Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
There are the Olivia, Contestia, and RTTYM plug ins for MixW. Is the interface description enough to use the plugins with a wrapper? 73, Tom n4zpt On 3/5/2010 7:34 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > I don't know of one. Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can > chime in on this. To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave > the ham world, would be very nice. > Andy K3UK > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, g4ilo wrote: > >> >> >> Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to >> add Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made >> by AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it >> is only for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how >> to use it from another program. >> >> Julian, G4ILO >> >> >
Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
Hi Andy, Sorry about your pinched nerve, but all the (exotic) modes are great. Perhaps there is a natural selection of well known modes as a common starting point. Perhaps over time modes that are extremely robust under different conditions I've used both MixW and MultiPSK but still takes time to figure out a mode sometimes. I have noticed that will in a QSO with some odd mode I will see others calling CQ in what looks to be the same mode on one side or the other of the QSO. Or that when finishing a QSO, one of us will get a call in that mode. But perhaps not everyone uses a program with as many mode options thus is unable to answer. The club I am in, the Vienna Wireless Society of Vienna VA runs a digital net. We cycled through all the modes we could find to get one we could all use and works for both near and far on 80m. And were thinking to start that cycle over again with the newly minted modes. Anyway, wanted to chime in that with the anarchy of ham radio seems not possible to try to reduce the number of modes in use. 73, Tom n4zpt Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Maybe it is because I am getting irritated because of the pinched > nerve in my neck, I'm thinking maybe I have just had enough of the > plethora of digital modes. Yes, it is K3UK saying that...the bloke > that is always trying varying modes. > > I tried calling CQ numerous times in the TARA Skirming using various > "exotic" modes, but ZERO respondents. No one answered Olivia CQ's, no > one answered DominoEX CQ's, no Hell, and even no MFSK16 ! > > The only three modes that produced a response were PSK31, PSK63 and RTTY. > > > Several months ago, I saw Dave AA6YQ make some comment about Winwabler > not adding additional modes because (paraphrasing) RTTY and PSK31/63 > are effective and the others too under utilized to warrant inclusion. > While I have really enjoyed many experimental modes and had lots of > fun testing, I think if I added up the time I have spent endlessly > trawling the digital bands without results, I could have built a few > more antennae, or added a few thousand more QSO via other modes. > Heck, my CW could be even more practiced. > > > So, for the next few months I am going to detox, and consolidate > around the following modes. > > PSK31/63 (125/250 on VHF/UHF) > RTTY > MEPT-WSPR (passive operations) > Narrow SSTV/Digital SSTV > HF JT65A > ALE 400 > > > Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM, > DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box. They can join their > counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and > cassettes. All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore. > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Check our other Yahoo Groups > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] April QST page 35
Hi John, No outrage at all from me unless the mode suddenly switches to cover several KHz and wipes our my QSOs. Issue for me is not email over radio but the modem and how it is used. If a person is at the radio on both ends even less outrage. 73, Tom n4zpt. John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > That screen shot sure looks like email over ham radio to me. > In fact the traffic looks just like what I see on the pactor systems. > > I'm waiting for the outrage that some had about the pactor so call > email systems. >
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Petition to Re-Establish Narrowbnad RTTY/Data Subband Comment Period Open
Hi Mark, How would this kill various digital modes with a bandwidth of 1500 hertz or less? I operate Oliva mostly at 500 hertz wide and sometimes and 1000 hertz wide. 73, tom n4zpt Mark Miller wrote: > The FCC has released > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519820340 > > Public Notice report 2828-Correction establishing a new comment > period for > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574 > > RM-11392. > > RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the > RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have > crept into the narrowband RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through > 10-meter bands that are not appropriate for the RTTY/Data subbands. > Stations under automatic control have taken advantage of loopholes > created by terminology in the commission's rules that is not > applicable to new operating modes. > > Please read RM-11392 . and make