[digitalradio] Dayton SDR forum speakers sought

[Robert McGwier]

On Friday, May 14,  I am the moderator (and speaker) at the SDR forum at the
2:30 PM - 5 PM session.  I have two speakers (Scotty on openhpsdr, and I
speak on general SDR topics).

I need to fill out this time and this leaves at least 1.5 hours to fill.  I
would like to get this settled as soon as possible.

Let me know if you are interested in making a presentation.

Also, FYI, I will be the AMSAT/TAPR banquet speaker on Friday night.  In
addition to my forum, SDR, paper delivery with Joel Harrison, work in Flex
booth, etc.  this will be one of the busiest Dayton's for me in years.

I look forward to seeing many of you.


Bob McGwier
N4HY

[digitalradio] A new mode for PSK31, Attention gmfsk users on Linux

[Robert McGwier]

Attention gmfsk users.  I am putting a new PSK31 mode in gfmsk.  I need 
some test guinea pigs. In this case,  there will be one, two, , N 
orthogonal trellis coded PSK31 signals.  Each tone will have 4 or 4.5 dB 
of coding gain over the PSK31 but will otherwise work the same.

When Peter did the QPSK Viterbi decoder on a constraint length five 
code,  he didn't realize that you were going to realize essentially zero 
coding gain over PSK31 with that arrangement. Not to mention the fact 
that to decode with anything like full gain,  you need to wait 15-20 bit 
times to get the job done.  With this Trellis code,  it is 8 states or 
possibly 16 states (testing will tell) and will decode in 1/2 or 3/4 as 
many bits.  By going to N parallel tones, we can choose between higher 
speed or more robustness.  More robustness will come at the cost of 
decoding delay for the interleaver with concatenated TCM and Reed 
Solomon interleaved data.

I will first release the single tone TC-PSK31 and then go to N in parallel.

The thing that Peter got so right was the source coding with the varicode.

Please send me private email if you are or quickly can be an gmfsk user 
on Linux.  This will be one of my talks at DCC in Hartford.

Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson

[digitalradio] Flex Radio gathering and presentation

[Robert McGwier]

 From John Basilotto, W5GI, at Flex:

Subject: FlexRadio Systems Social and Presentation at Dayton

Date: Saturday May 19

Time. 7:45 PM until 11:00 PM

Place: University of Dayton, Kennedy Union, Barrett Dining Room ( 1st floor)

Program: formal program starts at 8:15 PM. Presentation by Gerald 
Youngblood:
SDR update and the FLEX-5000.  Flexi Awards and prize drawing 
immediately afterwards.

Complimentary soft drinks and pretzels.

Program will be broadcast on Team Speak courtesy of Eric Ellison.

Parking: all  university parking lots can be used. See map at 
http://admission.udayton.edu/virtour/Campus_map_text.swf

Directions from various points at Dayton
http://www.udayton.edu/Visiting+UD/

Strip maps will be available at the FlexRadio booths 315-317.

Please note this is the only presentation that Gerald will make during 
the Hamvention.

Hope to see you there.

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson

[digitalradio] FCC Report and Order on Software and Cognitive Radio

[Robert McGwier]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-66A1.pdf
-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson

Re: [digitalradio] Noise Reduction and the digital modes

[Robert McGwier]

Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>  
> TKS for the correction. I returned to my books. LMS filters are in 
> general linear (LMS-FIR), however they can also be in a recursive 
> structure (LMS-IIR).

Patrick, thanks for your reply.  An IIR filter (with an FIR component 
and a feedback component) is still a linear filter.  Even if you are 
adapting it, it is still a linear transfer function for each and every 
sample.  The transfer function is


Sum(Outputs * Feeback_coeffients)  =
Sum(Inputs * FeedForward_ Coefficients

is linear on both sides and this is an IIR.


The adaptation is funky and may be a nonlinear adaption, but at each 
sample instant a linear filter is applied to all samples in its delay 
lines and so no mixing can occur.


Now, if you are thinking about decision directed LMS equalizers,  where 
you make a hard decision as the output,  that is most decidedly 
nonlinear.  You do not hard limit the output of your NR filter!

The typical AGC circuit in a receiver is more nonlinear than any LMS 
based NR filter,  FIR, IIR, etc. could ever be.

Bob



>  
>  >We agree that they are no good for digital modes.
> Yes the a priori is not very favourable.
>  
> 73
> Patrick
>  

73's
Bob
N4HY



-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] Noise Reduction and the digital modes

[Robert McGwier]

Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Andy and all,
>  
> I don't think NR must be a so good idea for digimodes. Because, it can 
> be seen as non-linear filter.

I disagree on the transfer function.  It is an adaptive linear filter. 
Since it does not mix two tones in the passband, it can't be nonlinear. 
  However,  it does indeed introduce serious phase and amplitude 
distortion on the signals.  This is not the way to better copy.  These 
Widrow type/ LMS adaptive filters, in single sample update, or block 
adaptive form are intended TO AID THE HUMAN FATIGUE FACTOR in listening 
to noise or interfering tones.  We agree that they are no good for 
digital modes.


> In that type of filter, the next sample is calculated, knowing the 
> previous symbols and guessing what is the most probable symbol if 
> nothing change (a sort of "no more set of information" condition)...
>  
> You are surely going to produce interference between symbols: the 
> decoding will be not so good and the necessary synchronization will be 
> more difficult because the difference between one symbol and the 
> following will be reduced (i.e the difference between two successive 
> symbols will be softened).
>  
> But it would be interesting to experiment on calibrated signals and 
> different speeds (from the PSKAM10 to ALE or PSK220F).
>  
> 73
> Patrick
>  
>  
>  

Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?

[Robert McGwier]

Howdy:

The board brush strokes are easy.  I do not have enough patience, 
smarts, or time to do what Bob Cowdery has done in his fantastic erlang 
implementation.  On the other hand it does not fit with my vision of 
this and so far,  Frank agrees with what I have been saying so I am 
assuming it is substantially  his vision as well.

The idea is to have the erlang be the simplest possible thing,  as few 
lines as possible to get the job done reliably, robustly,  with remoting 
built in from the word go.

Cnodes are big in your future.  dttsp's sdr_core (as an example) will 
start up as a stand alone program and it will maintain its command 
structure.  Now  you use the simple cmdr script to send it commands. 
e_cmdr will be a C program that starts up and attaches itself to the 
TINY erlang server.  After it establishes its presence,  it will 
negotiate what it can provide and what it wants to receive.  So long as 
it is around, the erlang based hub will send all commands of the 
registered type to it and respond to all data requests of the type 
registered from e_cmdr by making a request  for this data from e_cmdr, etc.

The state held in the erlang radiocore will be the absolute minimum 
needed.  If the cnode disappears,  the hub will time out on it and drop 
it and  all of its sources and sinks from the list.

You might think of the, erlang cnode as working the exact same way Frank 
did the code in update.c BUT the "CTE" array will be dynamic and 
supplied upon initial connection, etc. in the radiocore.  It really will 
be TINY block of code and the smarts will be in the leaves.

I have had Cnodes running robustly on all my machines of every type for 
months.  I keep thinking that it is but a day's work to give everyone 
the e_cmdr as a template for how to make their connection to the hub and 
even to provide the simplest possible kind of GUI, something like 
Roger's little push button GUI  but interfaced through its own Cnode 
interface to the hub as a template for how to proceed.


Between having FOUR close relatives with life threatening conditions and 
being constantly on the road for work,  I just have not gotten it done.  
I apologize to everyone.  No one is more unhappy about this than me.  I 
need an uninterrupted week at home.  This week I am in Boston fighting 
the snow going to Cell processor class at Mercury and next week I am at 
VPI working on OFDM with GnuRadio folks for MY WORK.  I will catch a 
breath soon.

