Re: [digitalradio] Re: Good USB sound card ?
On 08/14/2010 02:15 PM, g4ilo wrote: Well, that isn't my experience. Regardless of the chip set used, it's the entire product including the drivers that will determine the performance. My suspicion is that these devices run at a fixed sampling rate, and that resampling to the rate requested by the software is carried out by the drivers. Not an issue for me since I run Linux and fldigi. The digital mode program fldigi simply gets the audio off the device at one of the native sampling rates of the device and does good quality sample rate conversion internally. I believe you if you have seen the Windows drivers for the device do a terrible job of sample rate conversion. However, I'm not going to experience that issue myself and am quite happy with the device in my setup :) Personally I don't think it is worth economizing in this area. That I can agree with. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Good USB sound card ?
On 08/11/2010 04:04 PM, graham787 wrote: Looks like theRDX-150-EF has been dropped any ideas on a 'good' usb card for data use ?? I'm having great luck with the Cmedia cm108 usb soundcard. The Asterisk (VOIP) people have even written up instructions on how to create a PTT circuit with this device. However, I am just using the radio's VOX mode for now :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Ros Use in US ( Urgent )
On 08/13/2010 07:08 PM, Andy obrien wrote: WE9XLQ us not a valid USA callsign It may not be a ham callsign, but it is a valid callsign... EXPERIMENTAL SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION CLASS of Station XD FX EMISSION Designator SK25J2D Experition 3:00 AM EST Jan 31 2011. Call Sign WE9XLQ -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] World's nastiest PSK31 signal
On 08/03/2010 09:18 PM, Andy obrien wrote: On 10M tonight, from Mexico See attached, the image around 500 Hz is his MAIN signal with LOTS of side bars, and the image around 1700 Hz is also him ! He had the trifecta: 1) sidebars around his main signal 2) second and third harmonic of his audio frequency visible on the waterfall (600, 1200 1800 Hz) 3) drifting just enough during and between transmissions for fldigi to lose track trying to copy his signal The only thing missing were background noises from his shack. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re : testing confirms ROS,,,,,,,,,,,
On 07/10/2010 04:56 PM, raf3151019 wrote: Well, would you believe it ! So what happens now ? The first person who warns the ROS users gets banned for life from the ROS email list? :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing, outer FEC, Inner FEC, coding to symbol, modulation of symbol(s)
On 06/06/2010 10:48 AM, John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 03:22 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: (in part) In the end, systems like ROS, Clover, PACKTOR-XXX, etc, where there is not full published trasparency in the encoding process, are not suitable for legal amateur use, in my humble opinion. In other words, no one has the right to make money from their hard work and what could have been $$$ millions spent on research and development as would have been the case with Pactor 3. Or the right to protect it. They can keep it secret all they want. I just do not believe amateur operators should use such protocols on the amateur bands. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?
On 06/05/2010 03:24 PM, Jeremy Cowgar wrote: Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a Signalink as I already have a nice setup, I know your problem - the sound card's too expensive :) I got a Cmedia Cm108 USB soundcard for $7 and it seems to do the trick here. The sockets for the connectors are not very good physically (I ended up soldering wires directly to the circuit board) but the audio quality is perfect for HF. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
On 06/02/2010 12:15 PM, Steinar Aanesland wrote: let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. Mr Ros has the right to: - limit who uses his software - keep the ROS protocol info secret - limit who is allowed in his community Of course, either of these three modes alone is a serious deterrent to adoption of his modes by the ham radio community. All three together are a death knell. However, that is his choice. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m
On 03/04/2010 09:10 PM, pd4u_dares wrote: All wouldn't have happened if it was not claimed by some that ROS is illegaal in the US. Since there is no official publication on this by the FCC, ROS is neither legal nor illegal. So the first claim by some users of ROS was in error. Jose's subsequent claiom too. The FCC statement was quite clear: the responsibility of determining whether or not ROS is allowed under the rules lies with each amateur radio operator. Claims made by Jose or others do not absolve amateur radio operators of the responsibility of making that determination themselves. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m
On 03/04/2010 07:44 AM, g4ilo wrote: I thought you were in Region 2. I have the Region 2 band plan in front of me right off the IARU site and it definitely says All Modes in all of the sections right up to 14.350. I don't see any division at 14.150 at all. In any case, I don't think you'd need to go as far even as 14.150 to find a frequency that hasn't been designated for use by some other modes. The US band plans are a little more restrictive than the Region 2 plan. I do not know why that was done, but it does give the smaller countries some empty frequencies so it seems to be beneficial overall. The US probably has more hams than the other Region 2 countries together. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked really nice...73, Alan I don't read it like that. The FCC just says that: 1) spread spectrum is not allowed on HF, and 2) The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents spread spectrum, and 3) The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. Once Jose publishes a full specification for ROS (one that is complete enough to create an interoperable alternative implementation), US hams will be able to make the technical determination that the FCC requires us to make. Until then, there is no way to be sure whether or not ROS is legal to use in the US. We simply do not have enough info to make the determination. I expect that cautious US hams will avoid ROS until there is certainty that ROS is in fact legal. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners
