Re: [digitalradio] Re: Airlink Express v.2.1.5.378 Released (now with ARQ and PSReporter support)
Many thank you's Alex. I love ARQ keyboard comms so put me down as a supporter for same - should you be inclined to pursue this past the casual experiment phase. Of course, I certainly have no clue as to how hard it would be to go beyond the file transfer mode with ARQ capability. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "whynotbecreative" To: Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 11:00 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Airlink Express v.2.1.5.378 Released (now with ARQ and PSReporter support) > Hi Howard, > > Yes, ARQ is for file transfer only and it works only between two Airlink > Express stations. It's an experimental feature with no intended purpose > besides the experiment itself. The protocol is not propriety and is fully > explained in the help file with references to original documentation. > > 73, > --Alex KR1ST > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS" wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> The ARQ would be for FILE transfers only and would >> have to be Airlink - Airlink normally, in any event, yes? >> >> Howard W6IDS >> Richmond, IN EM79NV >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "whynotbecreative" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:01 PM >> Subject: [digitalradio] Airlink Express v.2.1.5.378 Released (now with >> ARQ >> and PSReporter support) >> >> >> > Hi there, >> > >> > I have released a new version of Airlink Express (v.2.1.5.378) which >> > includes the following >> > >> > enhancements: >> > >> > >> > - PSKReporter (Automatic Propagation Reporter) >> > - ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request); sending and receiving of text and >> > binary >> > files >> > - enhanced support for USB based interfaces and audio devices >> > - Arrow key tuning >> > - Selection of pins for FSK keying >> > - Option to use hardware (UART) timing of FSK for interfaces like the >> > Navigator >> > >> > The latest version can be downloaded at http://www.airlinkexpress.org >> > >> > 73, >> > --Alex KR1ST >> > http://www.kr1st.com >> > http://www.airlinkexpress.org >> > > > > > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html > Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) > > Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Airlink Express v.2.1.5.378 Released (now with ARQ and PSReporter support)
Hi Alex, The ARQ would be for FILE transfers only and would have to be Airlink - Airlink normally, in any event, yes? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "whynotbecreative" To: Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Airlink Express v.2.1.5.378 Released (now with ARQ and PSReporter support) > Hi there, > > I have released a new version of Airlink Express (v.2.1.5.378) which > includes the following > > enhancements: > > > - PSKReporter (Automatic Propagation Reporter) > - ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request); sending and receiving of text and binary > files > - enhanced support for USB based interfaces and audio devices > - Arrow key tuning > - Selection of pins for FSK keying > - Option to use hardware (UART) timing of FSK for interfaces like the > Navigator > > The latest version can be downloaded at http://www.airlinkexpress.org > > 73, > --Alex KR1ST > http://www.kr1st.com > http://www.airlinkexpress.org
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "John Becker" To: Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:11 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! > Me just thinking out loud.. > > Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 > on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? > > I think not. > > I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. > (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) > and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, > and I think that really needs to be said again and again > that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. > > I have been QRMed many times because the other person > was thinking "oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? > > But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now > on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself > before you QRM that pactor "is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO." > > John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63
Hi Russell. Is CMSK for weak signal or EME-type application? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: Russell Blair To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 Well I cant help you on 3.587 in Texas 80m is dead but I'm on 14.079 calling CQ CSMK63 tone 1000 for the next hour. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 BARTG #8457 --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: From: Steinar Aanesland Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 3:34 PM Hi all I am calling cq on 3587 1000Hz usb right now . la5vna Steinar On 25.08.2010 17:57, my_call_is_ac4m wrote: > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets? > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters
WHO/WHAT is claiming 14.103 - 14.115? The author? The Hams who seem to be intrigued with ROS? If there's an apparent acceptance of the claimed freq spread, then it's not the author only who's in need of a good trouncing. UH OH.now I've done it. Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less be able to use ROS any time soon I'm down in the dingy cellar now with the likes of John W0JAB! Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "pd4u_dares" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" > wrote: >> >> If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in >> the software >> > > Three (3!!!) calling frequencies on 20m for a 2250Hz wide mode... and if > you ask why, you get excluded from their Yahoo group and accused of > claiming a frequency of one's own. While ROS effectively claims 14.103 > upto 14.115. Mentioning that a few dozen Remote Message Servers reside > there meets deaf ears (and deaf antennas) >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Nico, Does the American Radio Relay League and U.S. Federal Communications Commission have representation and/or jurisdiction over you and your license to operate your Ham station within your country and whether or not you are authorized to use an emission determined to be spread spectrum communications on those frequencies below 222 MHz? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "iv3nwv" To: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:09 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright wrote: >> >> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 > > Quoted: > > The ARRL supports -- as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio -- the > experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators. The > development and use of any new mode is exciting to many amateurs, and the > League encourage amateurs to experiment within the parameters of the rules; > however, the ARRL also reminds US licensees that according to Section 97.307, > spread spectrum communications are only permissible in the US on frequencies > above 222 MHz. > > Uhm, it looks like the same declaration Pontius Pilate (see i.e. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_pilate) released to the community 2010 > years ago. > Similar things occurred to Giordano Bruno, a phylosopher which has been > evaporated in a public pyre some centuries ago by our local institutions. > > Of course we need to regulate the access to our bands. > But should we need to comply with rules that has been written tens years ago? > What forbid us to take on our shoulder the weight of experimenting something > more modern than a RTTY technology which is based on what has been > experimented almost one century ago? > > Are we cows? Should we not exploit the knowledges which matured in these last > years? Should we be constrained to collect vacuum tube receivers and show > them proudly to our retired friends? > Should we ignore that a HF channel is a smart object with its delay and > doppler spread. > What kind of experiments could we do if we are allowed to make experiments > which pretend we are still in the '60s? > How could we claim that the amateur radio service could bring innovation in > communications if we are not allowed to test our ideas? > > Questions. I'm just asking myself these simple questions. > I'd be sad if they hurt someone sensitivity. That's not my scope. > I'm just trying to imagine our future. > > 73s > Nico / IV3NWV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Pst! Marc! Uh, 'scuse me but the only one uttering such thoughts thus far is YOU. No one else, just YOU. You might want to cool down the dramatics and take a breath, less you attract others with the same flair and end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV OH, and BTW, let me add that, in the spirit of fairness, I have absolutely ZERO desire to BETA test ROS nor any other software suite the author creates for submission to the Amateur Community. That's MY own public declaration, as a group of ONE. AND NO, you can't join. C'mon, Marc. How can you possibly have enough interested parties, in something like ROS, to create GROUPS of haters and lovers? PULEEZE! - Original Message - From: "pd4u_dares" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:45 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Toby Burnett" <..> But to > be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much > grief happening from this. >> Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than <..> >> It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector >> group. For a change. >> > > Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked > page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the > good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of > course!! > > :-O > > Marc, PD4U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
I hope no one is deleting this thread. It's something to chew on slowly. Thanks, Guys. Interesting reads, both. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or "link" ) . The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments. The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that "the rest" all agree to use one mode for a CQ/ Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman wrote: Howard, With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. Ed WB6YTE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS" wrote: > > > Hello Ed! > > How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? > > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN Em79NV > > - Original Message - > From: "ed_hekman" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- > reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > Andy, > > > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea > > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that > > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the > > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, > > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > > access features for frequency sharing. > > > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. > > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > > > Ed > > WB6YTE > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
Hello Ed! How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79NV - Original Message - From: "ed_hekman" To: Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > Andy, > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is the > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > access features for frequency sharing. > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > Ed > WB6YTE >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thanks Andy. Good readfinally. The whole issue goes away with the removal of a couple of words and a resubmit by the Author. No one sees "SS" and unless it's checked BY CHANCE, we can all run ROS contests and shut down RTTY for the weekends now, secure in the knowledge we are clean 'cause nowhere are the words Spread Spectrum mentioned. What? Don't Ask, Don't Tell?? Well, much of this country isn't very transparent in its dealings, no reason why something mundane like Ham Radio needs to be in this country either. Not with some "Diplomats Without Portfolio" expressing words of pity for the U.S. Ham. We'll just apply a li'l White Out, adapt and overcome and nobody would be the wiser. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a "new" mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ocypret" wrote: > > So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? > it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions
Hey Dave! Would it then be a fair assumption that you would not care for the likes of ALE, DRM, PACTOR, Digi SSTV, Analog SSTV, the new sparky offering called WINMOR, ALE400 - they're pretty much a "Closed Club", or "Private Channel" affair, wouldn't you say? I think there's some others, but suffice it to say.. OH! I just remembered one candidate - DSTAR! The 145.350 Repeater in Cincinnati went DSTAR and poof! Now many ops are "odd man out." Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: "kb3fxi" To: Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:40 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions I'm pretty darn happy with the performance of Olivia without the added complexity of ARQ and the one on one aspect of the ARQ protocals. I'm not sure about pskmail arq chat mode, but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when you're a station on the outside looking in... that's something I really never liked about any of the ARQ/handshaking modes. It's like you're turning your little channel into a private line. FLDIGI has the WRAP checksum feature which allows an unlimited number of receiving stations to confirm 100% from a single uninterrupted transmission. And stations that don't have WRAP get to see the message too. -Dave, KB3FXI
Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail to/from Haiti (or neighbouring countries) ?
Andy, is this the time when we see how effective or useful ALE and, since you mentioned it, PSKmail are? WL2K? Haitian stations actually up and able to operate not withstanding. Are there any ALEs, WL2K, etc etc there operating in the past, involving Haiti or have had access to? Just wondering. We're all waiting for the important OUTBOUND H&W traffic (not inbound) and it will be of great interest to see how this initially plays out for ultimate study. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Em79 - Original Message - From: "Andy obrien" To: "digitalradio" Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSKmail to/from Haiti (or neighbouring countries) ? > Any use of Pskmail related to the emergency in Haiti ? Seems that is > is tailor made for such a situation. Short hops from Haiti to servers > on HF > > Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] What's new in SSTV ?
Me thinks I've been inadvertently tending my mushrooms in the basement (and I don't have one!) "Flurry of activity around NARROW SSTV"??? I had seen bits 'n pieces regarding it but I did not know there was a flurry of activity. It died off? Is there any interest in pursuing it? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: "obrienaj" To: Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:00 PM Subject: [digitalradio] What's new in SSTV ? > So, it has been a while since I have seen anything NEW in SSTV. The > flurry of activity around narrow SSTV was fun. So was the Easypal stuff. > What is the latest? > > Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F
PSK63F is within the STREAM download? I saw references to it in the reference documentation, but it's unclear to me if it is actually in the application you download. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:48 AM Subject: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F > All, > > Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F offers > better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. The most > significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler spread found on > paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and PSK63 fail miserably > in this area; see high-lat test samples below. > > Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread > 10Hz > Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox > > PSK63F -- the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog > PSK63-- mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg > PSK31-- nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o > RTTY -- TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G >
Re: [digitalradio] W0JAB ????????????????????????
I sent a message to his email a couple of times asking about his current operating frequencies for PACTOR I but never received a reply to either. This was a while ago. I also tried to raise his mailbox to no avail. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: "obrienaj" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:49 PM Subject: [digitalradio] W0JAB > Anyone heard from John W0JAB lately? It has been several months since he > posted here and he , along with Lynn KB3FN, is a co-moderator of this > group. I know he had some health issues. I'm hoping he has just found > other interests rather than being too sick to post. > > Andy K3UK > Owner > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Damm, my SignaLink has Stopped TXing
Hello! Since you stuck your toe in the water, care to elaborate a bit more? Your observation is a bit cryptic. I"m on the verge so I'm a bit interested in YOUR experience. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: "Raymond Lunsford" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Damm, my SignaLink has Stopped TXing > Don't expect help from Tigertronics. > > On 10/20/09, Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle > wrote: >> HI All, >> >> The SignaLink would not work with any data software even MixW. >> I tried DM780, MMSSTV, WinMor, MixW and a couple of others. >> >> I pulled all the cables out and re-inserted them. This is a USB device so >> there is no RTS or DTS to worry about. >> It was very plain and simple, plug and go (basically). >> The thing is it ran from the day I received it which was about 5-6 weeks >> ago.