Bob


kd5nwa wrote:
> I downloaded the code from the SVN a couple of days ago and I'm 
> wondering what will the Radio core will do, I don't need a detailed 
> explanation just some broad strokes.
>
> At 05:15 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote:
>   
>> Walt:
>>
>> Frank, Eric, and I have specfically answered all of your questions about
>> the Linux support.  It is completely controllable under Linux now
>> especially for those who have no need for fancy radio GUI's.  For those
>> that need GUI's there ARE GUI's and more will be coming.
>>
>> Roger Rehr has painted the road with crayola crayon especially for you:
>>
>> http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz
>>
>>
>> but the Linux code does not have the polished presentation of the 
>> Windows version of code AND IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ITS 
>> LIMITATIONS.  It is poised to take off now.
>>
>> There are several approaches to take such as dttsp-shell (available 
>> 
> >from Edson Pereira) or the java GUI done by John Melton or usSDR gui 
>   
>> done by Jonathan Naylor.  Frank and I are not interested in doing 
>> this GUI work.   We are interested in support anyone who wants to do 
>> the GUI work.
>>
>> Bob
>> N4HY
>> (coauthor DttSP with AB2KT)
>>
>>
>>
>> 


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?

[Robert McGwier]

Walt:

Frank, Eric, and I have specfically answered all of your questions about 
the Linux support.  It is completely controllable under Linux now 
especially for those who have no need for fancy radio GUI's.  For those 
that need GUI's there ARE GUI's and more will be coming.

Roger Rehr has painted the road with crayola crayon especially for you:

http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz


but the Linux code does not have the polished presentation of the Windows 
version of code AND IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ITS LIMITATIONS.  It is poised to 
take off now.

There are several approaches to take such as dttsp-shell (available from Edson 
Pereira) or the java GUI done by John Melton or usSDR gui done by Jonathan 
Naylor.  Frank and I are not interested in doing this GUI work.   We are 
interested in support anyone who wants to do the GUI work.

Bob
N4HY
(coauthor DttSP with AB2KT)




DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> Peter,
>
> IMHO, the SDR-1000 has some of the best specs. out and is the most 
> configurable transceiver on the market.  I have seen the insides of the 
> transceiver several times and the construction looks good.
>
> But note that it is only controllable using MS NT (maybe), W2K, XP but I 
> understand that there is a problem controlling it with Vista.  According to 
> Felx Radio there is third party software to control the SDR-1000 with Linux 
> but I'll be darned if I can find anything that gives steps 1, 2, 3, to take, 
> to download, compile the application or configure the radio.
>
> If a manufacturer claims that there is 3rd party software but can't tell you 
> where it is, then I think they should not claim that there is such software 
> and let it go at that.  For that reason I am leery of buying hardware that 
> makes such claims.
>
> I have seen demonstrations of the SDR-1000 and I have used the TS-1000/2000 
> series radios and the SDR-1000 is most impressive against the Yaesu radios.
>
> 73,
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter 
> G. Viscarola
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:30 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Can I get a rig with MORE?
>
>
> I work digital modes (PSK, RTTY, MFSK, Olivia, etc) almost exclusively. 
> I also have a pretty low noise environment, living out in the country and 
> with my antenna (a dipole) almost 100' from the nearest RF noise source.  
> Note that upgrading my antenna system is really not an option at this point 
> for a whole lot of reasons.
> I presently have a TS-2000 and I like it a lot.  I like the ability to use 
> the IF DSP to narrow the passband from each side to isolate the signal I 
> want.  I've been pretty successful with it, too.  Given my modest setup I'm 
> rapidly closing-in on my first 100 for DXCC, after being on HF for only about 
> 4 months.
> Could I gain some sensitivity/selectivity/better filtering by upgrading my 
> rig?   What rigs might folks suggest?   How about the SDR-1000?  Better?  
> Worse?  Something else?
> I'm relatively new to HF, so I'm looking for some elmering I  suppose -- Is 
> my rig doing as well as any?  Or, is a significant step up possible?
> Again... I'm interested strictly in digital mode performance.  And, again, 
> while I'd *like* to put up a tower with a beam (and I *know* the old adage 
> about 1 dollar spent on antennas is worth 100 spent in teh shack), that just 
> can't happen (for any price I can pay) given my location.
> Thanks for your opinions,
> de Peter K1PGV
>  
>
> __ 
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

[digitalradio] [Fwd: [tapr-announce] HPSDR Janus and Ozy Board Production Announcement]

[Robert McGwier]

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

--- Begin Message ---


*** TAPR ANNOUNCES PRODUCTION OF HPSDR JANUS OZY BOARDS ***
High Performance Software Defined Radio Project (HPSDR)

*IMPORTANT*

TAPR and HPSDR need your input!

Please help us by visiting Dale's (WA8SRA) HAMSDR website (see below) and 
let us know if you are interested in purchasing Janus and/or Ozy bare or 
assembled boards for delivery by May.


THIS IS NOT PLACING AN ORDER; IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST SO THAT WE 
CAN MORE ACCURATELY DETERMINE HOW MANY BOARDS TO ORDER AND ASSEMBLIES TO MAKE!


This opportunity will end on Tuesday, February 20th at 0200 UTC.

To register your interest you need to go to the Dale's (WA8SRA) HAMSDR 
website, in the projects section.


If you are a member and have previously expressed interest in these 
projects, log in and re-enter your quantities of each board.


NOTE: Previous quantities have been reset to zero so you WILL HAVE TO 
RE-ENTER QUANTITIES.


If you are new to HPSDR and Dale's Website, please join for instant access 
by providing the information requested.


Go to: HTTP://www.hamsdr.com

Login and go to Projects > TAPR-HPSDR and click on  
button to create a new record for entering your quantities.


What is HPSDR? http://hpsdr.org
What is an Ozy?   http://hpsdr.org/ozy.html
What is a 
Janus?   http://hpsdr.org/janus.html


There are many other HPSDR projects in design and testing; most will 
require the Janus and Ozy boards.







___
tapr-announce mailing list

NOTE:  This list includes all addresses currently subscribed to any TAPR 
mailing list.  Please don't try to manually unsubscribe from this list; it 
won't work.  If you unsubscribe from all other TAPR mailing lists, you will 
automatically be unsubscribed from this one.

--- End Message ---

Re: [digitalradio] Re: SDR-1000

[Robert McGwier]

I pushed forward to a new repository (sdr_linux) today.  Frank and I did 
the dsp/sdr code and Eric Wachsman and Flex did just about 100% of the 
hardware code in support of the SDR-1000.  It runs on linux, cygwin on 
MS and native on MS (using the MSVS 2005 express) and probably OSX.  It 
drives both the parallel port and the USB interface control for the 
hardware.

As a result of Eric's efforts at Flex, we will for the first time  be 
able to control all pieces of the SDR-1000 hardware on Linux,  Windows, 
and probably Mac OSX using the USB interface and libusb.  He did this 
while on the clock at Flex with help from Frank and I on makefiles.

Given the myriad consoles by Pereira,  Melton,  etc.,  this should 
result in a working GUI driven functional radio pretty quickly for these 
platforms independent of Flex.


Frank Brickle wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm not going to spend $1500 for an SDR transceiver I can't run from
>> 
> Linux.
>
> Roger's website is the best source for information on getting started.
> There will be new information forthcoming by the end of the weekend.
>
> As of a couple of days ago, sdr-core and sdr-shell are now running
> under Mac OSX as well.
>
> I think it's accurate to say that Flex isn't going to attach any
> importance to real Linux support unless users demand it and demand it
> vocally. That's exactly what happened with CW. The importance of
> decent CW performance was dismissed out of hand until it became clear
> that the lack of it was costing them sales. Once the point was made,
> the CW performance was improved beyond recognition to its present high
> standard.
>   
We agree completely on CW since I still have the note where Gerald asked 
us "who was complaining about CW?" and disagree on Linux and Flex 
because Gerald is completely aware that the embedded micro in his new 
gold plated radio cannot run Vista for myriad reasons and has said this 
explicitly to Frank and I.In a multiway exchange,  Gerald said 
explicitly that Linux would be first out of the gate on any new radio 
with an embedded micro for dsp/sdr in it. 

Time will tell. 
> 73
> Frank
> AB2KT
>
>   
73's
Bob
N4HY

P.S. Frank and I are not employed by or paid by Flex.


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] ALE CQ and ALE GPRS Re: SDRs Open Possibility for 18kHz Bandwidth HF Data?

[Robert McGwier]

Howdy:

And open source on all parts of our (Frank and I) work should make this 
attractive to someone to do, not necessarily us.  We have been 
constantly amazed at the talent which comes out of th woodwork and 
talkes up what has been done and makes it better or uses it in someway 
we had not envisioned.  This will happen with this as well.  I am really 
happy the League is considering this.  We will all benefit from it and 
this is very forward looking on their part in my opinion.

