. 73, Rick, KV9U Rick Ellison wrote: > There is no CAT PTT for the 706 series of radio's You will need to add an > external PTT circuit to do this.. > > 73 Rick N2AMG > http://www.n2amg.com >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: jpskmail can now send a binary attachment
Have you been able to get this alpha to boot up? (Note: you have to change erac to esrac in the main url to access the site.) 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" wrote: > >> I saw this message "jpskmail can now send a binary attachment, some tweaking >> necessary" earlier this morning from Rein PA0R . Looks like an important >> step and will make playing with the Java PSKmail fun this weekend. >> >> >> Andy K3UK >> >> > > > The new release is out... > > http://tinyurl.com/cdu7ha > > >
[digitalradio] There really is no flame war from my perspective
Hi Stelios, The reason you may not have heard from others with their difficulties with Linux, is that they there are few who have even tried and those who have may not talk about it. I take the middle path, where I see the value of both OS's, but the value of Microsoft is still very large, at least here in the U.S. As Andy can tell you, I had a lot of trouble for several years with Linux not able to run my 22" Samsung SyncMaster 225BW, particularly with my higher end AMD/Nvidia HP computer. I have been able to run openSolaris from a live disk, not that I would plan to move toward that OS, HI. They always tell you to make sure that you try the live disk so everything can be checked out to work properly. Then when it does not, they tell you to install the OS and do the various configurations, downloads of software, etc. to get it to work. Most people have no interest in doing that and never will. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours with Linux, partly because I was going to figure this out and get it to work. It has been quite expensive compared with Microsoft products because of books and some commercial software that I have bought to try and get a better understanding. But after considerable interfacing with support groups and even to the point of getting a commercial product sent to me from the company, I could not match Microsoft. I eventually realized that if techy types like me are having this much trouble, it just is not going to go anywhere with average users, and that includes ham users too, if they can't get something to work well. Not just getting by, but with good usability. More recently I have tried live disks of Mandriva One 2009, Ubuntu 8-10, openSUSE, fedora 10,and others and found that although I could get the resolution correct for the monitor from some (not all), on my lower end emachines computer (2.4 GHz/512 Meg RAM), the font rendering of all Linux that I have seen thus far is inferior to WinXP and Vista. And I have also found that Vista is better than WinXP. Some will outright deny it, but I have had some agree that, yes Linux is not quite as good with font rendering, but that doesn't bother them because they want the freedom from MS, etc. I don't have any problem with MS at all as long as the product works well and supports what I am doing with computers. I have a brother who is an administrator for a well known University system and he runs many Linux and MS servers and has no problem with either. When I mention the desktop, he laughs and says that he would never use Linux for that, although he might use Apple Mac OSX. For me, (not others perhaps, but for me), if I switch to another OS, there has to be a reason other than I hate someone. It just has to work as well as what I am currently using and have additional advantages. Linux may have advantages in terms of viruses and malware, however a prudent person will still run security software on any system. But most all the programs that people like to use on Linux, which are generally free as in beer and free as in speech, are also available on Microsoft OS's too. For casual users who need mostly the web and an office suite, they could use Firefox and Open Office on either platform. For those who have specialty interests, especially ham radio, then MS has the edge since the best ham software is often only available on Microsoft OS's. Sometimes the only software. Since Microsoft OS's are typically pre-installed on computers here in the U.S., I don't see any change coming soon where you would buy a computer without an OS. Even the eeePC which Linux had a lock on the market for many months, is now mostly MS. If it can not beat MS on that platform, when will it? I see Linux gaining momentum in developing nations and since they make up the majority of the world's population, that has to eventually cause the tide to shift toward Linux. But that could be a decade or two away here in the U.S? For PSKmail, my expectation is that you need a sort of "critical mass" of users. That can not happen here without running the client on Microsoft OS's. Even then there are competing systems depending upon what you want for capabilities. Even for those who are Linux averse, it is not unreasonable that someone who wants to run a server could get that to work. I know that I could do it, as at one time I had fldigi running under Linux. (It did take quite a bit of effort and tremendous help from Dave, W1HKJ who is simply outstanding with his support). One area that you mention with the use of ARM based computing, or other low cost, low power systems, has to be the strongest value of Linux at this time. It can scale up or down as needed and Microsoft can not match it on the low end. It will prove to be very interesting to see how things play out. Maybe by the end of this year we will have a better idea of the direction? 73, Rick, KV9U Stelios Bounanos wrote: > > > Rick, I must sa
Re: [digitalradio] The usual OS Flame war thread....
I agree, Per, but like anything in life, there are tradeoffs. Some don't want to admit that, but some of us thankfully understand it well. It is curious that it is relatively rare for the Microsoft users to say derogatory comments about Linux. I can not say the same for the more extreme Linux users, and some perhaps not so extreme:( Needless to say I won't even respond the the impertinent comments by Hal since they are basically an attack on the intelligence and abilities of most computer users rather than on any merits. Those of us who have tried different OS's, some for decades, find good and bad in each OS, but the bottom line is which one has the most practical value right now. While most here in the U.S. overwhelmingly choose Microsoft, there are a modest, but increasing number, who like Mac. Linux is still very small. Much, much smaller than I expected by now. I have spent a LOT of time with Linux and have been surprisingly disappointed. And I did not expect to be. It is a very good thing to have open minded discussions about the value of different OS's for ham use and how one can help you do something that is not possible in another. Otherwise, no one would ever look at anything other than what they now use. It is no different than which digital program to use. They all have strong and weak points, but some will be a better "fit" for an individual ham. 73, Rick, KV9U Per wrote: > These threads just do not end. Pse just use what you like and stop bad > mouthing all the other systems. > I only use linux but I'm not going to tell you that windows and macs > suck, if you like any of those then good for you. Have some fun on the > air instead. > > 73 de Per, sm0rwo > > > > > *From:* José A. Amador > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2009 4:18:22 PM > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server? > > > Once upon a time, in a very distant galaxy, there was an ace pilot named > Anakin Skywalker... > > > > Linux has not been very successful here in the U.S. with most ham > > > computer users. > > > But it just has not been very practical at this point because like > > > so many things in life, the trade-offs are too great:( > > > > Because too many refuse to think?? > > > > VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y > Educación Energética > 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones > ...Por una cultura energética sustentable > www.ciercuba. com > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.38/2037 - Release Date: 04/02/09 > 06:09:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Rick - PSKMail Windows server?
That is why your call seemed so familiar, HI. Eventually the program will allow for peer to peer connects, but for now would need to switch to another program or mode. 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > Rick, I hear you station pinging are you running a server I will try > to connect to you ?. I also am hearing VE7SUN some times. > >
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?
Hi Howard, During the daytime, 160, 80, and sometimes 40 meters are NVIS capable depending upon world location, but for sure 40 meters is usually open for lower angle distances and can be very good. NVIS just means that you can get the close in stations as well as more distant station, so there is no skip zone. Linux has not been very successful here in the U.S. with most ham computer users. Even the ones who are very techy, such as myself, find it mediocre as an operating system. Several of my ham friends have tried it over the years too and abandoned it. A nearby ham, who is very tech oriented decided a few months ago that he was going to really get into Linux, until he really tried it and realized it just was not going to work for him and he is an electronics engineer. That has been the case with most other hams I know and some of us, myself included, really, really, wanted to like the OS, even with its shortcomings. But it just has not been very practical at this point because like so many things in life, the trade-offs are too great:( 73, Rick, KV9U Howard Brown wrote: > GM Rick, > > I have been listening for PSKmail stations for some time. NVIS could > be valuable at times but it would also be useful to have servers > available on 40 and 80 meters under current conditions. These servers > would be reachable from distances greater than NVIS and compensate for > weak propagation in the 100 to 500 mile range. > > I think the guys in Europe are way ahead of us with this software. > They don't seem to be so afraid of Linux. > > Howard K5HB > > ---- > *From:* Rick W > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:22:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server? > > If PSKmail becomes popular here in the U.S., we will likely have many > more servers than at present. Something that has been lacking with all > other systems is the minimal use of the lower bands for NVIS operation. > As long as there is a path close to (but not exceeding) the MUF, the > signal quality will often be the best, but the longer paths may not be > open, when shorter ones are open most of the time. > > We have at least one group here in my state that attempts to use an 80 > meter 300 baud packet BBS but I know they have a lot of retries and > probably time outs with the messages not always getting through on NVIS. > This means that other protocols need to be developed since PSK250 is > probably no better and maybe not quite as good as 2FSK300? > > Another thought is it possible to use PSKmail on VHF? It would seem > like a good fit for moderate distance communication, local to maybe 100 > miles? Maybe even with FM and vertical polarization, which 99% of active > hams already have available? Has anyone tried this in EU or other parts > of the world? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Russell Blair wrote: > > Rick, well the only I have heard today was VE7SUN @12:00 UTC, 30m > > seems dead hr in Texas. > > Russell > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.35/2034 - Release Date: 04/01/09 > 06:06:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?
If PSKmail becomes popular here in the U.S., we will likely have many more servers than at present. Something that has been lacking with all other systems is the minimal use of the lower bands for NVIS operation. As long as there is a path close to (but not exceeding) the MUF, the signal quality will often be the best, but the longer paths may not be open, when shorter ones are open most of the time. We have at least one group here in my state that attempts to use an 80 meter 300 baud packet BBS but I know they have a lot of retries and probably time outs with the messages not always getting through on NVIS. This means that other protocols need to be developed since PSK250 is probably no better and maybe not quite as good as 2FSK300? Another thought is it possible to use PSKmail on VHF? It would seem like a good fit for moderate distance communication, local to maybe 100 miles? Maybe even with FM and vertical polarization, which 99% of active hams already have available? Has anyone tried this in EU or other parts of the world? 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > Rick, well the only I have heard today was VE7SUN @12:00 UTC, 30m > seems dead hr in Texas. > Russell >
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?
Not able to get much of that happening here. The only server station has been wb5con so far. I pick up some other calls but not sure what they are doing. Just saw kd4qcl and seconds later saw kd5umw de kd5wdq. Maybe calling each other on the same frequency? I am hoping that as I use it more, and we have an increasing number of active servers, this system could become very practical by having one program that can help with multiple needs. As I have said before, having one program that can do what otherwise would require many different programs, would make this a very useful digital system. 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: > > The latest version 0.3.3 ca already do a lot more... > > This is from the wiki: > Send APRS Posit > Send APRS message > Send APRS email > Send ping > Send Link packet to server > Receive APRS message > Receive short email on APRS > Receive weather (or other) bulletins automatically and store them. > Set APRS Icon > Set APRS Beacon Period (10, 30, 60 mins) > Set APRS status message > GPS connection (RS232 and USB) > > ARQ terminal mode: > Get your mail from ISP (e.g. gmail) > Send mail via ISP > List, download and read files on the server (tell the sysop what you need) > Telnet to any computer on the internet, e.g. your packet mailbox > Get special info depending on your location from the web like: > - tide information > - List of APRS stations > - List of messages on findu > - For RV'ers a list of parking lots in a radius of 5 Miles from your location > (EU only) > - The latest wx bulletin > - Grib files for zyGrib > - Latest IAC fleetcode file for zyGrib > > etc, etc, etc... as PKSmail is a free decentralized system the sysops > determine > what info is available on the servers. You will have to bribe the system > operators to get your specific stuff on it. > In EU we got this organized so the same info is available on various servers, > and is updated several times a day. > Any info not on the server can be called from the web > > This is what you see when asking a files list from PI4TUE: > atlantic 2009-04-01 10:12 8398 > DL-wetter 2009-04-01 10:12 4042 > highseas_uk 2009-04-01 10:12 10734 > Kanal-Gibraltar 2009-04-01 10:12 61078 > kueste 2009-04-01 10:12 1379 > MMost 2009-04-01 10:12 22566 > MMwest 2009-04-01 10:12 24980 > navtex-dutch 2009-04-01 10:12 1529 > navtex-emden 2009-04-01 10:12 5547 > navtex-rostock 2009-04-01 10:12 3469 > nordostsee 2009-04-01 10:12 28575 > pings.log 2009-04-01 11:25 226 > Stationsmeldungen 2009-04-01 10:12 1513 > wx-dutch 2009-04-01 10:12 958 > > Mostly information for our sailing friends, and in various languages > > I am sure your imagination is able to extend this list... > > 73, > > Rein PA0R > > BTW, when I send a ping on 10148.0 here I get 5 servers answering... > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.34/2032 - Release Date: 03/31/09 > 06:02:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?