comments to the FCC. Here are the steps. > > 1. Read > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008574 > > RM-11392 part 1 and > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519008575 > > RM-11392 part 2. > 2. Look at the other comments filed. To do this go to > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi FCC EFCS Search > for Filed Commentsand enter RM-11392 in box 1 labeled proceeding. > 3. Enter your own comments by going to > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi FCC Electronic > Comment File Submission page. > > 73, > Mark N5RFX > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Hi Ed, Ed Woodrick wrote: [snip] > And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any > comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1 > can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's > pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of data > that can be transfered. And since the ID-1 have Ethernet jacks, that > means that you can do any Internet protocol that you want. Did not seem to be a reason to comment as the topic was packet. A group of us have used the 23cm ID-1s in the digital data mode (128kbps) in a local public service event just find the past two years. We used the access point and the user radios to allow operators at out stations to access a web server front end to the event database. Worked fine. In addition we used 2 ID-1s connected to an ethernet switch to serve as a relay for a site that did not have a good direct path. And of course tested two ID-1s as an Ethernet bridge which makes a nice 128 kbps backbone for say 9600 bps packet gateways. As an aside we also had a 9600 bps packet system up as a back up which also worked fine. 73, Tom n4zpt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Well, we have been using the D700s for a couple years now on 9k2 in a straight packet mode. I just made sure the message sizes fit the TNC in the D700. 73, Tom n4zpt Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: > On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam > Which radio? > > The Kenwood D710.They've supposedly fixed the issues with the D700 > and, if true, we have a dual band frequency agile 9k6 and 1200 baud > data radio. Unfortunately the current premier packet data > application, Airmail 2000, doesn't support KISS and the D710 supports > only KISS for binary data. There may be some other data mode I don't > know of -- but we can be fairly certain the 710 doesn't do Kantronics > host mode which is what Airmail uses for normal TNC communications. > > Bill - WA7NWP >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet
Hi Rick et al Rick wrote: [snip] > 9k6 was the minimum usable speed for TCP/IP via ham radio in my view. It > was moderately expensive, but as you know, many rigs came along that > could do it. Most synthesized rigs can now, I have one here in the > shack, but it will never be connected because there is no interest > locally, and the signals have to be very good in order to get 9k6 speeds > through. Actually, I was interested in 56K stuff too, but that was just > not going to happen. We had the roadmap with ARRL publications such as > "Packet: Speed, More Speed, and Applications." But there just was not > enough interest in this by the packet radio hams. > Back in the early 90s three of us here in Vienna VA USA were running tcp/ip over 19k2 AX25 packet and it was OK for email and text browsing. 9k6 would have been too slow it seems to me. Was expensive at the time as we were using the Ottawa cards and kantronics D4-10 radios. We have been using 9k2 packet for the Marine Corps Marathon now for 2 years. Given we controlled the server we are able to use D700s on 9k6 just fine to check runners in and out of the aid stations. The server used a 9612+, AGWPE, and TelMGR to handle the connects. We are also looking at 9k6 packet for our local county emergency shelter communications on VHF and UHF. Talking to servers running various, and yet to be created, applications. In addition to WinLink 2k. The statewide digital traffic net does use sound card modes. 73, Tom n4zpt Vienna VA USA
Re: [digitalradio] Busy Channel Detection
Does not seem to me that the issue is with ALE radios but I guess your point is the technology exists and is being used in them. Sure would be nice if busy channel detection would be adopted by the other semi-auto or auto modems, software, and stations. Seems to me if what is being shipped is email, then it can stand a few minutes delay at one node or another while a direct person to person QSO is underway. 73, Tom n4zpt expeditionradio wrote: > Automatic channel busy detection has been standard in ALE transceivers > for many years. These are transceivers that have ALE embedded in the > microprocessor inside the radio, and they don't need an external > computer. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: dstar and digital radios???
Hi. KV9U wrote: > Since P25 is very expensive, are almost all users getting used > equipment? How much does this cost? I have heard new prices for HT's at > $1500. Is that really true? > Our local police chief said the multi mode HTs they are buying were $3k each. They did normal FM for the legacy police repeaters and trunked P25. 73, Tom n4zpt
Re: [digitalradio] dstar and digital radios???