Bob



Frank Brickle wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> We also have adapted ALE to do APRS-like stuff. But we call it ALE-GPR.
>>
>> The ALE protocol, especially with what you can do with AMD, is flexible.
>> 
>
> And in any case none of this is the last word, especially when hams
> start chewing on it.
>
> For example, last year I did some statistical measurements on typical
> NMEA sentences which indicated they're seriously redundant, about 75%.
> Source coding could allow tucking the full vocabulary of GPS messages
> in all sorts of odd places in the protocol.
>
> No reason to be limited by even what's been improved so far.
>
> 73
> Frank
> AB2KT
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] SDRs Open Possibility for 18kHz Bandwidth HF Data?

[Robert McGwier]

My entry in the $10,000 prize hunt will be this wide or wider.  ;-)

Bonnie is,  as usual,  out in front of most other people's thinking, 
leading, goading, etc.   AB2KT and I have written the software defined 
radio code for SDR-1000 (and others) and we are working on the library 
code that will enable this.  It has been my interpretation of the rules, 
and the interpretation of all my low friends in high places in states 
that begin with a "C" , that it is in fact allowed (none willing to 
speak on the record).As SDR working group chairman,  I have been 
actively pursuing these questions and goading development, both hardware 
and software.All that is necessary to do this type of modem work in 
hardware will probably spring into existence "as if by magic" at Dayton 
in the SDR, TAPR, and HFPACK forums.  ;-).   We need buy in from the 
amateur community at large so lots of work needs to be done in the area 
of peaceful coexistence but without an exemplar to work with,  all you 
get is knee jerk reactions on all sides.  I will be providing the 
exemplar and aiding OTHERS to develop the networks.  I simply will not 
have the time to do this personally.  I challenge Bonnie, Walt, and 
others to take what comes and use it and figure out HOW it should be 
used.  As a scientist/engineer,  I will do the technical work, and aid 
the policy decisions, but will not make them.

Here are my current working plans.   OFDM,  ARBITRARY bandwidth,  
variable number of carriers,  variable baudrate,  BICM or Turbo Trellis 
coded modulation DESIGNED FOR the fading channel,  ARQ DESIGNED FOR THE 
ENVIRONMENT,  ..  and to provide this in a format that will allow us 
to be radio amateurs: EXPERIMENTATION to figure out the optimal settings 
and usable bandwidths.  But 18 kHz will NOT be the limitation in the 
software.  Antennas usable over large frequency ranges will be.   NVIS 
for this will be an important portion of this.  Frank and I have this 
goal of having credible "local area networks" that cover thousands of 
square miles for all sorts of noble purposes (Emergencies,  
infrastructure where none exists or is currently impossible, etc. )

There has been a tremendous volume of research, good work,  definitely 
applicable, which has been done in the last two decades.   It is kind of 
a shame that you need to have a book budget that is in the thousands of 
dollars to put together the library for this work since they are 
typically captured in usable form in these expensive books.  I am very 
fortunate to have this resource provided to me at work.  You can get the 
work in papers but it is usually so terse as to be difficult even to 
professionals with the necessary training.

Bonnie's leadership in ALE, prodding and poking both the developer and 
the users is a critical resource here.  ALE is absolutely required to 
make this resource usable in my opinion.  It will be an enabling 
technology in this along with the new SDR code is about to be sprung.   
The modem and open source ALE will follow after along with lots of new 
SDR capable hardware about the same time.

QRX

Bob
N4HY



Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> So, , what digital modes exist that are in the 12 to 20 kHz range
> could I use if I when and bought a SDR today ?
> Andy K3UK
>
> On 1/24/07, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SDRs Open the Possibility for 18kHz Bandwidth HF Data
>> providing more robust communications and higher speed data.
>>
>> With new Software Defined Radio (SDR) transceivers that use
>> computer audio as the IF and DSP for filtering and modem,
>> wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB transceivers
>> are possible.
>>
>> 12kHz or 20kHz BW is certainly within the range of SDRs.
>> This opens the possibility for some very fast and/or robust
>> HF digital modes that can take advantage of wider bandwidths
>> when needed, or could scale down and up in speed or bandwidth
>> depending upon propagation conditions and need to coexist and
>> share with other spectrum users.
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movement toward open digital software?

[Robert McGwier]

Exactly.  My personal experience, which I believe is nearly identical to 
Frank's,  is found in our doing the software defined radio code (which 
is used now by thousands of radio amateurs and others) finds Simon's 
fear is misplaced.   However,  it is a personal (if incorrect ;-) )  
decision and his to make.

That does not keep us from voting with out fingers and feet and going 
elsewhere.  If Simon's game is the only one in town,  then we are left 
with no choice.   DttSP, Flex Radio, GnuRadio,  HPSDR, uwSDR, AEA 
DSP1232/2232  all run code that Frank and/or  I have written (along with 
many others).  My experience with open source in these projects is that 
it has been utterly glorious and the few Neaderthal's that come dragging 
their knuckles out of their caves are a minor annoyance.  We have been 
aided greatly and have learned a tremendous amount from doing business 
this way.

Soapbox shoved firmly back in to the closet,
Bob
N4HY




Frank Brickle wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Spot on. I use a commercial library from Codejock - www.codejock.com
>> 
> - this 
>   
>> cannot be distributed. I also use other commercial libraries with
>> 
> similar 
>   
>> restrictions. I can only ship the runtime libraries or link the code
>> 
> into my 
>   
>> executable.
>> 
>
> You don't have to distribute their libraries to open your source,
> unless their API is covered by an NDA.
>
> As far as questions about myriad versions go, "Let us all know when
> you find out!" is as good an answer as any.
>
> 73
> Frank
> AB2KT
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster 
> telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the
corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Re: [digitalradio] 10 Khz signal

[Robert McGwier]

Is it heard at night?   Then I am going to guess that it is digital 
radio mondial broadcast. 

Bob
N4HY



Chuck Mayfield - AA5J wrote:
> What is the signal that occupies 3990 to 4000?
>
>   

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the
corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoffer

Re: [digitalradio] Re: OFDM data is Emission Designator D1D

[Robert McGwier]

Thank you for the note.   If it is designed the way you say (and this is 
not contraindicated by the document I provided a link to) then the bauds 
in the detector will be orthogonal.  

73's
Bob
N4HY


cesco12342000 wrote:
>> relevant to its classification to OFDM.  Which it is NOT.  The 
>> 
> carriers 
>   
>> are on 120 Hz centers and the baud times are 100 Hz.   Because the 
>> 
> baud 
>   
>> time is not commensurate with angular frequency of the carriers,  the 
>> dot products are not zero and therefore,  they are NOT orthogonal in 
>> PACTOR-III.  
>> 
>
> I do not agree.
>
> 100 baud means 10ms/symbol, of which 8.33ms symbol time, 1.66ms guard 
> interval. Carrier spacing is 1000ms/8.33ms = 120hz.
>
> The carrier spacing is orthogonal to the "integration time", and not 
> to "integration time + guard intervall". It's exacly like all the other 
> ofdm systems.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the
corridor in the other direction. " - Dietrich Bonhoffer

Re: [digitalradio] "Omnibus" rules published in Federal Register

[Robert McGwier]

Dan:

Why would the ARRL do this?  It is my opinion that coupled with the 
parts of Pactor-III that are considered trade secrets,  Pactor-III is in 
violation of Part 97 making it an encryption.  There is no provision in 
part 97 for being able to receive it with ridiculously priced hardware, 
it simply MUST be a completely reproducible specification available for 
open reading to not be in violation of Part 97.  The League does not 
help the situation by aiding SCS continue to be a scofflaw.

Bob
N4HY


Theodore A. Antanaitis wrote:
> Received this reply today:
>
> Hi Ted:
>
> As of Dec 15 Pactor-III running at a bandwidth of greater than 500 Hz
> (such as Winlink) is not permissible below 30 MHz.  This is one of the
> petition to reconsider items being considered by the ARRL Board of
> Directors.
>
> Thanks and 73
>
> Dan Henderson, N1ND
> ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein

Re: [digitalradio] What is an image and what is data

[Robert McGwier]

These FCC rules are very poorly drawn.  I can send every signal digital 
file transfer in the phone band with a single bit per second of an image 
as that makes it an image transfer.  I do this by attaching an 
icon/avatar to each transmission.  I then get 3 kHz to do my file 
transfers.  To avoid this,  we would need rules about what percentage 
content identifies the type.   This is just the worst kind of a) 
engineering, b) policy, and c) lawyering done at the F.C.C. in concert 
with several years of misguided efforts from our representatives.If 
there are to be restrictions about what goes where,  I think bandwidth 
is the only restriction that makes any kind of sense.  I am generally 
opposed to this as a matter of principle because it severely limits 
innovation.   The degradation of technical talent at the F.C.C. is 
really bad.  Let me give an anecdote.