I am not that knowledgeable about PSKmail yet, but from what I understand, if I go to the APRS tab and use the Ping button, any server stations on frequency that can hear me will respond back. So far, the only station that has ever responded has been WB5CON. At this moment, of the seven listed USA servers (includes Alaska), only WB5CON, KD5WDQ, and KD4QCL may be active based on the PSKmail server web status. WB5CON is about 750 miles from my location and on 30 meters that is about right for daytime propagation. The other callsign I have seen that I think is attempting to connect, or is connecting to WB5CON, is KD5UMW from TX. I am not completely understanding what you can do with PSKmail such as listing files, etc. Not much happens when I connect but maybe my connection is not good enough? I realize that the Windows version is not fully operational at this time, but it gives you a taste of the system. The peer to peer feature of PSKmail is not available so you would have to connect with a server only. The ability to connect to a peer is vital from my perspective since I am primarily interested in the public service/emergency capabilities of these kinds of systems. Otherwise, you need multiple systems for e-mail, peer to peer, local servers, etc. and it is rare to find enough hams who are willing to do this. Our local group is trying to piggyback off a "resurgence" of SSB activity here in the northern midwest U.S. to see if we can get interest in digital VHF FM using vertical polarization with Domino EX or any digital modes for that matter. If it proves possible to get some interest, we might be able to expose new hams to other alternatives. Only a tiny number have the slightest interest, but you have to start somewhere. 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > Rick, I saw your call wile I was listening on 10.148 PSK250 is that a > server your. I'm looking for a call to try to connect to. >
Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?
Since so few hams need to install servers, perhaps this could be one of the rare exceptions where some of us might consider actually dedicating a computer to Linux, for this special application? Most hams here in the U.S. would likely be accessing the server with a MS Windows based OS as that becomes available. If PSKmail became popular, we might need a fair number of servers, although some could be on standby. If I understand PSKmail correctly, it is possible to set up ad hoc servers as needed. You do not have the centralized politics that is done by design with other systems. Individuals and groups use their independent judgment when and where placement is made for a server. For example, some servers could be on standby and be activated for an emergency situation. You could also use MF and NVIS type operation that is not done much with other systems although it may require a better protocol than PSK for consistent results. 73, Rick, KV9U Andy obrien wrote: > Is the software for the PSKMAIL sever side Linux based only ? I > thought it would be useful if we had half-dozen more servers in North > America but having to run Linux may dissuade some. > > Andy K3UK > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CLOVER 2000 vs. WINLINK 2000
No one I know uses the HAL product, but it appears from their web information that they have several software packages that can provide peer to peer mail, chat, and gateway to the internet. Since the cost is prohibitive for casual amateur use, it is unlikely that you will find others to connect with. Also, I did not find Clover II to be all that good for weak signals and Clover 2000 is doubling the number of tones, using a much wider footprint, and doubling the speed of the tones. If you needed an automated e-mail connection, the Winlink 2000 system would be the only practical one for right now, with PSKmail as an alternative since it looks like a full functioning Windows system is being developed in addition to the current Linux version. Unlike Winlink 2000, PSKmail has additional peer to peer features and avoids the overly centralized nature of Winlink 2000 for HF server ad hoc capabilities. If PSKmail were to eventually adopt the WINMOR protocol or some other more robust protocol that could adjust for conditions, it could prove to be a very good solution to handling e-mail as well as local peer to peer connections. We are not quite there yet with the kinds of systems that I would like to see, but we are making some significant progress. 73, Rick, KV9U scottfike71 wrote: > So, from what you are saying, it sounds to me like with a CLOVER 2000 setup > there needs to be two users with the same HAL modem and same HAL e-mail > software, and only then they can pass e-mail back and forth to each other > only and not to and from the internet? > > With such a setup, can one user forward an e-mail from his buddy onto the > internet some way? > >
Re: [digitalradio] CLOVER 2000 vs. WINLINK 2000
Hi Scott, Clover 2000 (circa 1995) is a wide bandwidth version of Clover II (circa 1992) and is may be used by a few agencies. It uses proprietary hardware/firmware similar to Pactor 2 and 3 with 8 tones at a baud rate of 62.5. I don't know if it is still used by American Red Cross, but at one time they were advertised as using it. The modem cost in 2007 was $1500, so it is not something you would find on the ham bands unless someone had it available to them from some other source. HAL sells Clover Mail software, but this is very expensive, like most HAL products, and probably is intended between two users. Winlink 2000 is "system" of various protocols that can be used on VHF using packet radio, or HF using Pactor. Clover II used to be used along with Pactor on the Winlink world wide HF BBS system, but this was phased out when they transitioned to the Winlink 2000 e-mail system. So Clover 2000 is more of a hardware/firmware modem and Winlink 2000 is a system using several protocols although the proprietary HF modems are quite costly. A new sound card approach is being developed, but is not yet ready for deployment. 73, Rick, KV9U scottfike71 wrote: > I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between two global HF e-mail > systems and need some help. What is the advantages and disadvantages and > differences between CLOVER 2000 and WINLINK 2000? Why would I invest in a > CLOVER 2000 setup versus a WINLINK 2000 setup? Any and all comments > appreciated. > > Thanks, > KC0BUS > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
I liked it better back in the early 1960's when I was in Navy MARS with the call N0YUI. Of course, today that has been reissued as a ham call. HI 73, Rick, KV9U David Little wrote: > Paul, > > Glad to hear Navy is giving it a try. > > The rest is grossly off-topic, but I feel the need to expand my > understanding. > > On the Zero, it is a sore point across services, as is the full call > debacle on initial check in that I believe came from Bo's influence. > > I can declare abbreviated calls are authorized, before I establish > ANCS, and take 5 to 8 check ins per minute with out duplicate > transmissions. > > In many cases, using abbreviated calls, I can get an entire working > net of about 20 stations, establish ANCS, make the call for emergency > or priority traffic, have ANCS make the same call, and have 54 minutes > for training, administrative business or emergency net operation. > > Since we have to use full phonetics (Our prefixes are more complex > than NNN), and we never fall back to Abbreviated Call Signs (Our > prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we never give a call sign > non-phonetically (our prefixes are more complex than NNN), and we use > FEMA Region designators to be able to geographically determine the > effectiveness of the net (our prefixes are more complex than > NNN0) We find that the attempt to require full call signs on > initial check in to be a surefire way to create Chaos. > > Also, in preferring the concept of training the way we would operate > in an emergency, we have generally found that requiring full calls to > NCS, when the net can only have ONE NCS is as well thought out as > being asked if we want fries with our fries, when we just order fries. > > One day, I may be fully expanded enough in mind and maturity to fully > understand the full call requirement. > > I'll bet you guys are still laughing about that part of the new voice SOP. > > Bravo Zulu, > > David > KD4NUE / AAM4__ > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Although Easypal is currently the primary digital SSTV program , it also can be used to transmit any kind of data. A very experienced digital ham took me to task a while back for making this claim since he understood it to always compress data with a lossy characteristic and could not be used for something that could not tolerate any loss. Of course he did not realize that the program provides for both kinds of data. The current digital SSTV programs moved hams (almost overnight) from RDFT to what must be DRM QAM and seems to be the most successful scheme for the minimum speed needed for a reasonable time in transmitting images of the size and resolution that has become common. In fact, as I was writing this, the SSTV group on 7.173, which is very active here in the U.S., was sending a text message in the past minute or so, discussing the coming April Fool's computer virus. Ironically, they are probably operating illegally since text data is not legal to send on the phone/image portions of the bands. But then again maybe it can be called a Fax transmission? If that is true though, then why could not any other multitone digital mode be considered fax? Why not a two tone mode? Why not a single tone mode? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > - > >> As an aside, if you really want to see something that is slick, give Easy >> Pal a shot for sending text. Also ultra high resolution pictures with no >> scan lines that occupy 20KB of data on each end. 90 seconds to send or >> receive, with the ability to only request the individual blocks that weren't >> received properly to be sent again. We are also utilizing it in MARS. >> >> As I said, I am still optimistic, >> >> David >> KD4NUE >> > > > David, I am interested to learn of this. Rick , myself , and several others > in this group played around with EasyPal a year or so ago, we also thought it > had interesting uses for file transfers. How it are MARS folks accepting > EasyPal? > > Andy K3UK > >
[digitalradio] Factual information on SCAMP
I don't think anyone was more of a promoter of SCAMP, and certainly supporting the FCC rules of not intentionally interfering with others, than I was. I found the protocol to be brilliant and it worked extremely well with good signals, especially close to the MUF as we expected it would since it used the RDFT protocol which at the time won a major award for technical prowess. It also did not work much below +8 or so dB SNR as we expected, since this was well known from its main use as a protocol for SSTV. Reducing the baud rate from 122 might have helped, but instead, the organization completely abandoned everyone and shut down the discussion group and the software was designed for self destruction, so others could not do any further development or more likely, could not use it for other high speed amateur radio purposes. Almost no one cared, so it does suggest to me that the main purpose of these technologies will continue to be RF e-mail. And it, forever (I had thought anyway) ended the absurd claim that it was technically too difficult to design a detection system that could respond to all modes and modulations. The fact is that it just plain worked. Anyone who claims otherwise has either never actually used it, or more likely has some kind of agenda. As Bill, WD8ARZ points out, this system, and for that matter, any other system that has detection of a busy frequency, would of course not operate if the frequency was busy. In fact, it would not operate if there was a steady carrier caused by a birdie or other spur from perhaps your own computer, HI. I pointed this out to the group at the time and this could have been easily adjusted for by having a timer that ignored steady carriers after "x" time period. One thing that it did not do was cause the throughput to drop back once it was operating. Once SCAMP had the frequency, it ignored further signals. After all, if the frequency is not in use and you begin transmitting, the frequency is now your frequency until you decide to quit operating. All unintentional or even intentional interference would do would be to require a longer time to get the message through or in extreme cases time out the ARQ sequence. SCAMP also had a variable setting to manually adjust the trigger point at when it would consider something to be a bona fide signal that could be interfered with. If you set it too high, it could false from just background noise, so it did require human intervention to tweak it. No system is perfect (just like imperfect human operators) but would likely work better than many humans since it does not involve the emotional component of humans. The administrator at Winlink 2000 does not support busy frequency detection of their existing system and has publicly stated this with the rationale that malicious operators would shut down their e-mail system. It does seem a bit difficult to believe that there are that many individuals spending their time interfering in this manner. 73, Rick, KV9U HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) WD8ARZ wrote: > Hello Dave, I was there during those scamp beta testing adventures too > . and I remember that part of the evaluation. Various levels were played > with, akin to a sensitivity level. Bottom line to me was that when the level > made it 'work' ie, not transmit when the frequency was 'active', throughput > dropped way back Remember those that would intentionally put 'activity' > on the frequency to kick in the transmit control system so we had zero > activity with scamp > > No cynicism involved at all, just the real world. > > 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ > (Grateful for those who are doing for all of us what they do, giving us what > we have today hi) > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave AA6YQ" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham > rules > > > >> re "The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the >> naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled." >> >> I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency >> detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic when he agreed to give it a shot, >> and >> thrilled by the effectiveness demonstrated during the SCAMP beta; even >> Rick >> was surprised by the results. When SCAMP disappeared and WinLink failed to >> upgrade its PMBOs with the SCAMP busy frequency detector, cynicism >> returned. >> Many concluded that the WinLink organization simply prefers to keep "its" >> PMBO frequencies clear by QRMing "trespassers", rather than having to wait >> for the frequency to become available. >> > snip snip > >> 73, >> Dave, AA6YQ >> > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > >
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
David, The thing that I find particularly attractive about WINMOR is that it is an open sound card protocol and it can be used in three forms: 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 2000 Hz modes. Putting this capability together with its automatic adaptibility for conditions, it may be the break though of the year for e-mail messaging. It will not require user knowledge of error correction and FEC, etc., since that will be done automatically, just like it was for the SCAMP mode a number of years ago. What it may not have is the emergency features that I see in PSKmail which is peer to peer messaging and chat along with ad hoc server deployment which can never be possible with Winlink 2000. Put the right protocol with the right solutions and you have a fantastic synergy not possible with any other protocol. I don't think that many of us can agree with you about new sound card modes not having a future on ham radio unless they are of a certain type. They just have to be the right protocol that solves an actual need. 60 meters is off the table at this point since you can not even use emergency data modes on those frequencies. What may die is Pactor modes. Having one protocol sourced by one foreign entity is not a good thing. Open source solutions are a good thing. Will many hams use and actually practice using NBEMS? Thus far I have had no luck in my local and regional area. But then again, I can not even get the NTS folks to consider digital messaging other than Pactor, HI. I don't have any interest in NTIA and no one in our area is much involved with non amateur emergency traffic. I suspect that many areas have the same situation. But I appreciate your comments and they are important issues to discuss. 73, Rick, KV9U Moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) yahoogroup David Little wrote: > Skip, > > I use FLARQ and FLDigi on the FT-2000 Data Management Unit, when I > boot it from Linux. > > It allows me to do digital modes without an external computer. The > DMU also is networked via Ethernet. > > I was looking at MT-63 2K with FLARQ when WINMOR was announced, but > since it was a 2K wide protocol, I never gave it any more > consideration, as it would just be treated as the same annoyance, just > with different tonal qualities. > > Winlink has no future on Amateur radio spectrum. > > Anything more complex than RTTY or BPSK has little future on Amateur > spectrum. > > Other than a small core of folks willing to take the time to learn > something about ARQ, FEC, redundancy, error correction, and what makes > up a dependable transport layer - There is little future of any > digital mode with the complexity necessary to be efficient in times of > need. > > I do wish you well. I applaud what you are doing, but you are playing > to a hostile crowd if you expect to deploy any digital mode more > complex than RTTY or PSK on the Amateur Radio Spectrum. No matter > what it is, what it sounds like, what it carries, where it is going, > or where it came from; it is "Automated" or "Common Carrier" traffic. > Even the legitimate traffic on frequencies that amateur radio is the > secondary user of; same thing; always "automated" or "common > carrier". A very intelligent mantra, often used to describe > legitimate traffic by the primary users. > > The Common Carrier and Automated crowd are really having a hard time > dealing with 60m, and the majority of them haven't been able to find > it yet > > As I have stated before, I will use the amateur spectrum to do the > radio checks, and the NTIA spectrum to move the traffic. > > At present, I can handle the entire County EOC with one rig and > antenna, while having another rig and antenna devoted to Voice > operations. We have both Pactor III and Sound Card modes there, > multiple rigs, multiple antennas and in the same room as the 911 > operators and dispatchers. the EOC is a 5 second walk away in the > same building, and I can run much of the station remotely from a VPN > within the EOC complex. > > We have similar stations, with similar capabilities purchased for the > 2 hospitals. > > I have a similar (only better) station at home; currently minus Pactor > III, which I sold my SCS gear last year in anticipation of WINMOR. If > I can pick up another SCS controller reasonable, I will add it back > into my portable kit. > > We will have communications with the Air National Guard that will > handle distribution to the POD sites, as well as the NECN (National > Emergency Communications Network) which will give direct contact with > FEMA, the State EMA and all the alphabet soup entities. Outside of > that, traffic can be moved via voice on SHARES to the same entities, > then by voice or digital on the MARS circuit, and locally via VHF to > the amateur frequencies. We have licensed County police radio cars, > as well as portable VHF stations with antenna launchi
Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help
Agreed that this is the best approach. Do you find that a given rig (such as an ICOM 756 Pro series) that is supported by Hamlib, will work with some rigs and not with others of the same exact model and set up? I have used the West Mountain RigTalk interface and my homebrew interface for the rig control portion with very good results on my ICOM rigs, using the CI-V. All of the rigs that I have tested so far are ones that support PTT via CI-V interface. In fact, I would not longer purchase a rig that can not do this. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > > I still don't understand why anyone would want the increased > > complication of using RigCat if the Hamlib works well for you. There > are > > no files to put anywhere. It just works for me. I think I tried it on > > one of my wife's ICOM IC-7000 rigs, and I could also test it on my ICOM > > 746 Pro as well. \ > > If Hamlib works fine, use it, of course, but if it does not, and your > rig is supported by an xml file, or if you can modify an xml file to > suit your transceiver if it is not yet supported, RigCat provides a > way out of the problem. Unfortunately, Hamlib does not work right for > all listed transceivers - just for some. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help
I have been using the ICOM 756 Pro II and Pro III transceivers with flidig for some time now with Hamlib. I think it still shows alpha status in some cases. I know someone suggested contacting the hamlib group to advise them that it seems to work well. When I went to their web page I was unable to find any contact point other than to the group. Of course when I did that it blocked me, but hopefully someone sees it and I recommended that if they want feedback, they need to have some way for us to provide this feedback. Maybe I missed it, but if I did, perhaps it needs to be more prominently displayed. I still don't understand why anyone would want the increased complication of using RigCat if the Hamlib works well for you. There are no files to put anywhere. It just works for me. I think I tried it on one of my wife's ICOM IC-7000 rigs, and I could also test it on my ICOM 746 Pro as well. \ As Andy has mentioned, you MUST check the PTT diamond to insure that works. I recently was testing an alpha version and for some reason it did not keep the same parameters from an earlier version. I forgot to check if the PTT diamond was activated until I tried the next version and realized that I was missing something, HI. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > Russell, > > If you look at the fldigi HamLib selections, the TS-450S is listed as > a "beta" version (which means it probably does not work! hi!) > > Instead try using RigCat with fldigi and download the TS-450 xml file > from this link: http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html > > Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files, configure for RigCat > (the diamonds are sorta faint, so be sure they have color if need to > be checked) and see if that works. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net >
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tried calling CQ with Contestia 16/1000 when I first saw your e-mail post. Right now at ~ 0050Z I heard you and could only copy bits and pieces with Contestia. Switched to MFSK16 but probably not fully locked in with Multipsk which I have not used as much and more familiar with fldigi's way of teaking that mode, so tried to switch to fldigi but using new alpha software and for some reason can not get the new version to do PTT:( Can hear the signal now, but very weak (not moving the S-meter) but probably would work OK for Olivia 16/500 and maybe MFSK16 if I had HRD/DM780 up. Maybe you could try Contestia 500/16 which is about 3 dB better sensitivity. The problem with the wider Contestia is that it is not as sensitive, maybe -9 dB SNR so will not work as well with weak signals as other modes. Also, nearly impossible to tune in since you have to guesstimate where to put the cursors even though you are close to 14108 +1000 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > Skip, > > The band is in great shape this evening (as of 23:30 utc) but there > doesn't seem to be any Contestia / MT63 ops around. I'll be QRV on > 14108.0 USB for while. > > Glad to help out and I'll be sure to switch between modes quickly to > avoid band changes. > > Tony -K2MO > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
When the FCC uses the term "of the same modulation type," that would be the first symbol of the ITU Emission Classification system or the "main carrier modulation." Thus, if you are using SSB as the primary modulation then you are limited to what is considered a communications quality signal. As amateur practices have improved over the years, this is quite narrow, often not a lot more than 2000 Hz depending upon the transmitter. Needless to say, modes wider than communications quality are not permitted by the FCC on most of the HF bands since the whole point is to use amateur radio friendly modes that are spectrum efficient. The FCC requires that we use "good amateur practice" as our guide. Further, most of us are also going to also take into consideration and abide by the IARU Region 2 Band Plan which does not allow any modes wider than 2700 Hz below 29.000 MHz in the RTTY/Data portions of those bands. Before the advent of multitone modems, we had 2 tone FSK modems. Initially, the spacing of the mark and space tones was as much as 850 Hz. As technology improved, ham friendly technology allowed the reduction to narrower shifts and is now typically 170 Hz with a few modems using 200 Hz. But the intent for the maximum 1000 Hz shift was clearly to keep the bandwidth narrow. After the development of many multitone modes, the FCC reinterpreted the rules to consider the baud rate of an individual tone, rather than overall baud rate. This means that single tone modems such as MIL-STD-188-110A are illegal to use in the U.S. RTTY/Data portions because they use 2400 baud at all times, independent of the actual data rate throughput. They may possibly be legal to use in the Phone/Image portions. Several of us have asked for clarification from the FCC and have been stonewalled repeatedly for quite some time. Multitone modems that use FSK typically have the tones separated by a small number of Hz and are therefore legal as long as any individual tone does not exceed 300 baud, therefore we can use modes as wide as a communications quality phone transmission in the RTTY/Data portions according to Part 97. We are limited by the transceiver capabilities since some are hard pressed to even do 2000 kHz, but with DSP and other modified equipment the passband can be greatly extended. The 2700 Hz maximum allowed under the IARU Band Plan recommendation seems about as wide as any ham friendly mode should be operating. Even then this should only be used under unusual circumstances and on a band that is not busy with other signals. Final thought ... just because you can do something, does not necessarily mean you should be doing it. 73, Rick, KV9U Tooner wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W wrote: > >> ... There is no conflict with using wide modes (FCC defined as up >> to the bandwidth of a communications quality phone transmission) >> as long as the baud rate of an individual tone does not exceed >> 300 baud. >> > > Hey Rick. Thanks for the reply! > > I think the confusion I have with "quality phone transmission" comment is the > part that says "...of the same modulation type." > > And you say the "individual tone", but I read "symbol rate" in the regs. Can > an individual tone have a baud rate? I thought the rate was how fast the > tones were being sent, like a computer modem. Or, are both quotes meaning > the same thing? > > >From what I understand, let's say, in the 20 and 40M sub-bands, the maximum > >width for a signal is 1000 wide, not as wide as phone TX. That's found > >under "§ 97.305 Authorized emission types." > > It says 20 m 14.00–14.15 MHz, RTTY, data, and refers to (3) of § 97.307(f), > which says: "The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for > frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not > exceed 1 kHz." > > Reason I ask, and I'm sorry if I sound dense, is it legal to transmit on the > digital modes sub-bands modes that are greater than 1000 wide, like Olivia > 2000? Some modes can easily be 3000 wide, but still narrower than phone > communications. > > I've not really been able to get an answer that confirms the question: > "Assuming it's in a band or sub-band that digital modes are authorized, can > we operate digital modes that are wider than 1k?" > > Thanks for the help and input! > > f, k2ncc > > > > > > 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] PSKmail QRG and features/issues