On 02/22/2010 09:09 PM, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: However, there is one thing the tuner will NOT do. It will not remember any band or frequency, until the transmitter is keyed. For example: I operate CW on 14.035 for a period of time. I then have a CW sked on 18.075. After the sked I move back to 14.035. The tuner is still set for the last transmission, which was on 18.075. Until I transmit on 14.035 again, the signals are a bit attenuated, since the tuner is set for a different frequency. I have noticed the same with my LDG AT-200 Pro. The effect is especially pronounced when moving from a low frequency to a high frequency, eg. having an 80m QSO and then moving to 12m. The attenuation can be quite significant and it may be useful to transmit a short tone (a fraction of a second is enough) to get your antenna tuned on that band. Of course, after you do that, reception on the band will be enhanced. One reason that this effect is not seen with internal tuners is that the tuner is only present in the transmit path inside the radio - the tuner is never used for receive. With an external tuner, you may need to tickle it to get better reception - but IMHO that is outweighed by the potential of getting better reception. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 06:14 PM, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. Last week, you said that ROS was spread spectrum :) The FCC says that amateurs are responsible for judging whether or not the mode they use is spread spectrum. Until a technical specification of ROS is released, I will not be able to make that judgement for myself. I understand that you do not want to release the technical specifications before the protocol is finished and will wait patiently :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 10:22 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote: These modes use interleaving and randomize data values by exclusive-ORing with a pseudorandom binary sequence. The methods are used in most commerial products and the FCC and NSA know how to monitor the signals. However, this does result in carrier placement also being somewhat randomized. Maybe not in exactly the same way as true spread spectrum, since the carrier position is still somewhat dependent on the data content. On the other hand, from the ROS documentation it appears that the carrier location in ROS is also still dependent on data content (as well as a pseudo-random sequence). Carrier location it ROS is, as far as I can tell (Jose will know for sure), dependent on both the data being transmitted and the pseudo-random sequence being used. The FCCs problem is that the military uses FHSS and DSSS to hide the existance and content of their transmissions thus preventing the monitoring that the FCC is required to do of amateur signals. That could be a problem with ROS, as long as the protocol specification is unknown. However, once the protocol has been finalized and the specification made public, monitoring ROS communications will be easy. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 10:50 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote: The problem is that he said that ROS uses FHSS in the documentation. If the final version doesn't use FHSS, DSSS or any other form of SS and a technical specification is published the FCC will have no objection. Oh, agreed. For the moment I will not be using ROS because (1) I am not sure whether or not it is SS, (2) I cannot run ROS on my computer (don't have Windows) and (3) the protocol specification is not available. I expect that once the protocol specification is available, and it is clear that ROS is not spread spectrum, I will start using it once there is a free implementation in eg. fldigi. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. Speaking of coding technique, is there a detailed spec of ROS available? Say, one that would allow other developers to implement ROS in their programs. I saw the architecture paper on ROS, but have not found any details on what coding is used under the hood, what the pseudo-random sequence is, etc... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. ROS follows this rule. In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone communications signal on HF. It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also have empty space between carrier positions. I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere else... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 04:16 PM, KH6TY wrote: Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm If you look at the list there, it would appear that ROS is J2D (under the SSB interpretation) or V2D. Not AXX CXX DXX FXX GXX HXX JXX or RXX. You can read the rules as strictly as you want and limit your activities that way, but I believe some common sense questions like does this mode take more bandwidth than other modes? and does this mode cause more interference than already allowed modes? will carry more weight than the choice of a single word in the description of the modulation. Modes that jump around inside an SSB passband according to a pseudo-random number sequence are already legal, and in fairly widespread use, on the HF amateur bands. Modes that send a data stream across multiple sub carriers inside an SSB passband are already legal, and in widespread use, on the HF amateur bands. ROS is not doing anything different. The only thing different is one single word in the creator's description of the modulation. If you want to limit your own activities on the HF bands, feel free to give more importance to that single word than to the technical details of the ROS modulation. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] No HF data/text bandwidth limit in USA Re: A closer look at ROS