Once there was a meeting there on matters covered in the omnibus bill 
(read my sig, first part and you can probably guess what would impact 
me).   We were subjected to some amount of bullying and arm twisting 
which was resisted with a stony demeanor.  We later did the proper set 
of responses which would allow us to enter federal court to battle the 
regulations.  In these meetings, there was a public admission of pride 
that there was a fellow ham in the room and that he was an engineer.  He 
was the only engineer in the room for them and was clearly junior.

At the end of the meeting,  as our group was heading out,  the engineer 
walked with the group,  said how glad he was we came,  and he apologized 
for the chair's demeanor and mistake.  Mistake?  He said he was not an 
engineer but was a lawyer  who happened to be an amateur radio 
operator.  Since he had all of this practical knowledge from his hobby,  
he was often perceived to be an engineer.  It was one of the saddest 
moments I can recall in dealing with these kinds of matters.

The F.C.C. is a clear iconic symbol for "Absolute power corrupts 
absolutely" and "Money is the root of all evil".  The billions at stake 
in their rulings has forced any kind of technical talent to be submerged 
beneath a tidal wave of politics and lawyers.

Bob
N4HY



Mark Miller wrote:
> The answers to these questions about what is an image is simple in one 
> respect.  The current FCC rules allow digital emissions throughout the 
> 160 through 10 meter bands.  This is true because emissions that have 
> a 1 or a 2 as the second symbol of the emissions designator are 
> allowed everywhere.  It is the content of the digital emissions that 
> is segregated, and this is the third symbol.  So if the content of you 
> message is data, then the emission that you are using had a D as the 
> third symbol.  If the content of your emission is an image then the 
> third symbol is a C.  If the content of your message is telegraphy for 
> automatic reception, then the third symbol is a B.  What is 
> telegraphy?  Telegraphy in this case is defined in part 2 as:
> a
> form of telecommunication for the transmission of written matter by the
> use of a signal code.  Facsimle is also a form of telegraphy, but is
> for the transmission of images.  
>
> What is complex is capturing an emission and determining if it is an
> image or data.  Win DRM is a good example.  You can send F1D
> and F1C with WinDRM, but unless you decode it, you cannot tell from the
> emission whether it is an image or data.
>
>   
> 73,
>
> Mark N5RFX   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques

[Robert McGwier]

jgorman01 wrote:
> I'll try to keep this short.
>
> First, the review I quoted was the first one the ARRL, I went back and
> read the second one.  Some comments:
>
> I agree the numbers that came out of the test are impressive. 
---  snip ---
>
> Now a little of my engineering scepticism. 
---  snip  ---
>
> I understand your promotion of your products.  But again, if I
> understand what your promoting, forgive me if I have doubts that an
> $85,000 system is comparable to what you say may cost less than $300.
>  In my soon to be 56 years on this earth, I have learned that you get
> what you pay for and seldom, if ever, get a deal like this.  If you
> can offer one at that price, again, congratulation, you are going to
> be the next Bill Gates!
>   
The entire purpose for HPSDR is to do this experimentation "for the good 
of us all".  We have come together to provide these capabilities in 
inexpensive systems for the amateur radio and SDR experimenter.

I can only assume that Ulrich Rohde (Rohde and Schwarz,  he of the many 
tens of thousands of dollar toys) tells us he is so interested in this 
work because it is so interesting.  He is a regular contributor to HPSDR 
concerning LO's, Mixers, etc. and is absolutely looking at the 
technology to mine it for the "XK-5000".  THis is understood by every 
contributor.  There are many big company manufacturers there listening, 
lurking, consuming.  We are having exactly the impact we wanted to have 
and money has not been a motivational factor.  I hope it never is.  The 
"pay for what you get" comment is probably appropriate.  You will not be 
given a life time warranty and pay tens of thousands of dollar 
supporting large corporate offices and stock holders who do not provide 
any service to you at all but you will also get no "on-site support" or 
after market hand holding.  For some applications, the cost of these 
things is worth every dime because the end user must be supported.  In 
our case,  we are aimed at increasing knowledge and providing tools for 
the "modern day homebrewer" in the best traditions of amateur radio.  We 
are in the chasm between "the old way" of doing amateur radio and 
whatever excitement the future may bring.  We have done little beyond 
changing out tubes for transistors and added in a little DSP shaping.  
SDR with all that means,  is our way into the future, since it is 
"programmable to meet the demand".  By the way,  Ulrich Rohde is not the 
only super star member of HPSDR.  There are several serious industry 
players who are lurkers.
> You might also be up front and tell the folks on an HF Digital forum,
> that as of the last ARRL review the turn around times of your system
> makes it usable for ARQ modes at the least.  Like 170 ms versus 24 ms
> for the Icom ProIII.  Likewise that the group delay of the software
> filters requires reducing the number of taps from around 2000 to 200+,
> thereby reducing their effectivness for digital communications.  You
> might mentionthe ARRL tests showed the SSB carrier suppression and
> opposite SSB suppression on TX is only 53 dB vs the ProIII's at >70
> dB.  Again, over my lifetime, I have learned that not everything comes
> up roses.  Products require compromises and you need to be up front
> with the pimples.
>   
Isn't it great that we are doing a software defined radio?   I love 
what  Willi Rempel said.  "Each new day and each new software release is 
like a brand new radio".  That may be an exaggeration but in this case,  
that is not far off.   The radio switching times was entirely a software 
issue AND IS COMPLETELY RESOLVED.I am not happy with all parts of 
it,  but a couple of months of software investigation,  badda-bing 
badda-boom,  and you have personally walked into my spider's lair and 
given me THE PERFECT opportunity to make my point.  The radio switches 
in 5 ms from receive to transmit and transmit to receive and in this 
case,  ON CW and digital modes,  with a single release of software,  it 
is like a brand new radio.




> Lastly, you said "...it is frustrating to me personally that what is
> happening right under amateur radio's nose is so badly misunderstood
> and insufficiently appreciate.  I believe as strongly as I believe I
> am typing this note that most of you have purchased your last
> conventional HF transceiver because of this work.  What vehicle should
> I use to scream these roof tops so educated interested people like Jim
> can understand how much things are changing?"
>
> I do understand how things are changing, but I also understand how
> they are not changing.  A little background. I am a BSEE, and when I
> started work at Southwestern Bell Tele. (now AT&T) I was like you and
> couldn't believe how backward folks were.  How computers should be
> changing the world RIGHT NOW.  However, I learned there were budgets,
> for hardware, software, and most importantly, hiring and training
> people.  These budgets were limited and controlled how fast t

Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques

[Robert McGwier]

jgorman01 wrote:
> S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
> gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain.  As I said in a
> previous post, it is an indicator of the reduction in gain, i.e. how
> much of an attenuator is being inserted.  By inserting this attenuator
> you are not just inserting an S5 level of reduction, but an S9+10 dB
> level of attenuation.  Therefore the smaller signal is reduced by a
> much larger amount than its absolute level would need.  This means it
> doesn't come out of the audio amp at an S5 level but at something much
> less.  
>
> SDR's still have to deal with the real analog world at some point.  RF
> preamps and amplifiers that have a large dynamic range are not easy to
> design and build.  That is why AGC is applied to them, to limit the
> range they have to handle.  As an experiment turn off your AGC and see
> what level of signal it takes to overload at least some of the stages
> in your receiver.  I can HEAR audible distortion on S9 signals.  This
> means signals much less than this also have distortion.  Now this may
> not be occuring in the first RF stages but it likely could be.  
>   

This is wrong.