Sorry, the 1.2 GHz ID-1 is FM, Digital Voice, or Digital Data! KV9U wrote: > digital or analog. The 1.2 GHz rig is strictly digital and operates at a > much higher data rate and has a raw 128 Kbps speed. > And in testing around here on 2m and 23cm we have seen a range advantage for Digital Voice over FM for same power and same antennas between our base stations. 73, Tom n4zpt
Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode
I've read that our ears and brains are not sensitive to phase error so would think that psk31 would not be possible in our heads. But that single tone FSK should be possible. 73, Tom n4zpt kd4e wrote: >> I have to disagree Gabriel, PSK is a form of >> modulated coding, just as is FSK. CW in its simple >> form is a carrier that is on or off and is a form >> of digital signal that the brain can decode, such >> as is voice. But PSK, FSK, usally infers a code >> the brain can't decode. PSK and FSK mean Phase >> and Frequency Shift Keying. > > Interesting question. > > Is it literally "impossible" for the brain to > decode PSK or FSK or is it just really difficult? > > Are there discernible patterns in the tone sequences > used or are they too complex to learn to discern, > even if sent very slowly? > > Not important at all, just curious! >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Corrects J2D 500Hz Bandwidth Error
HI Bonnie and the others commenting.. I certainly do not hate any mode but I believe that there are some incompatible uses of the bands that need to be separated given the number of inconsiderate operators that seem to be out there. I do not like getting stomped on by an operator using a mode that does not back off nor whom did not appear to listen to see if I was there. Especially so when they are calling a semi-automatic node that per the called station's web page does not exist. So I believe, and have commented to the FCC, that both semi-automatic and automatic stations need to be kept away from person to person operating. I have been in a narrow band QSO (psk31 on 40 meters) when a Pactor station starts up on top of me. When I go check the call sign they are trying to contact, that ham's web page does not include the frequency I was on. And I could not report most of the inconsiderate operators as only a few had a CW ID at the end of their connect attempt. (The one that did was an NTS operator.) So then I go pick frequencies on 40 meters that seem to be in between the published frequencies used by Pactor then the Pactor station switches from II to III and I am stomped on again. Once I watched the entire 20m psk31 band (with half a dozen QSOs underway including me) blown away. Even better would be modems that could detect existing signals, with some community agreed upon standard, and then back off for a while to make sure the QSO is over. If the station was waiting to move traffic, then delaying until the end of my QSO should not be a big deal. I also like the wider Olivia or MT63 modes for keyboard to keyboard QSOs - they have worked for me cross country when the narrower less robust modes did not work. I was listening to my radio and watching the waterfall to make sure that to the best of my local hearing I was not on top of someone else. As was the guy on the other end. So having the FCC modify the new published rule is a move I support. Even better would be the regulation by bandwidth that does not force data modes into 1/5th the band. Then leave the bottom fifth to be the narrow modes region and put the semi-auto and auto stations up in the wider band section of the band. 73, Tom n4zpt expeditionradio wrote: > It is now high time for all the PACTOR-haters to eat crow :) >
Re: [digitalradio] Proposed: New 80meter Bandplan for USA
Well, my vote would be to restrict semi-automatic and automatic stations to the top 20 KHz or less in the below proposal. And just have the rest be all modes less than 500 hertz. Or wait until the NPRM comes out for the management by bandwidth where the wider data modes would be permitted in the other 80 percent of the 80 meter band. And put both the semi-automatic and automatic modes up in the wider area. 73, Tom Azlin n4zpt expeditionradio wrote: > Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA > > 3500-3540 = CW > 3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes. > 3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto. > 3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto. > > --- > Proposed New Calling Frequencies > 3539 QRP CW > 3545+ PSK31 > 3548+ PSK63, MFSK16, Olivia500, etc > 3552+ Hell, etc > 3555+ RTTY, FSK, etc > > -- > Date: 22 Nov 2006 > Proposed By: Bonnie KQ6XA >