On 02/21/2010 04:48 PM, expeditionradio wrote: §97.305(c) is a chart of amateur radio bands and sub-bands. Each sub-band has a note, and the notes are listed in part §97.307. The Note # (2) only applies a soft bandwidth limit to non-phone emissions within the Phone,image sub-bands. Note # (2) does not apply to the CW/data/RTTY sub-bands. Indeed, you are right. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Part 97
On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, athosj wrote: This is the way that an argument is conducted with real facts. If ROS is a SS can not be used in HF bands. Furthermore, if you believe that ROS is spread spectrum, you should probably also stop using any other modes with the same technical characteristics. This could include Olivia, Domino, JT65, MT63 and ALE, depending on which characteristics you ascribe to ROS :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC
On 02/21/2010 11:31 AM, J. Moen wrote: But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea. Of course, there is always the danger that the FCC might accidentally make currently used modes like Olivia illegal, depending on how the question was phrased :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital
On 12/15/2009 12:55 PM, Gary wrote: I thought I'd run something up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes: I would imagine, the license limitations would have to state something like a maximum of 300 baud and 500 Hz bandwidth with a 200 watt power limit. There may be other limitations that might be nice to toss into the mix but this is a starting point for discussion. IIRC the Tech license pool does not include all the questions about RF safety, nor about use of the ALC, etc... I believe the power limit and frequencies HF use by Tech licensed amateurs should be low. Maybe 10-20W power limit, in a few limited frequency ranges (staying away from the most crowded bands). I could see adding 30m digital privileges to Tech, maybe 80m too, but 20, 40 and 15m already have too many people who don't know their what their ALC readout means :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
aswoodhull wrote: It's not like the frequency is never available for other uses. The W1AW code transmissions are on a regular schedule, at most 7 hours a day during weekdays (6 hours on Monday, none at all on weekends and holidays). So if you happen to be rock bound on this frequency you still have a lot of predictable hours when you will not find W1AW there. Unfortunately, those are also the hours where you won't find propagation on 3580. Or the middle of the night, when a working ham will probably be asleep for good reasons... I'm not going to dispute your other points, because I agree with them :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
theophilusofgenoa wrote: I would like to put in a few words in defense of the ARRL. They deserve it, IMHO. It turns out that W1AW has been looking for alternative 80m cw frequencies for a while now. We just did not know about it. I do question why this frequency was used as the primary PSK31 frequncy. In my opinion, the why isn't nearly as important as the fact that we have a problem on the band nowadays. The fixed frequency psk kits have been built and cannot easily be changed to another frequency. Why is an interesting question to prevent future problems like this, but we still need to find a solution for the current one. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference (A dissent)
Cortland Richmond wrote: Sound card users' preference for bandwidth wide enough to receive fifty or more signals is what makes us vulnerable. W1AW does NOT wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band; its CW signal occupies perhaps 50-100 Hz. Use a narrow filter, and a front-end able to handle nearby strong signals, and the problem goes away. Use PBT,even and put W1AW off the filter skirts. Here in southern New Hampshire, W1AW is S9+40. Typical psk31 signals are anywhere between S2 and S8 here. To get W1AW suppressed by 50dB means moving the filter far enough away that only a small part of the psk sub band remains. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Charles Brabham wrote: There are no Considerate Operators associated with the ARRL, at least not at ARRL HQ. - They apparently do not read and understand their own publications. W1AW has QSY'd before. For example, their 160m frequency was changed from 1817.5 to 1802.5 kHz earlier this year. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2009-arlb012.html That suggests the W1AW operators are a lot more considerate than many people seem to assume. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Rik van Riel wrote: Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction of the time. I have received a reply from W1AW, which I have posted on my web page: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference#comment-240 It appears that some of the hostility against the ARRL may be misplaced... -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] Re: [linuxham] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Brian Lloyd wrote: 1. Turn off your AGC and go with manual RF gain control. Most rigs have enough dynamic range to be able to deal with W1AW's signal at full gain without AGC so it would just be a really strong signal in the passband. With AGC off W1AW would not reduce the gain for the other stations you are trying to receive. This is good advice in general, however W1AW is about S9+40 here, which makes it 50-60dB stronger than the psk31 signals surrounding it. Sound card dynamic range is a theoretical 96dB, but much less in practice. Probably closer to 70dB (optimistic). To properly decode psk31 you want a S/N ratio of over 10dB, so even switching off the AGC may not be enough due to sound card limitations. 