The SDR-1000 has a measured IMD-DR over 100 dB, with an IP3 north of 30 
dBm.  It does not have a single analog amplifier with agc on it.  All 
agc is done strictly in software.  Great use is made of the fact that 
200 kHz wide I/Q if's may be captured using modern audio codecs that 
exhibit 99 dB of dynamic range themselves (or more) and then we proceed 
to filter and downsample and get increased range by doing that.  This of 
course limits the blocking dynamic range to about 100 dB as well.  This 
will increase as a DIRECT result of getting and using better codecs.  
This is happening now in support of the SDR-1000 by HPSDR.


> SDR's may very well be an answer to cheaper high performance
> receivers, but so far the measurements I have seen don't show a
> dramatic improvement, for example, even half again the dynamic range
> of current decent analog receivers.  See the ARRL review on the
> SDR1000.  I am sure better performance will come, but at what price is
> a question.  Here is a reference I found about a high performance system.
>   
The SDR-1000,  with which I am intimately familiar (having jointly 
written all of the DSP software in it with AB2KT) was a stack of boards 
layed out with a free tool.  The stack of boards are 3x4 inches because 
that is what Eagle would do for FREE.   It is a "beyond lucky" 
happenstance that with small component modifications the thing is able 
to get the numbers mentioned in the ARRL review.  I suggest that you 
have misread it if you do not understand what a complete REVOLUTION the 
SDR-1000 is.   The high dynamic range and the IP3 measured in the ARRL 
review ARE AT 2 KHZ!  Not 20 kHz, not 5 kHz but 2 kHz.  And the only 
reason the measurements are not done closer than that is the ARRL 
laboratory is incapable of have a sufficiently noise free generator to 
measure that close.

The ARRL review you quote states (AFTER the review for the Orion and 
IC-7800 came out)  that is was about the best receiver ever measured in 
the ARRL labs.

MAJOR technical innovations have been made inside and outside of Flex 
Radio on the theory and implementation of the what Gerald calls the QSD 
and what others call the Tayloe detector.  I understand its principles 
of operation completely having completed a detailed transform analysis 
and have suggested how to greatly improve the circuit.  These 
considerations are being applied by Gerald in his new receiver design 
and they are being applied by HPSDR in a separate design based on low 
noise amplifiers I chose and a codec I recommended and an approach that 
started with Phil Covington, N8VB and spurred my technical analysis 
after Tayloe said that the essential nature of the beast was an 
integrator and not an RC network.

I do believe people will be shocked at how unbelievably capable these 
inexpensive receiver components will be.  For Flex Radio,  they will be 
applied in expensive radio systems under design for the high end user.  
In HPSDR,  they will be applied in modules clearly aimed at the 
experiment.   We have, absolutely no doubt in my mind,  the CORRECT 
tools to do amazing digital work for HF and reasonably inexpensively 
should we choose or very expensively if we choose to have a major new rig.


> "The Model 7640's FPGA serves as its control and status engine, and is
> supported by 512MB of DDR SDRAM for buffering functions, such as data
> capture and delay. The transceiver digitizes HF (high frequency) or IF
> (intermediate frequency) input signals using a pair of 14-bit, 105 MHz
> A/D converters, and generates output signals with two 16-bit, 500 MHz
> D/A converters." See it at
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3911104852.html 
>
> It only retails for $85,000!
>   
The HPSDR Mercury and Ozy boards are 135 MHz 16 bit A/D with > 90 dB 
range (I m

Re: [digitalradio] Concerning Signal Detection

[Robert McGwier]

DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> My uncle, Charles Sumner Williams (author of Introduction to the Optical 
> Transfer Function), who taught radio at Scott Field during WWII and retired 
> from TI said that the problem with "computer" signal detection (we were 
> discussing CW) was trying to duplicate with a computer what the human brain 
> could do was difficult.  However, once you succeeds, the computer is likely 
> to be able to do the job better.
>
> I did not realize until much later, that in part he was talking about how our 
> brain, perhaps acting as a quantum like computer, takes current and past 
> information to predict the future and that the brain can be trained to reject 
> certain sounds, patterns and the like.  
I believe this is correct.   You cannot do this job correctly and only 
treat it as a conventional signal processing problem.  FEC works on 
digital signals by building in redundancy.  Better decoding of CW would 
make use of the existing redundancy rather than just "is it on or 
off?".  CW sending words clearly has significant "Markovity" in the 
actual transmitted tones.   To not take advantage of the predictability 
of the next character or element given those elements just preceding it 
would be folly.  In the case of distorted signal or signal in noise or 
interference,  this is a Hidden Markov process.  The algorithms for 
treating this under certain assumptions are well known and understood.  
iNTUITIVELY, one looks at the possible outcomes for the next element and 
picks the best outcome given the observations.  One should use signal 
before AND after current element under consideration as the 
"observations".  The brain certainly uses this.   I struggled like mad 
when I was attempting to learn to copy faster morse before I got my 
extra in the early 1970's.  My speed really took off when I relaxed, 
allowed myself to fall a little bit behind.  Now it is clear I am using 
signal information before and after the object I am attempting to 
decode.  Then the speed really went up when I started copying words and 
phrases and not letters. 


> Mathematics remains the fundamental science used to analyze and explain the 
> complex algorithms of human speech. Virtually every branch of pure and 
> applied mathematics has proved to be useful in these efforts.  Where the 
> human brain is a biological computer, the computers humans build simply tries 
> to emulate this function...the human brain is our basis and model.  
> Understanding this concept will greatly enhance our ability to create a 
> better HF modem.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
>   
The mathematics of this kind of language modeling applied to signal 
processing is simply fascinating.

73's
Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Armstrong 'got Moon quote right'

[Robert McGwier]

Bill Turner wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:52:42 -0400, "Andrew O'Brien"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Armstrong 'got Moon quote right'  
>> 
>
>  REPLY FOLLOWS 
>
> Boys and girls, you have just seen a prime example of historical
> revisionism. Usually it's done with more subtlety, but technology has
> allowed a more in-your=face approach. After all, who can argue with
> technology? :-)
>
> Bill, W6WRT
> who is sure this has something to do with digital radio
>
>   

This is more analogous to DNA testing revolutionizing forensics and 
reversing some (wrong) convictions.  A newer technique embodied in an 
easy to obtain audio processing software package was applied and it 
basically showed the "tail of the impulse response" of the comm system 
to the "a".   His "vox" dropped out at just the wrong moment, but you 
could see the signs of the "a" having been uttered according to this 
analysis.  It is persuasive and for the sake of one brave men and  a 
great hero ,  I choose to believe it.

Bob


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques

[Robert McGwier]

jgorman01 wrote:
> I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
> energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive.  In other words,
> the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
> signal do not add together.  You can only discern the strongest
> signal.  An example is, that if you put a carrier on the air and I
> receive it at S9 and then someone else puts a carrier on the exact
> same frequency but it only arrives at S8, I'll never know it is there.  
>   

The only kind  of receiver that does this by design is one in which a 
limiter is in the front end (or other undesireable nonlinearity) and 
exhibits the capture effect (such as FM receivers).  So you statement is 
false. They do add to the extent that the front end and following stages 
continue to operate linearly.  If BPL is very close to you, and the 
other signal is weak,  then it is possible (easy) for the audio 
difference coming from a typical amateur radio transceiver to exceed the 
dynamic range OF THE AUDIO CIRCUITS (not the front end or the IF's).   
For some of the SDR transceivers,  where the audio dynamic range is 
presented digitally to the processing programs (the audio never leaves 
through a D/A or speaker or wire of any type) through a virtual audio 
hookup (done with software wires rather than hardware wires).