My preference would be to follow the band plan. Assuming I understand things correctly, on 30 meters it is intended that modes up to 2700 Hz remain in the 10.140 - 10.150 sub band and all narrow digimodes (500 Hz or less) in the 10.130 - 10.140, with 10.100 - 10.130 for CW. There is no comment on automatic operation on that band. Why not operate on what has been an unused part of the band from about 10.132 - 10.138? Do you hear stations operating in that part in your region? I tune around quite a bit and have found it pretty much dead. As far as busy frequency detection, I suspect that Winlink 2000 may continue with their rather open viewpoint expressed by their administrator that turning off such protection is needed due to malicious activities and because the bands are so busy. But then again maybe they will surprise us. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > Rick wrote: > > It was very difficult to actually use the frequency due to many other > > stations transmitting on top of the server and my signals. > > What! You were on the frequency first and someone transmitted over top > of you? Don't they always "listen first"? > ;-) > > Therefore, we must be very grateful for Rein's decision to stay in the > area with the other "automatic" stations, even if his signal is narrow > and could go elsewhere. However, it might be feasible to operate > PSKmail in the guardbands between Pactor-3 station assigned > frequencies with less QRM. I think that Pactor-3 seldom uses more than > 2100 Hz bandwidth, but the "channel" is 2500 Hz wide. > > I hope all future mailbox operators will be just as considerate. An > automatic station is unable to QSY, even if it could hear that it was > interferring with an ongoing QSO, because it is necessary for it to > remain on a published frequency in order to be contactable, and > besides, there is nobody present at the automatic station in order to > shift frequency. > > How long do you REALLY expect the Winmor "busy channel detector" to > stay enabled! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net > >
[digitalradio] PSKmail QRG and features/issues
Of course, about 1 minute after I sent the message, I discovered the information on the center frequency and it is as I had hoped. But ... Wow! Just tried out some of the PSKmail features and find it very interesting. Once I realized that the Ping command will bring up any of the servers that can hear you and tried it, the latency is about zero. Almost instant response from a human perspective. Then no problem connecting to the server that I kicked up. This is better than any other mail system I have used in the past. Issues/Suggestions: - It was very difficult to actually use the frequency due to many other stations transmitting on top of the server and my signals. - on the 30 meter band here in Region 2, the 10.140-10.150 area is quite busy with the wide bandwidth modes that must operate here in order to follow the band plan and FCC requirements for wide band. For example, one of the two tones of a Pactor station covered the PSK250 tone and then a MIL-STD-188-141A 8FSK125 transmission had its uppermost tone obliterating anything that tries to use a narrow mode centered on 10.148. In fact, at one point all three of us were trying to us the same frequency! - since PSK250 is just about right at 500 Hz in bandwidth, wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep PSKmail in the 10.130-10.140 area which has the band plan already designed for modes up to 500 Hz wide? We do need to keep away from the commercial?/government? RTTY station located around 10.130. - here in the U.S. stations that are operating automatically on HF can operate anyplace within the RTTY/data portions of the bands as long as the server stations only transmits when interrogated by a human operator on the other side. And I think I am correct that this is the way PSKmail works. - the other issue is the pulling of fldigi's receive frequency too far from the center frequency. I am skeptical that PSK250 is the best mode for any but good conditions since it is not very sensitive (- 2 db SNR). It will be a tremendous benefit if we can use modes such as DominoEX that would not require AFC. 73, Rick, KV9U Rick W wrote: > What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server > is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have > the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at > 10.146.5 USB dial frequency? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signs of life : PSKMail 30M
What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at 10.146.5 USB dial frequency? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Looks like I was heard...but PACTOR QRM zappled me > > RX (2009-03-21 21:02Z): a - iS r eTtaee h ae ag00cK3UK:1024 > DL9YCS-3:24 57EC1 or et va F t e 9e o letu 00cK3UK:1024 wb5con:24 > 51F55, pme00cK3UK:1024 wb5con:24 51F55 > RX (2009-03-21 21:03Z): eaeeXEoea oee e fs a i a e oe eV g 00cK3UK:1024 > wb5con:24 51F55 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63
MARS has a different situation than the ham bands since you have a dedicated phone communications bandwidth channel. And from what I hear operators can use phone and data simultaneously with MT-63. We can not do that on the ham bands below VHF here in the U.S. I normally try to keep the modes at no wider than 500 Hz unless the selected band is very poor and there are few other stations. I can see using wider modes if they worked better but 2K MT-63 is even worse than 1K in terms of sensitivity and robustness. But it does have double the speed and sometimes you need that if conditions cooperate. Contestia is not able to handle even 7 bit ASCII, so I would consider it more for casual chatting or maybe for handling NTS traffic since the lowest common denominator is likely CW where you don't have case concerns. For the highest speed ARQ sound card mode, that works the deepest into the noise, have you considered FAE400? For better conditions you could move up to FAE2000 although five times wider for maybe 2X throughput? But at least what you get through is perfect copy and you can do both keyboard chatting and messaging at the same time. I don't think you can do that with any other sound card mode other than perhaps PSKmail on Linux? If PSKmail can eventually do peer to peer on MS Windows OS, that could change things a bit. 73, Rick, KV9U Cortland Richmond wrote: > > In MARS nets I've noticed MT63 2000 Hz with long interleave delivering > surprisingly good performance. Here in Michigan Army MARS, we usually > choose 1000 Hz long for normal training texts, but 2K for larger files. > > Cortland > KA5S > > > -Original Message- > From: David Little > Sent: Mar 21, 2009 8:56 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: KV9U - MT63 > > Also the redundancy of the FEC treatment in MT-63 allows it to > give 100% accuracy with 25% loss of data. > > In actual use, Olivia will do better under worse conditions at a > large loss of speed. > > Contestia attempts to bridge the gap, but MT-63 gives the highest > accurate through put at the highest speed before going to an ARQ > protocol. > > David > KD4NUE > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.22/2015 - Release Date: 03/20/09 > 19:01:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Skip 14106.0 MT63 CQ CQ CQ de kh6ty kh6ty
Tony, You have done the tests and found that MT-63 is not very good at handling weak signals compared with other modes. Is you recent on air testing to determine that or some other parameters, such as ability to handle interference, etc.? By the way copying both you near noise level, and Skip, KH6TY, a bit stronger at S3-4. Tried to decode an earlier narrower mode but no luck. Was it MFSK8? 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > Skip, > > CQ CQ CQ de]kh6ty kh6ty kh6ty > CQ CQ CQ 6e kh6tN kh6ty kh6ty > CQ CQ Cy de(kh6ty kh6ty khX > > Your signal is in the noise. Hope the band changes... > > Tony -K2MO > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unable to set clock
The bands don't seem to be dead from north central U.S. I have used WWV since I was around 12 years old and still do, almost on a daily basis. Right now I can just barely hear WWV on 20 MHz, but 15 is S9 +10 dB, 10 MHz is S9 + 30 dB, and 5 MHz is S9 + 10 dB. I consider those signals to be quite good. It is farther to your location than mine, and maybe higher atmospheric noise? But the bands are certainly open to at least 20 meters. At night the frequencies go long so the lower bands should do just fine. Some upper HF frequencies will improve if sunspots come back again and we are not entering a Maunder Minimum. 73, Rick, KV9U Kim wrote: > Thanks Ken, > > I used your suggestion. I never hear WWV very often because the bands are so > dead. > > AB7JK > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 30m Olivia
Here is my assessment of what is happening with the spread out of digital modes, at least here in the U.S.: "Water holes" have been established by default, for PSK31, the most popular digital mode, and this tends to form the bottom of a "digital area." Then those of us who operate wider, more robust modes, tend to choose a frequency a bit higher, just outside of that narrower area. The RTTY hams tend to operate even higher, sometimes near the top of the text data portions although there can be a mix of modes at times. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ADES mode ?
Did he ever explain the actual mode protocol? It seems that it is more of an SSTV type of program although he does mention using it for high speed data, and even goes on to mention the potential for future ARQ. I suspect that that with the advent of RDFT and the earlier digital SSTV programs and then the rapid shift to QAM with later digital SSTV programs, it may not have worked that well? And he was focusing on FM so it may have appealed to a small subset of hams who do VHF FM images? It is very possible that the technology was embodied in the SCAMP protocol and may have worked as well or even better than ADES, especially if the VHF higher speed modes would have been further developed. You also would have HF capability for good paths since it had the speed, some adaptability, and most importantly, on the fly ARQ that worked so incredibly well with sound cards. But there are not many of us interested in this technology for high speed messaging. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > -What ever happened to this mode ? > > Here us the message from March 2001. > > Andy K3UK -- > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New modes or old modes?
We have been very fortunate to have Tony, K2MO's detailed lab testing to figure out which modes work under different conditions and it has been surprising, and actually a bit disappointing, because most digital modes can only tolerate a small amount of ISI and Doppler. I recently thought of coming up with a list of the different modes and how much they could tolerate but the list is so short. A number of modes will work with significant SNR when conditions are pristine, but as Tony showed, once you have even 2 ms of ISI or 1 Hz of Doppler at a test point of -8 SNR, MFSK16 and Olivia 500/16 seem to be the main modes that keep working. And this includes even worse conditions with 3ms/10 Hz, and 6 ms/10 Hz. He even found 20 wpm CW to be iffy under some of the more difficult conditions. At 7 ms/30 Hz at -3dB (not -8 dB) it was CW 20 wpm and Olivia 500/16 and 500/8. This explains why you sometimes don't have good print on a number of modes, yet it seems like a reasonably good signal. Some modes, such as Domino and THOR were supposed to handle severe ISI, but they don't seem to be able to work well under Tony's tests, even under the lightest amount of ionospheric disturbance. Maybe some one can explain that? If our sunspot situation really is a Maunder Minimum wouldn't that be interesting not. 73, Rick, KV9U Christian Crayton wrote: > > > It's also difficult, in my experience, to find a lot of objective > analysis of the modes on the Internet. > > > - - - - - > > MFSK16 seems like a good all-around mode, and MFSK31 also shows promise. > I don't hear a lot of activity in these modes, but then I also have > poor, inside antennas. I'm not sure which will improve first, my > antenna or the sunspot count. :) > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] New modes or old modes?