Re: [digitalradio] Your Mailbox
HA! I didn't see this message when I went to your mailbox this morning. I wanted to see what you did do with the Info command. It looks like I saw the first creation without realizing it. I saw the message below AFTER I accessed your new Info thingie. Where did you save that puppy for use? I'm looking at the Help file now and I don't see a discussion about creating an "Info" file and where it's stored. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Your Mailbox > No I have not done anything with that file as yet. > Never think about it till now. I'll get on that today. > > At 11:48 PM 4/13/2009, you wrote: > >>John, >> >>Did you do anything with the "Info" selection on your mailbox menu? >>If so, how/what?? >> >>Howard W6IDS >>Richmond, IN EM79 >> >> >> >> >> >>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at >>http://www.obriensweb.com/sked >> >>Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk >>Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. >> >> >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.56/2058 - Release Date: 04/14/09 06:17:00
[digitalradio] Your Mailbox
John, Did you do anything with the "Info" selection on your mailbox menu? If so, how/what?? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79
[digitalradio] I Have A Mailbox UP To Try it.
Hello, Group - I'm not one who's a heavy user of radio-based mailboxes - most likely because of the Internet. That said, I do see a need for one to help with communications, activity, etc. SO, I put my Airmail to work and it's now accepting incoming calls, when I'm not using my ICOM IC-746 myself for Kbd-Kbd PACTOR I QSOs or PSK, or ?? It's parked on 7041 CF for the time being. I was thinking of doing this after seeing that I missed a connect from Nick, KU2A in NH. Also missed some typing from Jose, CO2JA and Octavio, PY4OLB. I'm interested in increasing the actvity and keep striking out with other connect attempts with Denmark, Greece and the Aussies. So, maybe, just maybe this little addition might open an avenue for providing some type of communications support in that endeavor. So, the doors open to anyone who might want to give it a try and that includes the VK2 and 4 folks, Demetre and Peter for sure. If I need to change the frequency to accomodate some testing, let's do it; I'll announce the freq change. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79
[digitalradio] Gotcha Again, John
John, connect with your mailbox around 18Z. Put out a Connect request and the mailbox responded with a GREAT signal on 7041 CF. 7 Mhz seems sort of centralized around the U.S. per se, but it appears CONUS comms on 7 Mhz are pretty good. I might play with Airmail mailbox, since I have AM here but not doing anything with it since my Xpware program is up and running. However, I had some operator error problems come up when I had XPware in mailbox mode - Airmail may be a bit more friendly...maybe. I need to have my chipset upgraded in my PK-232 at any rate so that's my next project. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" To: Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land > Overnight 40 metered opened to VK land > I copied Jack, VK4JRC calling CQ on a center > frequency of 7041 on Pactor 1. About 06:00Z > > This is not the first time I have seen a VK station > in the last 2 or 3 weeks. > > John, W0JAB >
Re: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land
UH, John and Jack...disregard my other messages about the time. I just saw thisI'll keep an eye out... Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" To: Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land > Overnight 40 metered opened to VK land > I copied Jack, VK4JRC calling CQ on a center > frequency of 7041 on Pactor 1. About 06:00Z > > This is not the first time I have seen a VK station > in the last 2 or 3 weeks. > > John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
MessageDavid, I didn't see what MARS program you're affiliated with. Interesting read. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: David Little To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:23 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast.
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor scanning ?