I feel this is one of the major assets of these SDR approaches 
(SDR-1000, GnuRadio, HPSDR).  The other major asset of each of these SDR 
systems is that they can, or soon will be able to,  tune a signal that 
is almost 200 kHz wide.
> Therefore, when you remove the interfering signal, you also remove any
> possibility of retreiving information from the signal you want to
> hear.  Consequently, you will never have a coherent signal to decode.
>  It will always have missing information.
>   
There is information degradation but your "nonlinearity" reason is 
incorrect insofar as it went.
> Any other assumption means noise, especially random noise, would not
> be a problem, and that you could always subtract a signal from it. 
> Every mode I know of, digital or analog, has a minimum signal to noise
> ratio that is required to decode it.  
>   
This is correct.  BPL is not very noise like in comparison to a very 
well designed digital system where randomization of the data,  forward 
error correction,  source coding (compression) all make the data look 
flat random.   So a system to defeat BPL must be designed to overcome 
the nonrandom statistics of the BPL excitation.  There will be a signal 
/ (noise+interference) ratio beneath which we cannot go further.  This 
is well understood what it is even if it is difficult to compute (with 
interference being decidely nongaussian and the channel having memory).  
If you demand 1000 bps from the channel and the capacity is 999 bps,  
you have exceeded the capacity and information will be lost.   Any 
system that will communicate through BPL interference must degrade 
gracefully as the channel information capacity decreases.  It is the 
demand for fixed rate where that rate exceeds capacity that leads to a 
graceless collapse in our HF systems.  One of the things the illegal 
encrypted communications Pactor III does, is decrease the information 
rate to be below the capacity (any digital system where the complete 
specifications allowing duplication are not published is a violation of 
Part 97) to allow for continued communications at the reduced rate.  
There is no "one size fits all" with these horrid HF channels.  Any 
system designed to replace what we have will ultimately have to accept 
this and build for it.

> Jim
> WA0LYK
>
>
>
>   

Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques

[Robert McGwier]

list email filter wrote:
> 
>
> If I am 800 miles away, outside the local disaster and power outage 
> area, and could have provided assistance, but can't hear you through my 
> local BPL QRM, or have given up HF communications all together as the 
> newly required digital BPL busting technologies are too expensive to 
> play with, don't we all lose?
>
> 
>   

I feel that it is the responsibility of the software defined radio 
groups to go forward and provide for these capabilities since it really 
is "the only way".  I will not defend this in detail here but I believe 
it strongly for all sorts of theoretical and practical reasons.

73
Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques

[Robert McGwier]

expeditionradio wrote:
> BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques 
>
>
>   

--- snip  
> The development of new amateur modes, semi-automated and automated
> frequency agile systems, advanced ARQ, and various sorts of FEC
> digital techniques are a possible avenue for amateurs to
> "communicate through" the interference caused by BPL. It may not be
> possible to entirely eliminate all the harmful interference BPL 
> creates, but we need to start planning for mitigation. We need to 
> research and characterize the various types of BPL signals so that 
> we can design modulation and control techniques to compensate for 
> them. 
>
>   
I recently had a general manager of a large amateur radio organization 
tell me that if I made it possible to communicate through BPL or in any 
way mitigated BPL through DSP techniques,  I would begin to sing soprano 
and the GM did not mean falsetto.


> Using radio engineering and specially-designed digital signal 
> processing, we can develop "BPL-Busting Modes". These new modes 
> and systems could carry any combination of voice/image/text/data. 
> Frequency hopping, spread spectrum, wideband OFDM, multi-PSK, ALE, 
> and MFSK are mode/systems that we could implement immediately in 
> new formats... 
>
> Unfortunately, hams in USA don't have the freedom within the 
> USA FCC rules to advance some of these yet. We look to hams in other 
> countries to pioneer these new techniques.
>   
Any technique that would allow higher rates and near bullet proof 
performance would necessarily sound a whole lot like noise and would 
necessarily be fairly wideband and would not work in today's traditional 
radios but would certainly work in the SDR radios.  I am afraid that if 
I didn't have the general manager alter my singing pitch,  the rest of 
ham radio might.


> Under USA FCC current Amateur Radio Service rules, we do not have 
> the freedom that other countries have, to take advantage of some of 
> the most useful technologies that could help us to "communicate 
> through" BPL interference. We are still locked in our technology 
> prison. Hopefully, in the near future, we will have more freedom... 
> with bandwidth-based spectrum management. 
>   

I say that we can do turbo trellis coded based OFDM  that are designed 
for fading dispersive channels with cochannel interference.  One of 
these years when I have yet another life to give,  I am certain I can do 
it and pound tons of data through.  The research in ARQ and the 
development of ALE should indeed allow us to greatly improve the 
robustness of our link to effectively use the fancier modulations.  
> 73  Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>
>   

Thank you for starting an interesting thread.

73
Bob
N4HY


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: What is this noise?

[Robert McGwier]

I agree with this.  The switchers typically have a free running 
"oscillator" in them so they drift and coupled with insufficient RFI 
prevention.  This gets coupled into a receiver where you can be running 
as much as 100 dB of amplification in the entire receiver chain. 

Bob
N4HY


expeditionradio wrote:
> Switching power supply.
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew  J. O'Brien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>>
>>
>> I have noticed an occasional noise generated by my receiver, seems
>> 


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] 188-110B Adaptive Equalization

[Robert McGwier]

188-141 does not merit adaptive equalization in my opinion.   At 125 
tones per second,  one of 8 tones is turned on.  Each tone sends 3 bits 
as a result.   The data is encoded with a Golay code.   This is about 
twice as fast as is optimal for most HF channels given this kind of 
transmission (IMO)  but the Golay really does work.

Bob
N4HY




Mark Miller wrote:
>>  This is needed,
>> absolutely mandatory, to mitigate the fading multipath HF channel.
>> 
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Thanks.  I have not had a opportunity to send images with 188-110, but 
> after reading the specification, I thought adaptive equalization would be 
> necessary.  I look forward to sending images.  I have been hanging out of 
> the 20 meter channels hopping that conditions would be right to do some 
> testing.  So far I have only used the messaging in 188-141 which I don't 
> believe has the training sequence necessary for adaptive equalization.
>
> 73,
>
> Mark N5RFX
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] 188-110B Adaptive Equalization

[Robert McGwier]

Mark Miller wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Is there adaptive equalization used in  the PCALE or 
> MARSALE  implementation of 188-110A or B?
>
> 73,
>
> Mark N5RFX
>   

We do not have the source code but from the performance anecdotal 
evidence given us by Bonnie and others (transmitting the images) it 
would not work this well without the Adaptive Eq.  This is needed,  
absolutely mandatory, to mitigate the fading multipath HF channel.

Bob
N4HY

-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal

[Robert McGwier]

What?  That was basically unintelligible.


Mil Std 188-110-A1 2400 baud serial modem combines several features to 
mitigate the channel.

Furthermore   TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED BAUD DOES NOT MEAN 2400 bps.  It 
almost never does. What happens in the modem is multiple 2400 baud 
symbols are put together to encode the data at a slower rate.  This can 
be as low as 75 bps.The channel symbols are sent at 2400 baud.

There is forward error correction done on the data and the encoded data 
is permuted in time in a block form.   The type of forward error 
correction works best when the channel induces errors in isolation.   On 
a typical HF channel,   the errors come in bunches.   So the permutation 
mentioned above, spreads these errors out in time to isolate them.  
CLEVER DEVILS.  This was the ingenuous trick that made it all work.

To slow down the data rate,  the data is repeated from zero to several 
times.  The encoded redundant data provides more energy per bit since it 
involves now N more bauds (where N is the number of repeats).

I have << NEVER >> in many years of working with this scheme,  seen the 
high DATA rates work well over multiple hop channels.   I have seen 1200 
bps be quite robust and 600 bps very robust indeed.  I have seen 75 bps 
work when you cannot detect the modem is on the channel.

73's
Bob
N4HY



DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT the 
> discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>
>
> Can you explain how it is that you can run a symbol rate of 2400 (baud) 
> with 188-110A and it works very well running at this extremely high 
> speed for HF? And yet other modes, such as Packet, don't work very well 
> at 300 baud, and Walt has pointed out that government studies had show 
> that under 50 baud was about the optimum for the types of conditions we 
> often find on HF?
>
> Why would we not just increase the baud rate of MT-63 or MFSK16 to get a 
> similar speed boost if it can work that well?
>
> How tight do you need the frequency tolerance to be to enhance weak 
> signal modes? The ICOM Pro rigs run at around 0.5 ppm, which seems 
> several orders of magnitude better than what some of the digital mode 
> programs require. I wonder how much better a weak signal/difficult 
> condition mode we could come up with if there was a tighter frequency 
> tolerance.
>
> You might recall the early developement of Clover I, by Ray, W7GHM. If I 
> remember right, the signal was phaselocked to WWV or other time standard 
> frequency. Later this was abandoned with DSP developed as a bus card and 
> the computer mostly being used as a dumb terminal, but it will never be 
> as tight a frequency tolerance as 10 e -6 or so:)
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.
You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los
Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly
the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.
The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Insulting Subject - Exalted Mystical Busy Channel Detectors

[Robert McGwier]

Dave:

The technical specification is incomplete.  You may not take their 
documents and implement a compatible system (been there, done that, got 
the tire tracks on my back).  They have not made these specifications 
public to my knowledge anywhere, including the F.C.C.   As such,  I do 
not see why it is not an illegal scrambler in the U.S.