Truthfully, Christian, my goal is to find the modes that work the best under different conditions. There are not that many. The most common mode of PSK31 is not that good really, although is very narrow and easy to tune and use. But it is not very robust. RTTY is not the best for robustness either. So I rarely work those modes. I like MFSK16 if both stations have good frequency stability, since it is about the narrowest robust mode with good throughput. In order to get Olivia to work well, you need to use at least the 500 Hz wide version and the 16 tone has very slow throughput and has similar robustness to MFSK16. Sometimes Olivia may work better, sometimes not. But it is easier to tune in and decode. When we use some of the newest modes, such as Domino EX and THOR, for all practical purposes aren't we using a modern version of piccolo and other similar FSK modes? My understanding is that they improve upon those older modes that go back to the 1950's and 1960's, prior to computers. The oldest technology that still works well and is the simplest is definitely CW and I sometimes use that mode. Even though there is a fraction of the number of ops as there once were, you can pretty much figure a near 100% chance of a contact on a band that is even slightly open, HI. For the best chat (and simultaneously messaging) mode, I like FAE400 but you will rarely find anyone else who will use it. It is only available on Multipsk which may be part of the reason. If it was on the other multimode programs, I think you might find it used more. This evening I noticed a 500 Hz wide MT-63 station on 80 meters, but it is not that robust and selective fading was hurting the print that I monitored. I had no takers after trying THOR, DominoEX, and FAE400, but I do try every so often and sometimes will work a station. 73, Rick, KV9U Christian Crayton wrote: > If you could experiment with a mode for the first time, would you rather > try a new mode like Thor, or an old-school mode like CROWD or Piccolo? > I've been thinking about fiddling with FFT and programming, and have > thought about bringing some of the original digital modes used by > various diplomatic and military organizations back to life. A bit like > Hell, but not that old school... > > I always get stuck between old and new, I guess that one of the things I > like about amateur radio. There's about a 100-year technology range > that you can play with in one afternoon! > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 6M Digital Activity
Some thoughts on VHF digital activity: Since the main participants are likely to be from this group, could we specify a spot frequency as well as mode? Maybe use something above the calling frequency but not too close to the phone operators? Perhaps 50.150 (easy to remember, HI) Some might consider RS-ID (send and receive) so that using a different mode might still get results. This is now available on several multimode digital programs. 73, Rick, KV9U jaakhohensee wrote: > What modes for 6m better? I use QRP-power in rare grid (most wanted) and > what is the best mode? DominoEX or Thor? Or Olivia? or... > > Jaak > es1hj/qrp >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
Although I don't necessarily accept the idea that any of the modes, digital or analog, can be considered inherently evil, my main concern is whether they have value for various amateur interests. Clearly, ragchewers, contesters, weak signal folks and all other niches have their specific mode(s) of interest. As long as they follow the rules, we should not fault them. Although I partake of these things in moderation, a significant focus is whether ham radio is useful for public service and if so, how to improve on it . Digital modes can be useful, but so can analog. I do have concerns about the use of our very finite HF resource specific being used to provide commercial e-mail routing. Although I favor allowing it so that it may be available for some lower priority public service traffic, we must not lose sight of far overreaching even liberal interpretation of the rules. Otherwise it becomes contrary to non commercial use of the ham bands. Ask yourself this practical question, and I have tried this myself: If you are trying to make a contact out of your immediate area, (and maybe not that far), whether for fun, public service, emergency, or whatever, how would you be able to do it almost anytime 24/7/365? It probably won't happen on VHF, assuming you are close enough to reach someone. It won't happen on e-mail as there would be no one to read it at all times. But it will happen on the lower HF bands barring a total ionospheric disturbance. Even then there is almost always someone on at all times. If you operate CW, then you increase your chances even more. This really became clear this fall with the hiker in the remote part of the Pacific NorthWest who broke his leg. Even though he received help from passing hikers, it would take several days for them to reach the authorities to help evacuate him. With his CW rig he was able to make contact and get help by the next morning. No other system can do that. If I need to raise help, even if it is 2 am, I can be almost assured of making a contact on one of the bands, and although it might be a digital mode if I have a computer and interface, CW or SSB would be far more likely. Once you make contact, others can be alerted and you may be able to switch to a digital mode to pass traffic, if you have ops on both ends who are savvy enough to do this. We may not yet have the best error free sound card modes, but we are fortunate in getting a lot better in the past year with NBEMS (which can use a number of protocols) and FAE40 (which although is not used in an ALE format, uses a modified MIL-STD-188-141A ALE protocol). 73, Rick, KV9U Christian Crayton wrote: >> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? >> > > I think there are several issues at play here. > > On one hand are the proponents of mode x, who think it's the best mode, and > will argue its superiority in the face of any logic or reason. That's a > technology thing. It's no different than PC vs Mac, Icom vs Yaesu vs Kenwood > vs Orion vs Ten Tec, etc. > > When it comes to Winlink 2000 and ALE the main issue, at least with me, is > that modes dehumanize Amateur Radio. > > ALE and email are the two technologies most directly related to the > elimination of human radio operators in commercial communications. That's > what they were designed to do. Many amateurs are ex-commercial radio > operators and have every right to despise these modes. > > Take the idea of emergency communications in amateur radio. This started > because hams had the capability and skill to provide communications, so it > was natural to help out in times of need. But a new school of people only > interested in emergency communications, wanting to use HF radio and not > interested in learning the skills required of a good operator, turn to > Winlink 2000 and ALE. > > Winlink 2000 and ALE are a cancer to amateur radio. They are evil because > they represent machines talking to machines, and we have too much of that in > this world already. > > If amateur radio is not about people talking to people, then what are we in > this for? Most hams I know don't really have a beef with digital modes as > long as they are used to hold a QSO between human operators. It's when the > mode supports machine to machine communications that people get mad. > > Just my opinion, but I think digital modes will get a better reputation if we > successfully communicate what they are really good for. For example: with my > antenna and power restrictions I am only able to communicate with other hams > at all via digital modes. For me, they are the Great Equalizer. > > >
[digitalradio] Mode selection
John, You have brought this up before, but I am like most hams and try to do the right thing. I use wide modes, narrow modes, and in between modes. Much depends upon who you are trying to contact and the current conditions. If I want to work a PSK31 or CW station, then of course I will be narrow as can be. If conditions are terrible on 80 meters and not much else is on, then I may use Olivia, even using the wider formats, but mostly to test and see if they really work better. Not long ago I parked down on 160 around 1807 and answered a ham calling CQ on Olivia (500 Hz). He was almost shocked that there really were hams using digital modes down there, HI. Rules of thumb that I have been trying to follow, and I hope more hams will give serious consideration: - Follow the IARU recommendations. Here in the U.S. we don't absolutely have to follow it, but it sounds like some countries are required to do so. For example, I don't intentionally use modes wider than 200 Hz below 3580, 7035, 10140, 14070, etc. I may have forgotten, but it was not intentional and I keep a copy of the IARU band plan available for reference. (Note: 500 Hz digital modes are in the IARU band plan on the lower few kHz of 160, but that is a rare exception). - if conditions are bad, and there are few stations on the band, then wider modes may be more appropriate. Then again they may work against you, depending upon their design. - I generally prefer modes that are under 500 Hz. Partly because they increase spectrum efficiency so that there can be more simultaneous users. I totally disagree with those who believe that having the widest and faster possible mode is more "efficient" on a shared, non-channelized resource such as we have on the ham bands. - The medium bandwidth modes often work better than the very wide ones or the very narrow ones. Partly that is due to being newer technology, but also because having many simultaneous tones spread out over a wide area (OFDM) just does not work well under difficult conditions since individual tones are necessarily of reduced strength. As a good example, Pactor 3 drops down to only two tones, although separated by something around 700 Hz, when it goes to its most robust speed level. Another example is comparing the older 8FSK125 MIL-STD-188-141A "ALE" mode to the 8FSK50 FAE400 mode. Even though the FAE400 modes is very much narrower by at least 5 times, with greatly increased spectrum sharing, it actually works much more robustly and can have higher throughput than the extremely wide 141A mode unless conditions are good enough to allow the 141A mode to get through. Even then the 141A mode is not 5 times faster (maybe 2X) under the very best of conditions. - Other factors include what other hams are willing to operate and since expensive hardware is relatively rare you won't find many contacts with those modes, and it does not work well for local/regional public service/emergency use which is a large part of my interest since almost no other operators have those types of modes. I only returned to digital modes when sound card technologies became available and I suspect that is true for most other digital operators. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Oh thank the Gods, Here I was thinking that you was one of the > anti wide - anti hardware type guys, > > > At 04:07 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote: > >> I am not necessarily opposed to other hams using Pactor modes, but the >> one issue that is consistently ignored seems to be the transmission of >> fax/image data when using the wide bandwidth modes. If kept at 500 Hz or >> less, the changes in the rules a few years back finally allows fax/image >> to used in the RTTY/Data areas. But it does not allow it for any modes >> greater than 500 Hz such as when using P3. >>
Re: [digitalradio] NTS Digital
Hi Dave, I have heard of the use of MT-63 for many years on MARS circuits, but don't think I had heard about the digital SSTV program being used. It makes tremendous sense since they are often involved in sending bulletins to their members. With one to many it is possible to have 100% ARQ with EasyPal although it is after the fact ARQ. A bit cumbersome, but practical for insuring a group receives exactly correct data. Unfortunately U.S. hams can not use mixed phone and text digital in the HF bands unless they are sending fax/image. Since most of the NTS traffic is short text messages, we can not do that in the phone areas, so we have to confine it to the RTTY/data portions. 73, Rick, KV9U David Little wrote: > Rick, > > Army MARS is using MT-63 on mixed mode nets with some regularity. > > We also use Olivia when conditions warrant the slower speed of > transmission. > > Easypal is also being used for picture transmission, as well as text > broadcasts. > > David > KD4NUE > >
[digitalradio] NTS Digital
Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in past years (now SK) was involved at some level, perhaps Pactor. At least one of the daytime region voice nets is struggling to survive. I suspect that CW nets are having some similar problems and if not, they surely will have as more CW competent OTs become SK. I don't see anywhere near enough new hams becoming proficient in CW and also having an interest in traffic handling. So I suggested that if there was any interest, maybe we could try using some of the new technologies that have only recently become available to us. That means either using an extremely robust mode such as Olivia which can compete with CW from some of my experiences, or using an ARQ mode with NBEMS or possibly Multipsk's FAE400. Eventually, it is possible that WINMOR may become available for peer to peer but that is likely far into the future from what they are saying. Are any of the NTS digital stations using sound card modes or are they staying with the NTS/D (actually the old Winlink system) and Pactor? Any recommendations, or even better, any actual experiences with getting area, region, or even section nets using some of the newer digital sound card modes? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
What I would like to know is what "negativity and misinformation" was even mentioned. From now on lets be fair about making such statements by actually quoting the alleged negative and misinformed statement so the rest of us can make an informed decision whether such claims are even appropriate. Sometimes individuals making such statements are reflecting their fears and negativity in their own minds and extrapolate it far beyond what is reasonable. Thank you. Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations > that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has > nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular > mode (Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as you say > there's a lot of misinformation being propagated. > > Its particularly disgusting when the defenders of "transmitting without > listening" characterize any criticism of it as "anti-innovative". In point of > fact, the application of 3-year old technology would largely mitigate the > problem. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > wrote: > >> Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? >> >> Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity >> and misinformation being spouted about various >> digital modes and methods by those who profess >> to be proponents of digital ham radio? >> >> Why is it necessary for a person who advocates >> some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean >> and nasty against another flavor? >> >> I ask these questions, because I've watched so many >> positive people and technology innovators driven >> away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham >> radio forums. >> >> Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. >> QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices >> of some of the most positive and beneficial >> individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a >> rough place to begin with, but aren't the same >> individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing >> the same thing here on digitalradio? >> >> If we let the negative people control the level >> of discourse in forums for discussion, where will >> this lead the future of ham radio digital? What >> have we already lost in digital technlogy? What >> will we lose in the future? >> >> 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 > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.8/1985 - Release Date: 03/05/09 > 07:54:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