Hey, John... I think it was you that sent me a list of frequencies. I lost them. I've been working to make Windows Live Mail dedicated for Winlink/PacklinkW and had a little operator error in keeping it off the internet. So, it picked up your messages and when I removed the account for incom...@verizon.net, I killed a string of messages in the IN BOX. Yours was one of them I believe. Howard W6IDS
Re: [digitalradio] Windows Vista for digital mode soundcard applications ?
Hey, Andy - My Info -= Acer Aspire M5461 Pentium Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.2Ghz 2.2 Ghz RAM 4 Gb OS 64-bit SP1 Vista Home Premium I'm using Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780, Airmail, I've used Multipsk, and tried PC-ALE. I also have EasyPal working but, in MY case, the software won't let me do a couple of functions while using VISTA 64. Specifically, creating waterfall text or pictures. The only other issue I did have was a lack of backward compatibility with PK-232 software, XPwin, that I used on an older XP computer before it crashed three months ago, or so. Otherwise, I've had no major issues whatsoever, in MY case. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:58 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Windows Vista for digital mode soundcard applications ? >I am in the market for a new PC to be used in my shack. I have found > a few good deals, some with Vista as the OS. There are some with XP > but I was wondering about a switch to Vista. My main applications > would be Ham Radio Deluxe, Multipsk, FL-Digi, DX Lab , Microham device > router, PC-ALE, and WSJT. Anyone know if any of these applications > have "issues" with Vista ?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
Hey, Buddy. Yeh, I know. I've only heard ONE MFTTY station and that was on or near 3591. It seems to me that perhaps 3591, give-or-take, would be the best if you wanted to take a shot at my station. I'll leave this thing on there (once I get it working right again) and perhaps we can contact each other and see how it works. At least that would b e a beginning - you'd know that someone is keeping watch out for your signal specifically. You can also try this link out, log in, and when you're transmitting, post a comment about it for others to see, including me. We can coordinate there as well - http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN. - Original Message - From: F.R. Ashley To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone hiding? I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no luck there either. Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode? 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
To All, I did download the new release and found a couple of things. Pressing the Appointments button takes me to K3UK's page but there's no way to post comments or log in. If I instead go to my "Favorites" and select the page, I can log in and post comments, etc. Also, I've been running in HALF setting. Has anyone tried the other settings: Double or 1/4? I tried Normal and found garbage on the screen with no success in cleaning it up, operator error possibility not withstanding. Is there a real incentive for operators to be able to change tone frequencies in the TX options? Are we supposed to uninstall the previous release before unpacking a newer release? After running the newest version now for a few minutes, I find now that I cannot get it to go to maximized from a minimized condition. The small replica of the program does appear when moving the cursor to the minimized position on the lower bar. I also downloaded the Magic Clip, I believe it is called, and am playing with that for a bit. Is there some way to save the definitions created in the Macro Keys rather than have them erased each time a newer version of the software is installed? That is one reason why I am looking at that Magic Clip thingie and not just to reduce my transmitting burden I know this is a "new" mode, but has anyone determined just what the direction will be for MFTTY? I think it's a slick offering but.that's just me. I'd be curious about other thoughts. Howard W6IIDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Version .144 new version of mftty now it is version 30.145 see here http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html download it and try it out greetz dg9bfc
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