Bob
N4HY


Dave Bernstein wrote:
> I don't think the problem lies with SCS, Doc. First, they have 
> provided descriptions of the Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 protocols; the 
> absence of alternate implementations is more likely the rsult of 
> constraints imposed by Windows than technical obfuscation by SCS.  
> Second, Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 in keyboard-to-keyboard mode are, from 
> a QRM-generating perspective, no different than RTTY or AMTOR -- 
> there are operators on both ends listening to the frequency, so 
> QRMing an ongoing QSO is unlikely.
>
> The problem is semi-automatic operation without busy frequency 
> detection. This results in QRM to ongoing QSOs, and there's no way 
> to communicate with the station generating the QRM even if you 
> happen to have the right modem because the guilty station is 
> automaticly controlled! This is the case with semi-automatic 
> operation in CW, RTTY, or PSK -- the fact that Pactor 2 or Pactor 3 
> are being used by many message passing services (because they are 
> fast and error-free) is actually irrelevant.
>
> Enforcement would certainly be easier if we could eliminate the need 
> to decode every protocol out there. Requiring the participants of 
> each digital mode QSO -- whether attended, semi-automatic, or 
> automatic -- to periodically identify in a common, easily-decoded  
> modulation and format would greatly facilitate self-policing.
>
>73,
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dominoex/SDR1000

[Robert McGwier]

You do not need  a second sound card.   You need the "pseudo sound 
card".  Virtual Audio Cable,  version 3.12 only.

http://www.flex-radio.com/download_files/PowerSDR/Docs/PowerSDR_VAC.pdf


http://spider.nrcde.ru/music/software/eng/vac.html


DO NOT ORDER 4.01.  ORDER ONLY 3.12


I have just added the thermistor which will soon be offered to stabilize 
the "VFO" and it is like a rock.  Newer radio's have it and the one you 
got from W&S might already have it.


73's
Bob
N4HY



KENNETH MICHAELSON wrote:
> Thanks for replying, Andrew...Yes, a second card is supplied with the 
> kit, a Delta-44, at an additional cost of £99.95. And that 
> incidentally, in my ignorance, is most of what the trouble is..You are 
> supplied with a 'Breakout Box', and the variations of types of output 
> and input from this card are srnding me round the bend. Andrew, I 
> can't cope with it as it is...Again thanks for the reply...73 de Ken G3RDG
>
>


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!







Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Ham radio
  
  
Craft hobby
  
  
Hobby and craft supply
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

Re: [digitalradio] No PAX(2) in MultiPSK 3.9!?

[Robert McGwier]

We really do need  the ability to select "microsoft mapper" as one of 
the sound cards.  Over 1000 SDR-1000 owners, using Virtual Audio 
Cables,  need to map these virtual audio cables to the input and output 
default sound cards to work with your program.   It is useless to us 
until you do since we do not hook sound card programs to a sound card 
but to a virtual sound card that is then hooked through a cable to the 
default windows devices on one end and the SDR-1000 on the other.  I am 
sure I have not been explaining my request carefully enough.


73's
Bob
N4HY




Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Alan,
>
> The Multipsk present version is the 3.13 one. For the downloading here is an 
> extract of a previous message:
>
> "The new release of MULTIPSK (3.13) is in my Web site 
> (http://f6cte.free.fr).
> The main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.org/index.html
> Another mirror site is Terry's: http://www.hamsoft.co.uk/";
>
> 73
>
> Patrick
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] The dirty little secret behind ENCOM and WinLink

[Robert McGwier]

N6CRR wrote:
> Reality
>
>   
This is an opinion piece.  It offers no documentary evidence and in 
fact, is a rant. 
> those silly Amateur radio operators to show up. Heck, our Pimp, I mean
> the ARRL BOD, is even working to insure we can encrypt your traffic so
> you can comply with all sorts of real and imagined security issues and
> legal issues.   
>
>   
How does this contribute to the discourse?   Is there a single 
recommendation in any of this or is it all just a serious case of  
mental and keyboard diarrhea?

Bob N4HY

-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] New release (3.13) of MULTIPSK

[Robert McGwier]

Patrick:

I have downloaded your programs and taken one look each time to find 
that it would not support my needs.  I need to have one sound card for 
input and another for output.  This is easily done if you just open the 
windows default sound device rather than a specific sound card.  I hope 
that you will add this possibility to a future release.

Bob N4HY



Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> **
>
> *New release (3.13) of MULTIPSK*
>
> *RX/TX:* PSK10/BPSK31/QPSK31/CHIP 
> (64/128)/PSKFEC31/BPSK63/QPSK63/PSKAM10-31-50/PSK63F - PSK220F + 
> DIGISSTV "Run"/CW/CCW/CCW-FSK/THROB/THROBX/MFSK8/MFSK16 (+ 
> SSTV)/OLIVIA/ DominoF DF/DominoEX/MT63/RTTY 45/75/ RTTY 
> 50+SYNOP+SHIP/ASCII/AMTOR FEC/ PACKET 300-1200 + APRS+ DIGISSTV "Run"/ 
> PACTOR 1-FEC/PAX+PAX2 + APRS/FELD HELL/PSK HELL/FM HELL/HELL 
> 80/HF-FAX/SSTV/
> *RX only: *AMTOR ARQ/NAVTEX/RTTY 100/
> *DSP:* Filters + CW binaural reception
> *PSK Panoramic (BPSK31/BPSK63/PSKFEC31):* RX 23 channels simultaneously
> *CW Panoramic:* RX 8 or 23 channels simultaneously
> *RTTY Panoramic:* RX 8 RTTY QSO decoded simultaneously on 22 channels
> *Programmation* of Multipsk reception
> *CLOCK 1.5.2* (FRANCE-INTER, DCF77, HBG, RUGBY, WWVB, WWV, WWVH, GPS)
>
> Hello to all Ham and SWL,
>
> The new release of MULTIPSK (3.13) is in my Web site 
> (http://f6cte.free.fr).
> The main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: http://multipsk.eqth.org/index.html
>
> Another mirror site isTerry's: http://www.hamsoft.co.uk/
>
> Multispk associated to Clock are freeware programs but with functions 
> submitted to a licence (by user key).
>
> **
>
> *The main modifications *of MULTIPSK 3.13 is the following:
>
> 1) Possibility to code/decode the *DominoEX* (4 to 22 bauds) mode. It 
> has been added a possibility of FEC correction. See specifications 
> further on.
>
>
>


-- 
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!



Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Safe is Amateur Radio

[Robert McGwier]

Soapbox entry:

I don't believe we are in any serious current danger of frequency 
swiping on HF but I do believe we are in a demographic crunch.  There 
will begin to be  massive die off of hams (statistically speaking) in 
about 10 years as we continue to age nearly one year per year as a 
population.  At that time, the amateur radio market will probably 
collapse since there will be insufficient commerce in this market to 
sustain it in any serious way.   When government and commercial entities 
perceive this as being imminent,  I believe at that time we will be most 
vulnerable and frankly we should be.  Not one credible thing has been 
done to address the lack of interest in amateur radio by those that are 
younger than 30 years old.

The frequency swiping at UHF+ is about to commence.  Let me give one 
example.  IF the Europeans get Galileo, a system no one needs,  and it 
gets health, safety, etc.  consideration in Europe, the 23cm is one we 
can kiss good bye.  That is clearly the most popular microwave band.  
802.22 is the first of the cognitively defined radios to do dynamic 
spectrum allocation for commercial purposes and Carl Stevenson has done 
a very good job of leading that effort.  Once the efficacy of that 
approach is demonstrated on UHF television channels, how can we possibly 
defend the vast empty wastelands up there?  We are under threat, but 
while it does not seem imminent, once should not duck ones head in the 
sand and hope it goes away either.