I am not necessarily opposed to other hams using Pactor modes, but the one issue that is consistently ignored seems to be the transmission of fax/image data when using the wide bandwidth modes. If kept at 500 Hz or less, the changes in the rules a few years back finally allows fax/image to used in the RTTY/Data areas. But it does not allow it for any modes greater than 500 Hz such as when using P3. And just for those who think that I am opposed to being able to send wide fax/image in the RTTY/Data areas, I am most definitely am not. What I would like to see is a return to everyone following the same rules. This goes for other very questionable digital activities in the past few years. Either make it legal for everyone or don't do it. Is that really too much to ask? It seems that it is. Without a sea change at the FCC there is little that can be done about the automated station transmitting over the top of other stations since it was decided many years ago that it was an acceptable tradeoff, at least in part because the FCC at the time stated that future advancement of technology would solve that problem. Pactor operators have at least some of the technology to prevent transmissions on busy frequencies, by the automated station, (especially with P2 and P3 from recent information), but it appears that it is not used that much. Maybe with the change of enforcement leadership this could happen? But it is probably wishful thinking to halt these kinds of scofflaw behaviors. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > Simon, > > The problem is not with Pactor, per se, but with the arrogance of > those who consider retrieval of their precious email more important > than the QSO that is already on the frequency. They just happen to be > using Pactor, but since Pactor is an ARQ mode, and usually linked to a > robot, by using ARQ they can, and usually do, keep transmitting, even > in the face of QRM until anyone else using the frequency first is run off. > > This is why we designed the NBEMS system to REQUIRE listening > operators on BOTH ends of the link, and a facility (Plain Talk) to > coordinate moving to a different frequency if necessary. > > The Winlink VE2AFQ mailbox is using Pactor 3 and constantly covering > up the lower part of the historical PSK31 activity on 20 meters. I had > two different QSO's at 14070.5 obilterated Monday when they came on. > Use of Pactor 3 is illegal in the US outside of the automatic > subbands, but because VE2AFQ is Canadian they are not under FCC > regulation, and the Winlink Administrator still gives them access to > the Winlink RMS servers on 14069.5, even knowing they could not do > that if they were FCC licensed. > > Arrogance is the problem, not Pactor, and there is no shortage of > arrogance among those mailbox users! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Good points, Dave, Considering that RTTY, the oldest digital mode (not counting morse code which goes back to spark), is still one of the most common modes, and PSK31 is the most common of the newer modes, it appears that there is only a small interest in any new digital technology. When I ask other hams why they don't do digital, (which is most hams), some indicate they don't want to do anything with interfacing their computer or they don't type and have no interest in such things. As a promoter of digital modes at least I am on the schedule for our local ham club to do a digital presentation next November, so you can see it is not exactly high priority, HI. (I did a demo last summer using Judy's HF mobile station with one of our quick setup NVIS HF antennas and showed several hams her computer/rig/interface for digital). The HF Digital Procol Survey done by Paul, W4RI, Chief Technology Officer Officer of ARRL, suggested that: - few hams were interested in this information as the results were shockingly low ... only 83 of us responded between the Request for Information date of Feb 22, 2007 and July 2007. Very telling. - many of the responses were non-technical comments, although supportive of ARRL's initiative to develop new non-proprietary HF protocols - but he did indicate that some hams did not seem to support ARRL being involved in such an endeavor and instead use existing protocols - there were were widely varying views on whether OFDM or single tone modems were the best choice. - In other words there was not a lot of consensus that came out of the RFI from a technical perspective. There was consensus on any new developments being OS neutral and independent of having a specific hardware platform. Bottom line was that is an interest in new non-proprietary modes, but no specific direction for the actual technical features. He felt that there was a small but growing interest in MIL-STD HF protocols including ALE, but realistically this does not seem to reflect the majority of digital interest on discussion groups or on the air. One thing not mentioned was that MIL-STD-188-110(x) type modes primarily focus on single tone modems with high baud rates that are not legal here in the U.S. HF ham bands (at least not in the RTTY/Data portions), so 39 tone parallel modems would need to be used and some felt OFDM may not be the best choice. In the final analysis, it is fair to say that there was no groundswell of interest, no consensus of specific technology, that came out of the RFI so it may be a dead issue. What continues to happen (and it is logical that it does) is that specific interests by one or more developers causes them to focus on something that they personally like or believe will fulfill a niche. In the last year or so we had NBEMS and FAE400 as the breakthroughs. This year it will likely be WINMOR for e-mail and if it works as well as I think it will, and if others incorporate this technology into other programs that can go far beyond just the e-mail part, it could be the next big thing. 73, Rick, KV9U HFDEC yahoogroup moderator (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) Dave Bernstein wrote: If I recall correctly, the context for that still-true assertion was a discussion of what it would take to create new digital modes as effective as PSK31 with panoramic reception in gaining traction with the amateur community. Clearly lots of experimentation is required; PSK31 didn't spring up out of nowhere. While many modes being developed will clearly never gain broad adoption, the effort may still be worthwhile for the experience, or to satisfy a niche requirement. > > Awhile back, the ARRL announced an effort led by then CTO Paul W4RI to develope a "new protocol". W4RI has subsequently retired. Does anyone know whether this "new protocol" effort remains alive, and if so what progress it is making? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1983 - Release Date: 03/04/09 > 07:41:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
I concur with Graham on this. As a long time digital operator since I got back into ham radio in 1980 (first licensed in 1963), I quickly gravitated to HF and VHF RTTY (before VHF packet). I was one of the earliest adopters of Amtor and later Clover II for a short time. Because of my disastrous experience with the inferior HAL P-38 not possible to use in a practical manner with their P-mode (what they preferred to call Pactor), I was forced to abandon HF digital for a number of years until sound card modes ... changed everything. But I do miss the connected modes. Even though Amtor was pretty good, it was not very fast for messaging, and if the mode got close to failure due to low SNR, it would begin to pass false characters. Pactor and Clover II did not do this. Piccolo and other similar systems used by government/commercial users is effectively what we now have with some of our current IFK sound card modes and they greatly outperform Amtor and probably Pactor in terms of weak signal capabilities. This may be especially true with higher levels of ISI and Doppler that may make Pactor inoperative, maybe even true for Pactor 2 and Pactor 3, but I have not seen any data on that. As I have said elsewhere, no current sound card connected mode can perform at the level of FAE400 from what I have found. Both messaging and keyboarding is all ARQ. It also includes memory ARQ which can get some frames through like is done in Pactor modes. But there just does not seem to be much interest in having this capability. The WINMOR protocol has the potential for messaging, keyboarding, and e-mail ... and has significant adaptive ability for varying conditions. No one has indicated that they would be willing to do this yet, but I am hopeful that there will be at least one ham who has the interest and ability to carry this out. In the meantime, I am hopeful that it will work quite well for the e-mail part. 73, Rick, KV9U Graham wrote: > ... the pk232 with amtor and pactor came as breath of fresh air, and hf > packet in the middle of the sun spots on 10 mtrs was something else , but > `we' seem to be loosing foreword momentum as that's was in the mid 1980's > ! > > Yes data rates have slowed , yes data is lost due to noise and qsb and yes > you can make a guess at the `missing bits ` but somehow it was nice to > know that spelling mistakes you made where reproduced at the other end and > the odd place names actually where printing correctly. But looking at the > advances in data processing and digital audio processing, it tantalising to > think that you could achieve error free live communications at or below the > noise level. It was established well back, that the picalo multi tone > diplomatic links out performed the sitor 2 tone arq system, but the arq > function was retained and resulted in longer traffic `windows' , The winmor > system looks like `missing link' multi tone and arq …. A quantum leap .. ? > > 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 <*> 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
In the grand scheme of things, the old MIL-STD-188-141A form that we can legally use is very rare other than one group that sends out HF beacons. I had hoped at one time that we could use this for public service/emergency use but being one of the very few hams worldwide who actually tried to use the system, was actually attacked because I had a lot of difficulty trying to get it to work. I was actually criticized for being stupid, not really wanting it to work, etc. I was appalled at this behavior as many others were and it has insured even less interest by many of us. One individual claimed huge numbers of hams using the system but it proved to be completely false. I pointed out that I monitored their web site that displays world wide connections and found that over several days, other than the beacon stations, I was actually one of the most active, if not the only other station using it for messaging! Their solution was to completely block me from even accessing the web site so that those of us who can answer your question, are kept from doing so. Needless to say, when you do this to your friends, you don't need enemies. The truth is that the older ALE technology from the 1970's is not going to be used by hams. I have since asked many hams about this and the response was extremely negative and parallels some of my experiences. Having said that, the more modern "ALE" modes, such as MIL-STD-188-110A are not legal for U.S. hams on HF so they are going nowheres. Even if they were legal, testing by hams in other countries indicate that signals have to be very good for this to work, especially with sound card techniques which currently do not have the robust signal capability at the slowest 75 bps speed. As you point out, if there really was an significant use, it would be very apparent to those of us who monitor the HF bands everyday. What is clear, is that most hams don't do digital, but for the few that do, it is mostly PSK31 and RTTY, with an occasional Olivia, MFSK16, or other mode that they might be testing. When a new mode is developed, there may be a flurry of activity for a few days or weeks, but unless it is superior to what we already have, and few have been, then you may not hear much about the mode after that. Right now the best chat and messaging mode that I have used is FAE400 which is a narrower and slower version of MIL-STD-188-141A. This is the only currently available sound card mode that works fairly well into the noise, can provide both chat and messaging ARQ error free connections. But there are few who use it. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > > I wonder what fraction of amateur radio QSOs are initiated and sustained with ALE. Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each month? Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typicaly initiated with ALE each month? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Andy brings up some very good points. I concur that WINMOR, as used with Winlink 2000, will engender a great deal more interest in using ham radio for e-mail. I know that I plan to use this myself, especially building it into public service/emergency communication. We have no way of accessing any ham radio e-mail in this part of the U.S., and even if we did, I would not be willing to build it into public service because it may not be there when you most need it. (It is fine for casual e-mail use, if you have it). Although WINMOR as used for the Winlink 2000 system will not be able to operate peer to peer, it is my long term hope that since it is an open mode, it may be incorporated into other programs or used within a stand alone multi-use digital program that can do both peer to peer and still be useful for the e-mail connection. From what I have observed over the years, only a tiny percentage of hams have the slightest interest in HF digital. And since the days of VHF packet, there is minimal interest there as well. This means that in order to get enough hams to actually be prepared to use these modes, it has to be extremely simple, no cost except for some basic interfacing to existing rigs, and work well under varying conditions without much operator intervention. There are those who believe that we need many tools in the toolbox, but is this really the case? It may be more realistic to have the fewest number. The ideal situation is to have one that works on MF/HF/VHF/UHF using the same interface and basic protocols that the user does not have to be too concerned about. Otherwise you will only have the digital aficianados available for digital modes and that is no where near enough for widespread public service use. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > As the addition of WINMOR to Paclink has begun early testing , mostly > testing of rig interfacing, I have had an opportunity to reacquaint > myself with Paclink, Airmail, and the Winlink system. I had set > things up for Winlink at my station a couple of years ago and used a > local 2M Telpac node to access the system . Sure, I could use the > Internet to access Winlink , but after my local telpac node went down > I regretted not having a direct radio on-ramp , no Pactor TNC here. > > Just as I was tempted to spend a zillion dollars on a P3 capable > machine, along came talk of WINMOR . I had some initial confusion > cleared up by Rick, KV9U and others in an earlier thread. Now, > studying Paclink a bit more has me really looking forward to using > public mailboxes that use WINMOR on HF. > > I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . It is a mode designed to work within the Paclink application. > > There is really no valid reason, but I bet you that when WINMOR HF > servers come on line...I will be trying to connect to one thousands of > miles away. This, despite the fact that I could "pop" my message in > to the system via Telnet or 2M packet. > > I wrote a brief article for a local radio group explaining the > differing concepts between NBEMS/FLARQ in FL-Digi and WINMOR in > PacklinkW. As I wrote it, and played around with both this weekend , > I am of the opinion that BOTH will be useful tools for message > delivery. NBEMS for all the reasons previously mentioned on this > message group, and the Winlink system that is efficient ,soon to be > open to more people with a sound card based HF option, and a potential > busy-detect system that will hopefully eliminate some of the PACTOR > QRM argument. > > Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! > > Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1980 - Release Date: 03/02/09 > 23:02:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