3. If you don't have a narrower filter, offset tune the radio so that W1AW is off the edge of the filter. Fldigi provides rig control so if you have set that up, you can offset tune the rig but fldigi will still properly display the frequency in the waterfall and it will properly log the center frequency for your PSK31 QSO. This is certainly doable, but due to the slope of the filters in most radios, you will end up cutting off most psk signals above 3581 kHz (or below 3582), so you can inspect slices of 1/3 of the psk subband. I have three different rigs I use for PSK (and other digital modes) and every one of them lets me work PSK in the presence of a strong signal. It all depends on how strong :) 30-40dB difference is usually surmountable. 50-60dB gets a lot harder due to sound card limitations. -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference Original Message Subject: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:04:58 -0400 From: Rik van Riel To: w1aw To whom it may concern, The W1AW broadcasts are a great tradition and a help to some amateur radio operators, and do not seem to be in the way on most of the amateur radio bands. However, the W1AW CW broadcast on the 80 meter band, on 3581.5 kHz, is right in the middle of the psk31 sub band. Needless to say, a high power CW station pretty much wipes out the nearby psk31 signals, which are typically transmitted at low power. While strictly speaking it is legal to transmit CW anywhere on the band (I will not go into the legality of broadcasting on the ham bands), I believe we can agree that putting a strong signal right in the middle of a band segment dedicated to lower power operation is not what the ARRL's Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide[1] would call considerate. Because putting a high power CW broadcast in the middle of the psk31 sub band (which sees activity whenever there is propagation) is guaranteed to cause interference to active operators, I hope you would consider moving the W1AW CW broadcast to a frequency where interference is merely a possibility and not a guaranteed issue. The interference issue is especially severe due to the fact that the W1AW transmissions are scheduled on an almost daily basis, several times a day[2], wiping out the 80m psk31 subband for a significant fraction of the time. Since the W1AW CW broadcast is an automatically controlled transmission, maybe it would be better in the band segment assigned to automatically controlled data stations (3585-3590). Another good choice could be 3579.5 kHz, which would put the W1AW broadcast 500 Hz below the psk31 segment, just like it is on the 17 and 15 meter bands. kind regards, Rik van Riel, AB1KW [1] http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/conop.html [2] http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked
Re: [digitalradio] Olivia - Contestia Tone / Bandwidth Configuration
Patrick Lindecker wrote: As a thumb rule: For a same sub mode: Contestia has a double speed (+3 dB) but only 1.5 dB of loss in term of minimum S/N compared to Olivia. So it seems to be a better compromise. Assuming that the S/N is constant. In practice the S/N seems to vary wildly from second to second, with all kinds of interference popping up and disappearing again. Does Contestia deal with those as well as Olivia does? -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS
Rodney wrote: NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? I have another question along these lines. How is it used? How does the ham community coordinate what frequencies are used for emergency messages? Is anyone monitoring those frequencies? Or is this just a new set of protocols on top of a few digital modulations, without much of a use case yet? Considering the availability of cheap single-band SDRs, like softrock, I could see having some frequencies reserved for NBEMS, and having a few stations in each region monitoring those frequencies, etc... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Question for the Linux gurus
Dave wrote: There is no NIC, however it does have two USB ports. I have a USB interface that connects to my cable modem, but it doesn't have a Linux driver available for it. Can anyone guess if it will work? It's a Linksys model USB10T I'm trying to locate additional memory for the laptop, but unsure if I can find any. You may be able to fix both of these at the same time by running Linux from a USB stick. USB sticks may be slower than hard disks for huge transfers, but they are faster for small transfers (no seek time). That also allows you to try out whether the USB ethernet interface works, without having blown away the OS that is currently on the laptop. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Solar Cycle 23 Sunspot Group Re-emerges
Marc PD4U wrote: But is the solar minimum the (only necessary and sufficient) explaining factor for a global cooling? As we say in Holland One swallow doesn't make it summer meaning: one cannot 'jump to conclusions' based on unsufficient data, and beside that the swallow is not the explaining factor for summer to arise, but a result of it. There simply is not enough data yet for either global cooling or global warming. A 100 year period could be simple blip in the geological climate record. The temperature data over the last few thousand years shows several temperature blips, both to the warm and the cold side, as well as a longer term warming trend coming out of the last ice age. Whether or not the data from the last 100 years means anything within this trend probably won't be clear for another century or two. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New amazing JT65-HF
Peter Frenning [OZ1PIF] wrote: And of cause the classical question from those of us who live in a Micro$oft-free zone: Will there be a Linux version? Or, better yet, documentation of the JT65 modulation schemes, so JT65* can be added to existing radio programs like fldigi. -- All rights reversed.