Soapbox departure,
Bob N4HY



Dave Bernstein wrote:

>With all due respect, Walt, the approach you are taking could be 
>used by anyone to justify anything. "During my trip to DC last week, 
>I heard several high-ranking governmental officials saying that 
>unless semi-automatic operation without busy detectors is confined 
>to sub-bands, they'll annex the entire 20m amateur band as a QRM-
>free zone exclusively for emergency communications". Convincing? Of 
>course not. 
>
>
>
>73,
>
>Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>I wish I could say that we aren't in any danger of loosing amateur 
>>
>>
>radio
>  
>
>>frequencies...but I am afraid the truth is that even 650,000 
>>
>>
>amateur radio
>  
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity.  Guilty as charged!



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 

Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to   telnet://208.15.25.196/

Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/

Looking for digital mode software?  Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using ASIO4ALL?

[Robert McGwier]

No, No, and No.

KE5DTO and I  implemented the use of ASIO4ALL for the SDR-1000.  It was 
and is
a stopgap measure.

It is only usable if your sound card program can make use of

1) ASIO as the interface instead of MME or DirectX.  If you don't know 
what any of these
are, then you definitely don't want it.
2) 24 bit support
3) lower latency.

The lower latency can and probably should enable real software nicely 
timed TOR code to
be written.

Bob
N4HY


Paul wrote:

>In a review of SDR-1000 there was mention of ASIO4ALL freeware. It
>sounded like its job was faster audio streaming, which implied better
>audio performance.
>
>Has anyone used ASIO4ALL software and found it improved their PSK or
>other digital modes?
>
>If you used it on Win98SE, where did you get the required driver?
>
>Thanks and 73,
>Paul, K7NHB
>
>PS: You can look this up at http://www.asio4all.com/
>The article that mention it was an old QST review of SDR-1000
>
>
>
>
>The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]

[Robert McGwier]

There is almost no one I respect more than David Bernstein as a programmer
but Microsoft has said it is definitely going to blow off all those 
developers
and tell everyone VB is dead. As such, it will be.  I do not believe 
there will
be VB in  VS 2005.net.

C# and even C++ are "forms programmable" and I think Microsoft believes
that VB had lost its place.  They are pretty much sharpening the coffin 
nails
having publicly announced the end of VB.

Bob





rrlanders2 wrote:

>Having worked 25+ years in Fortune 500 companies here in the St. Louis
>area, VB is heavily used. VBA in Access and Excel even more
>so. VB.NET is following in VB6's footsteps. 
>
>Like it or not, for business purposes, quite often it's "good enough"...
>
>I didn't make the rules, just get paid to write VB and VB.NET.
>
>And yes, you can actually write good code in VB.NET...although
>it's harder in VB6
>
>73, Rod WI0T
>
>
>  
>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Robert McGwier]

Steve:

It is true that it is a much easier job to say a channel is busy, even 
with very good
false alarm probabilities, than to communicate on that channel. But no 
one with
any sense would try to solve the hidden transmitter problem with a one 
side sensor.
ALE solves this issue by both sides agreeing that the channel is clear 
enough for
use. Then and only then is the Aloha problem really fixed with adequate 
probability
of success.  I really do think it makes sense to have links established 
with some
serious two sided three way hand shake protocols.  That alone would stop 
most
QRM and ALE style sounding of the channel will allow both stations to grade
the current link condition.  We do not have to do, nor do we need, full ALE
probably but something like it seems very appropriate for this endeavor.

Bob
N4HY




Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:

>Dave,
>
>The hidden transmitter issue is solved with signal detection unlike  
>contesting, it has a solution. Your earlier statement regarding the 
>ability of the signal detection in the SCS modem has some 
>disagreement. You stated that the SCS modem only looks for Pactor 
>signals: If you want to disagree, be my guest, but please read the 
>note from Hans-Peter Helfert, the inventor of Pactor 1, II and III 
>regarding the signal detection used in his SCS modems. Not have been 
>involved in writing the code, I will watch the discussion with 
>interest.
>
>My posts seem to be getting repetitive replies, and are getting 
>tiring. I am going to give this a rest for a while. I have your 
>points of view. Thanks for your comments.
>
>Steve, k4cjx
>
>  
>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink

[Robert McGwier]

A transmits to B.

C is on frequency and cannot be heard by A and A cannot hear C and 
transmits.
Since B cannot receive A because interference from C, the throughput is 
destroyed.

What you are proposing is an Aloha protocol and with its well known 
inadequacies.
ALE is often misunderstood to be there to allow any typist to use HF 
equipment
to transmit data/messages.  It is that but it also mitigates the 
Aloha/Collision problem
since BOTH ends sound the link   If A is being interfered with by C at 
the station
B,  B will not accept a connection from A on that frequency but will go 
to another
frequency in the pool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_protocol

http://www.laynetworks.com/ALOHA%20PROTOCOL.htm

http://www.mldesigner.com/ApplicationNotes/ALOHA%20Protocol.pdf

http://murray.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/jkhan/ALOHA.pdf


Bob


Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:

>
>
>Please explain "hidden transmit effect" with an example.  Please 
>explain how it is impossible for this also to occur with control 
>operator presence.
>
>
>Steve, k4cjx
>
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
>  
>
>>I frequently make QSOs on contest weekends, and I am not a 
>>contester. 
>>
>>Are there some contesters who call over in-progress QSOs? Yes. Does 
>>that make it ok for Winlink on Pactor to QRM in-progress QSOs? 
>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Please explain how band planning by bandwidth will mitigate QRM 
>>caused by Winlink on Pactor due to the hidden transmitter effect.
>>
>>   73,
>>
>>   Dave, AA6YQ
>>
>>
>>
>>




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team

[Robert McGwier]

I have a million questions and the source code is required but I can do 
the busy detection
algorithms in short order.   I have been too swamped to do anything 
about modem work but
if I can help make this better I will consider doing it.  I am buried in 
software defined radio
work and AMSAT work but I do not believe this channel occupied algorithm 
is horrid.
If we did our own ALE, we could move around and find unoccupied channels 
and transmit
there.  Why have we not?

Is RDFT run as an external executable?  Is it incorporated in the source 
corpus for SCAMP?
How does this work?  What changes have been made to RDFT if any?  How 
are the
error correction functions handled as binary or soft?

MANY questions need to be answered before any useful contribution can be 
made unless
you can provide a shared audio stream source and have the algorithm run 
on a seperate
thread and given veto power over the transmitter.  This is suboptimal.

Bob
N4HY






The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] PSK10 or MFSK16

[Robert McGwier]

This is only because programmer's insist on programming using directx
or windows MME.  If they gave up on Win98 and used WDM-KS (Windows
Driver Model - Kernel Streaming), or restrict to cards that support ASIO 2.0
natively, they would achieve latency's under 5ms on 2 Ghz P4's for example.
There is a serious penalty to pay for supporting Win98 and Win ME and old
slow machines.  Until such time as developer's are using that it is seven
years after Win98 and it has been longer than that since the Pentium-MMX
came out, and that it is time to move on, we will be stuck with this
problem.
At Flex-Radio, they have basically said you cannot use your SDR-1000
software
as a CW radio with the software keyer if you do not want to or are
unable to pay the necessary penalties.  We are doing all of these software
defined radio methods (digital sound card programs are SDR's) and expecting
them to work by communicating their goods over tin cans and string.

ARQ is possible.  We have to say it is restricted to 21-st century sound
cards and operating systems.  I see no problem with developers adding such
modes and saying explicitly they will not work without the necessary
goodies to run them.

Bob
N4HY




The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia DRM Legal or not.

[Robert McGwier]

Ron smells the same BS dropping rat I do.  This is a load
of hooey and if it were nearer the end of March than mid
February, we would already know what day it is.  We are
supposed to be Valentine's fools.

Bob
N4HY


-Original Message-
From: Paul L Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:49 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia DRM Legal or not.



Ron:

After all the noise was generated, it's time for some accountability
here.





The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" 
style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

RE: [digitalradio] SCAMP

[Robert McGwier]

As soon as they release the source, someone will commence.


-Original Message-
From: Harv Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:20 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SCAMP



Anybody have anything available for LINUX?

tnx

Harv, AI9NL






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Meet the McDonald¿s® Lincoln Fry  get free digital souvenirs,
Web-only video and bid on the Lincoln Fry prop charity auction.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/oesLWD/fV0JAA/r1hLAA/ELTolB/TM
~-> 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/

Discussion Forums at http://www.obriensweb.com



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/