Hard to respond as you did not indicate what you found confusing. There is no question that WINMOR, if reasonably successful, will cause an increase use of Winlink 2000, maybe even more than they might prefer, HI. And it will also impact sales of SCS to a certain extent. As Patrick pointed out, there is no technical reason that sound card modes could not improve over Pactor 2 and 3. Maybe he is too optimistic right now, but in the long term 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Rick > I'm a bit confused over your long post. > But I can say that he has said that it's not > a replacement for P2 or P3 or ever will be. > > John > >
Re: [digitalradio] The Basics On WINMOR
The beta and software being developed in the foreseeable future will be focused on Winlink 2000. It won't have a peer to peer function, unless it is temporarily put there as we had with the SCAMP protocol some years ago. Even then, they planned to remove PtoP once the software was made available for general use. Eventually the protocol will be tested and deployed and as Rick has pointed out: "Remember that WINMOR was not designed to be just another sound card mode like PSK31 or Domino. It is designed for binary message forwarding and is part of an entire email system (WL2K) and for it to work and be properly evaluated all the parts that integrate the new mode must also be built and tested." Also, he says he will "probably make a DLL of WINMOR available for others to use." Of course all software developed by the Winlink team has been Windows centric and will continue to be. There has been work done by a Linux developer who has been able to provide Telpac and now RMSpacket clients for Winlink 2000 and perhaps he will be able to make an open source Linux version of WINMOR. The final design won't be ready until real world beta testing is done. The thing that struck me the most is that he sees Pactor becoming obsolete since it is not that good of a mode compared with WINMOR. Of course Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 are much more competitive with any sound card mode for the forseeable future. So the beta testing will be operating the Winlink 2000 system as you normally would, but using a sound card mode in place of P2 or P3. Ideally, everything else will be about the same. It should be similar to how SCAMP was beta tested, except when conditions go near to zero dB and maybe even a bit below zero dB SNR, the mode will continue working. SCAMP failed much below +8 or +10 dB SNR. The 4 FSK mode intrigues me the most as having a robust mode that can handle at least moderate ISI and Doppler along with the 15 or so dB capabilities for weaker signals. As a comparison, the RFSM sound card modems, although they are based on MIL-STD-188-110A, did not implement the more robust modes, particularly the 75 bps mode designed for the worst conditions. It would have been fascinating to see how well (or not) that mode works. A friend of mine who uses this stuff regularly for military applications says that these "ALE" type systems are not that great. But he also does not have any experience with ham HF modes. If anyone else does have the experience with both it would be appreciated if they would share what they have found, especially in terms of robustness and throughput. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I am a member of the WINMOR reflector and I am encouraged by the > author's intentions. However, since I have avoided Pactor and used > thinks like AirMail and Winlink very little over the past couple of > years, I am not sure just what the intended beta use of WINMOR will > be. I have seen the explanation but it implies knowledge of the > current P3 emcomm system, can someone break down what they are > expecting from WINMOR OTHER than it being a soundcard based mode ? > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 - Release Date: 02/24/09 > 06:43:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: on another note
While the Pactor 2 and 3 modes are quite good, they do use a constant 100 baud signaling rate. SCS indicated a number of years ago that their tests showed that with what at that time, they considered strong DSP, the desire for improved data throughput and I think resistance to Doppler, the 100 baud speed was a good compromise. However, under some circumstances, primarily severe ISI multipath, there are going to be times that these modes simply do not work and some sound card modes may work, albeit at very slow speeds. SCS also claimed that they could work down to around -15 dB SNR or so, but others have pointed out that there really is not much, if any throughput at that point, but it can maintain the link. Reminds me how frustrated I used to be with Clover II. I would be connecting to Ray, W7GHM, the inventor of Clover and Clover II (and CCW), but we would have very little throughput between his island in Washington state an my QTH in SW Wisconsin:( The reason that Pactor 2 and 3 modes work so well overall, is the ability to scale. No one has had either the desire or ability to design a new sound card mode with this adaptive ability except on a limited basis with the SCAMP protocol developed by KN6KB, who is also the developer of WINMOR. But as I always say, it only takes one person. And maybe others will now be willing to help develop the open protocol for other uses that we need. Especially because it will have a very narrow 200 Hz mode as well as 500 and wider modes. This has tremendous potential. As QST showed some time back, even a low end sound card does quite well with sound card modes. Maybe it could be shown that a more sophisticated sound card protocol needs a superior sound card but WINMOR is been tested with the Tigertronics Signalink USB which has one of the lower quality sound cards with a relatively poor SNR and low frequency noise products that you likely won't find on a built-in card. A modest ~ $30 sound card such as the Creative Soundblaster Audigy SE might have at least a magnitude or even several magnitudes better SNR. The test that I perform, (and all digital hams really should) is to monitor my own signal with a nearby receiver and determine whether there is any noticeable rise in background noise when you key the sound card with no signal. With the aforementioned Audigy SE, I can not hear anything. With my SL-USB it is of course another story:( Even so, the SL-USB has its place, in my view, for ease of use and particularly for emergency situations where you want to keep things as simply as possible. The problem with the proprietary SCS products is that 99.9% of hams will never have such a modem so you can obviously not expect P2 and P3 to communicate with very many other hams. Its main forte is for e-mail to get to the internet via HF distances using Winlink 2000. Although rarely needed, some hams who travel might find it convenient. If I was an RV or blue water mariner, I would give serious consideration to buying this kind of product. For casual ham use it has minimal value since the whole point is to contact other hams who have similar technology and almost none have it and they don't use it for keyboard contacts as (believe it or not) we used to do with Amtor, Pactor, and Clover II. As Jim points out, Pactor could be run on DOS based computers (K6STI and a later version of BMKMulti with some basic interface such as a AEA CP-1, etc.), but some claimed the capabilities were not as good. I have a friend who likes old stuff and scrounging and he runs Pactor with some kind of DOS set up for MARS. With Pactor 2 and 3, this is not possible due to licensing issues, even if the computer could handle the timing. WINMOR should perform better than Pactor and may be competitive with P2 in terms of speed although I am not sure about robustness. And to do that it will have to be as wide as some of the widest P3 speed levels, so it is perhaps not a totally fair comparison since P2 is ~ 500 Hz. I think there are more than a few of us who are excited about the direction things seem to be going. 73, Rick, KV9U jhaynesatalumni wrote: > > I would say that adapting to changing band conditions and utilizing > FEC as much as possible are not inherent limitations of sound card > modems, but are simply artifacts of the higher-level protocols. > There's the modulation scheme layer, and the encoding layer where > the FEC is applied, and then an adaptive layer that comes in > where the sender gets feedback from the receiver that things are > not going very well and something else should be tried. Now this > layer may call for a change down in the modulation scheme layer, > to use something more robust and slower when things are not going > well, and to hop up to something faster and less robust when > conditions permit. > > I think you're right too about the quality of sound cards. What we > get with onboard sound or with the low-priced
Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group
It sounds like either Mark is being dishonest with me, or your contact had inside information that he did not share with Mark. I too would think that Yahoo gave a warning, but at this point we just don't know. Don't bitch about Mark being reinstated as long as he stops his over promotion of digital. It is too bad that he could not channel his enthusiasm for digital in a more productive manner. It is rare to find many who really try to promote digital and while you might think it is a gain to be rid of him, I think that it is really more of a net loss. Talking about the stock market right now is depressing though. I wonder if we can ever recover from our current losses we already have, not to mention the possibility of further losses if we really do go into a depression. Never thought we would have something like this happen in my lifetime. But the checks and balances were all bought and sold by the rich it appears:( Pretty sad country we now live in. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > DIRECT MESSAGE - > > Rick > He was warn many many times. > People have been bitching at him for the last 2 years. > > I was myself was not told if yahoo gave any warning but > one would think they did before taking any action. > But what I do know is that they (yahoo) saw the same post > going to some 43 list it opened eyes. The day he got booted > my contact told me he would be removed that day. > > I for one talk to the corp office as a yahoo stock holder > about 6 weeks ago. And if he is reinstated I'll be bitching > with a very loud voice. And if he reinstated I will sell ALL > of the close to 93K shares. > > You know what they say - money talks and bullshit walks. > I put a hell of a lot of money into yahoo when I sold my > company 3 years ago. > > John >
Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
I agree that what Mark did was clearly overzealous. If he did this to my group I could see that he could be removed or better yet blocked from posting if you don't want to deal with having to moderate each message. That would have given him a stronger message. But the fact is that you would not find a stronger promoter of digital ham radio anyplace. Consider the effort and cost he has donated to the cause with his promotional efforts and travel. I can see where Yahoo could threaten him with taking down the group if they really have received the number of complaints that posters have indicated. What I have a real problem with is if they did not warn him. I do not think it is appropriate to just destroy a group without some warning. If they had warned him and he continued to do the messaging, then that is another thing. Otherwise, as I mentioned, a concerted effort by malicious individuals could cause the destruction of any group. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Rick this is true but I must ask is there really a need to post it > to every ham list on yahoo? I was getting it 20 or so times. > > On the list that I either own or moderate he was set to "no mail". > This tells me one thing only. He did not want anything going to his > in box and must have been reading from the group site. > > But since he never posted to the list other them his SPAM that > tells me the he also never read anything at all. > > There is a move about to keep him off yahoo. > What do you think is going to happen the next time? > > John, W0JAB > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: illinoisdigital group
Just so I understand it, are you saying that he repeatedly sent join requests to the same person (such as yourself)? I personally don't consider a request to join another group to be spam at all, but each to his own. I do know that there have been individuals who were very pleased to join the other group since it fit well with their interests. But I can see that receiving many repeated requests to be a bit annoying. Whenever I have sent a request to an individual to join, it has been a personal message and not something automated. Perhaps he was using some automated technique and it wound up sending many duplicates? It certainly expanded his group rapidly and it was one of the better groups discussing digital issues since it allowed for much more open discussions on digital matters. I did have a lot of "local" information for his area that probably would not interest those outside of our region. Initially, it was intended for a fairly small geographic area with what I would call an emphasis on D-Star, but evolved into a world wide digital discussion group with a high level of comfort. If he gets reinstated, I suspect he will be tempering any automated messaging. 73, Rick, KV9U John Taylor wrote: > At the risk of stirring an unwanted debate, I for one DO consider > repeated "join requests" as SPAM. Why? Mark has repeatedly joined > other "related" groups and immediately started gathering names from > that group to solicit memberships in his group. I do know, from > personal experience, that there have been many direct requests to Mark > to stop sending these requests, only to see the solicitation multiply > in number almost immediately. On Mark's own groups, he claims to be so > against SPAM, yet he is one of the worst abusers. The only surprise > that seeing his group shut down is the time it has taken for it to happen. > > Most of us in these groups have enough intelligence to select the > groups and interests we want to participate in. Repeated > "solicitations" from a "related" group are in my opinion absolutely > nothing but SPAM. > > I had joined his group at one time and most of the posts on the group > were nothing more than cross posts from here and other groups, often > by Mark himself. I really had no reason to receive the same > information 4 or 5 different times, just so I could get the info from > 4 or 5 different groups. When I left his group, I asked repeatedly > that he stop soliciting me to rejoin. That has NOT stopped. > > John >
Re: [digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
If it is true that Yahoo will just stop a group based on complaints, then that is very troubling as it could happen to any group with malicious activities by certain individuals making false claims. However, he indicated that he had no warning from Yahoo. As owner of another group that had Mark's posts at times, which were repeated on various groups, the material he was presenting was not spam that I saw, but directly associated with amateur radio, usually digital radio. If you are referring to sending information to an individual to join a group, is that spam when it is related to their interest area? I have sent messages to specific individuals to join the HFDEC group when I felt that they would be the type of hams who would find that of value. I admit that Mark was a major promoter of his specific digital interests, but we each have our specific interests. 73, Rick, KV9U moderator, HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) James R. Gorr wrote: > Maybe it was because of all the spam requests sent to join their group. > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Modes - What are they and What about New Developement??
Hi Kevin, Perhaps it might help to use the ITU three symbol Classification of Emissions? The first symbol considers the main carrier modulation with letters such as A = DSB AM, B = independent sidebands, etc. This would give you the AM modes and the F = FM and G = PM modulation types. Then they include the second symbol which is the nature of the signal that is modulating the main carrier such as 0 = no modulation, 1 = quantized or digital signal with no subcarrier, 2 = quantized or digital signal with sub carrier and 3 single analog channel. Finally, they include the third symbol or type of information to be transmitted such as N = no information, A = telegraphy using manual aural reception, B = telegraphy using machine automatic reception, C = facsimile, D = Data, telecommand, telemetry, E = telephony, F = TV, etc. The various digital modes are really a combination of base modulation with the addition of a quantized signal, plus the type of information. The only modulation that hams typical use are AM and FM/PM and if digital modes are used, they are superimposed on the base modulation. Hope that might shed some light on the matter. 73, Rick, KV9U Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle wrote: > Hi All, > > I am hoping with the number of members in this group that someone > might be able to answer my question. > > Many years ago, as we know radio started off with CW, then AM was > developed, with an improvement to only use one part of the AM carrier > to produce SSB with carrier or SSB suppressed carrier. > Then somebody developed FM. > Now in my view this gives 4 actual modes? > But I see you say (Maybe), we have all the digital modes. But are > these actually modes? > Why I ask and the reason for the question, is these are still using > one of the current 4 above, over a SSB carrier for the likes of > PSK-31, SSTV etc, or FM for the likes of Packet. > So will the future be able to bring us anything new that will improve > the usablility of radio? > Doing a search on Google brings up thousands of hits, but none > actually answer the questions, most also class each digital type as a > mode. > Would be very interested in your thoughts. If you do not feel this is > the fourm to reply, a direct email to sparcnz(nospam)@gmail.com will > be fine. (please remove the (nospam) before sending, I am trying to > limit the amount of spam) > > Regards and thanks for looking at this thread. > > Kevin, ZL1KFM. >
[digitalradio] illinoisdigital group
I was able to contact Mark, WB9QZB, and he indicated that his yahoo e-mail account and the group were disabled by Yahoo with no notice or explanation. It is very difficult to even contact Yahoo customer service, which is offshore, but he is working through corporate in California to attempt to get the group restored. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM8000 qrg's?
The non-standard protocol is a slightly slower, but less bandwidth to fit in the passband of many ham rigs. The baud rate is still 2400 baud of course so can not be used in the HF RTTY/Data portions of the bands here in the U.S. It may be legal in our MF (160 meter) band and in the phone/image portions of the HF bands but the FCC refuses to answer my request for clarification, among a number of other questions. The rules here are usually reasonable, but not with digital technology. This is especially true of using mixed modes such as image and text and documents or what I would consider to be fax. I know that some hams openly violate what you can send on the RTTY/Data portions, but I am just not willing to do this. Example is sending a document such as a weather map on Winlink 2000. It used to be completely illegal, but thankfully one petitioner got the rule changed so that at least we can use up to 500 Hz bandwidth modes. But you can not legally do it with the wide modes in that area of the bands. The WINMOR protocol is an open documented protocol and the author hopes that others will "implement that protocol into any kind of application they wish." Also, "... since WINMOR is designed PRIMARILY as a message oriented protocol (pure binary error free transmission using fairly long forwarding blocks (~ 6 sec) The first applications are specifically for messages." And that is the client program that accepts mail from standard mail clients and a server to connect to the Winlink 2000 system. What I find very helpful is that a DLL may be eventually made available, but the author feels that there are too many changes that will occur for a while yet such as additional coding changes. Overall, this has the potential to be a sea change. 73, Rick, KV9U Wolf, oe7ftj wrote: > Rick et al! > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W wrote: > >> Hi Wolf, >> >> Be sure to keep us informed as to your results. >> >> > Yes I will share our experiences here in the group. > > >> It is ironic that we can not use MIL-STD-188-110A type modulation here >> in the U.S. HF ham bands, at least not in the text RTTY/Data areas, >> > with > >> the requirement to keep the baud rate of any one tone no faster than >> > 300 > >> baud. >> >> > RFSM8000 can be switched to a socalled 'non standard' mode, which will > match the legal requirements i.e. bandwidth on our bands. > > >> The RFSM program is about the cleanest and best design I have seen >> for a data transfer program, especially for basic use by those not that >> familiar with this technology. >> >> > Full ack!! > > >> With Winmor coming very soon for the Winlink 2000 system, and being an >> open protocol, there is the possibility that some of the most brilliant >> ham programmers might be willing to develop a peer to peer version. >> Perhaps even a cross platform version. It should work much deeper into >> the noise and QRN than the current RFSM software which required good >> signals due to not having the slow robust mode. >> >> Imagine having a program that could use the Winlink 2000 system, but >> also be able to meet the larger needs as well. >> >> > I hope the winmor developer will make a kind of 'software-modem' which > can be selected out from Airmail also and not in PacLink only! > > 73 de Wolf, oe7ftj > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 02/21/09 > 15:36:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000 qrg's?
Hi Wolf, Be sure to keep us informed as to your results. It is ironic that we can not use MIL-STD-188-110A type modulation here in the U.S. HF ham bands, at least not in the text RTTY/Data areas, with the requirement to keep the baud rate of any one tone no faster than 300 baud. The RFSM program is about the cleanest and best design I have seen for a data transfer program, especially for basic use by those not that familiar with this technology. With Winmor coming very soon for the Winlink 2000 system, and being an open protocol, there is the possibility that some of the most brilliant ham programmers might be willing to develop a peer to peer version. Perhaps even a cross platform version. It should work much deeper into the noise and QRN than the current RFSM software which required good signals due to not having the slow robust mode. Imagine having a program that could use the Winlink 2000 system, but also be able to meet the larger needs as well. 73, Rick, KV9U Wolf, oe7ftj wrote: > Hi all! > > Are there CoA frequencies with RFSM8000 between individuals or > dedicated frequencies with automatic stations or servers or gates with > RFSM8000 modulation? > We have done some good tests regionally here and would like to connect > stations mostly in europe for EmComm tests. > > 73 de Wolf, oe7ftj > Innsbruck, Austria > >
[digitalradio] NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM
There was a very nice comment in Steve Ford's Electic Technology column about NBEMS. He mentions that it is a suite of Windows sound card programs allowing ARQ exchanges of messages, but one of the compelling features of fldigi and flarq which make up the suite of programs, is that they work cross platform. No other software of this type has this capability to work with Windows XP, Vista, Mac, Linux and Free BSD. The impression seemed to be that fldigi can work with Windows and Linux. A really important point was that Skip, KH6TY, found it possible to use DominoEX modes with FM modulation and work farther than SSB phone. That is a very significant new finding. Anyone else having luck with that? What about other modes with FM? Would it also be true that DominoEX (and other modes) would work even farther with SSB digital vs FM digital? Even though horizontal polarization was emphasized, the fact is that hams with FM only rigs do not have horizontal antennas and vertical to vertical should work very well, even if there may be a slight edge to horizontal. Has anyone else been able to do any comparisons between H to H and V to V on FM? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1000 Hz Olivia under USA new rules ?
What further information did you need, Tooner? There is no conflict with using wide modes (FCC defined as up to the bandwidth of a communications quality phone transmission) as long as the baud rate of an individual tone does not exceed 300 baud. 73, Rick, KV9U Tooner wrote: > whatever came of this? > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Q25 QSO's
Rein, Did you try Q15X25 but found it not effective? What do you think about the Winmor protocols? Any thoughts on PSK vs FSK vs QAM modes in terms of sensitivity, and ability to handle ISI and Doppler, etc.? 73, Rick, KV9U Rein Couperus wrote: > You just described the reason for development of pskmail with PSK250+arq... > > Rein PA0R > >
Re: [digitalradio] Q25 QSO's
I think we may be finding out why this mode never became popular. It just does not seem to work compared with other modes. John, W0JAB and I were able to easily make a PSK31 contact but nothing with Q15. At first I thought we had it figured out why I could not connect with VE5MU as I had incorrectly use V35MU, but after changing it and trying numerous times this afternoon and now evening, it just does not connect. Unless I am doing something wrong, it does not look good in terms of a practical mode, even with fairly good conditions. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > I set up both VE5GPM and VE5MU according to the info at > http://www.wattystuff.net/amateur/packet/q15x25setup.htm > > he was not kidding when mentioning that audio levels are critical.. > For whatever reason I cannot copy text from VE5GPM , but can copy text > from VE5MU. > > Station are using identical TS480SAT radios set exactly the same. Go > Figure. > > Had some copy earlier in the day with NC5O and K5HD (?) signals were > reasonably strong , connected but could not pass much info. Talked > NC5O into trying > > ALE400 for the first time , and it worked as expected with good > results and not a large number of repeats. > > Will remain on 3592 USB Q25 for the rest of the night…. anyone else > having more luck? > > John > > VE5MU > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1940 - Release Date: 02/08/09 > 17:57:00 > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test
Hi John, Probably quite right about trying a lower band. Because this is a wide bandwidth mode, I did some testing today to see how well (or not) my ICOM 756 Pro 2 passes tones at various audio frequencies and I discovered that it does not do very well with the lower tones. I moved a PSK31 tone around and compared the power output meter from around 100 Hz to 3000 Hz. The power level drops off quite a bit once you get much below 1000 Hz, although it seems to work fairly well as high as 2800 Hz. I have the rig set for the widest possible passband and using the rear DIN connector. The drop off could be due to the interface transformers, but I am not sure. Has anyone else tried determining their effective audio passband with a given rig and interface? What kind of result did you get? 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > Rick you and I would be better on 40M later, VE5MU is still on Q25 > GPM is on ALE400, both on 14109 > > > > John > > VE5MU > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test
I am hearing the tones from Q15X25 but can not actually see them on the waterfall or decode them. Also, have been trying to connect to VE5GPM, but we are likely too close. Am also calling CQ from time to time. If I understand the program correctly, it sends a line when you press the 'enter' key. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Ready for Q15X25 packet test ...
The previously mentioned web site should be a good one for set up: http://www.wattystuff.net/amateur/packet/q15x25setup.htm 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > Any settings suggestions, using MiXW? > > > > John > > VE5MU > > >