Hey, Skip! Long time no. Yes, I think you're touching on some things that could go well toward enhancing the operation. I, too, am having a little difficulty with the TX Macro box as well. However, I suspect that if we keep the "cards 'n letters" coming in, there'll be some attention given to the ideas for sure. HI had not thought about using a "marco" for the thingie. DUH! I've been trying it by manually typing it in. I wasn't thinking macro in that instance. Trying to capture the callsign, QTH, etc does take time and causes dead time too, not to mention creating a "cumbersome" process. But, then again, this is new as we are awareand interesting. So far, I'm one up on the receiver side. Still working to get my first transmit check out moment. Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "kh6ty" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out > > >> I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and >> also allow for manual insertion as needed. >> >> Howard W6IDS >> Richmond, IN >> > > > Howard, for manual Pilot insertion, just configure a macro as only > and click that to insert a Pilot whenever you want. > > What I think FMTTY needs more than anything is the ability to double-click > on a callsign and use it for the macros, such as (for the other > station's callsign). I cannot seem to get the TxMacro boxes to work. When > I > configure a macro with and put a callsign in for Box 1, I still get > "" transmitting instead of the callsign. The macros also need to be > linked to function keys for ease of keyboarding use. There really is not > enough time to fill in the TxMacro box for every QSO. You have to capture > a > callsign as quickly as possible in order to keep from losing a contact. A > double-click has proven to be the fastest way to do that. > > For example, the significant default DigiPan macros which many are > familiar > with are: > > F2 CQ > F3 Call 3 (transmit, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, receive) > F4 Call (transmit, 1x1) > F5 BTU (1x1, receive) > F6 Signoff (73, 1x1, SK, receive) > > This way, the new user only has to press F2 to call CQ, F3 to answer a CQ, > and then just alternate between F4 and F5 for the QSO. When finished, he > just goes to the next function key in line to signoff. > > Of course preferences of others may vary! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
I understand, Norbert, now. Hthe information I read leads me to believe (and it's stated as such) that the greater frequency of Pilot tones provides an aid to tuning. IMHO, it seems to me that the pause time that you stated is a bit too long to provide benefit. I don't know where I'd pause for an equivalent of 20 characters. Right now, "I" am seeing a Pilot tone only at the beginning of the CQ in which I included my callsign, City/State and Locator. I think it could be inserted by the operator at the end of each line of CQ for tuning. I also noticed that without looking at the screen, I instantly recognized the signal by WB4MWD by virtue of the inclusion of the Pilot tones. First time I've been able to identify an exotic mode by ear per se, so the tones have an additional value. I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and also allow for manual insertion as needed. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Norbert Pieper" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:55 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out > Hello Howard and all, > > In fact the V3.0143 !!DOES!!- send out pilot tone by "SEND" button > or "Send By Enter Key" > > The thing is that the pilot is sent out ONLY if there was a > reasonable pause between the transmissions. I did set the pause time > to a value that is equivalent to the transmission time of 4 Words > (20 characters) > > This was done to avoid an un-needed "flood" of bothering pilots. > > My question to the group is: > In Pratice: > Is that pause time and the effective number of pilots sufficent or > is there higher or lower occurrence of pilots needed? >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY Tuning information
It seems to be an interesting piece of software, Norbert. I was susrprised at how I was able to copy my first CQ from WB4MWD while that station was basically "covered" by a PACTOR MBO. I don't know if that was a "fluke" or not but will be curious to see if it can be replicated in the future. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Norbert Pieper" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:54 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY Tuning information > Hi Steinar, > > no problem just click options and enter new Tx Center Frequency > ( in the upper right corner ) click apply. > > MFTT can handle any Tx Frequency from near zero up to near half of > TX sample rate of soundcard. > > BR > Norbert
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
No problem, Steinar. I'm just working my way along my learning curve here. I just noticed that I get the Pilot tones when I have the "Send Immediately" box checked. Then, when I select the Pilot CQ, the tones are sent at the beginning of each line as typed in the box. If i select "Send By Enter Key" or if I UNCHECK BOTH selections, the "SEND" button appears and in any case, NO Pilot tones are sent. They're sent ONLY when the "Send Immediately" box is checked. I should think that the tones should be sent anytime the CQ is sent or perhaps when text otherwise is being sent and I insert somewhere inside any typed text. However, that isn't the case. The only time the tone is sent is at the beginning of a line where I place . It cannot be inserted anywhere else, so that seems to make it difficult to increase the number of Pilot tones as recommended in the information I read. Unless, of course, the Pilot tones are only used during a CQ sequence, then all of this is moot. The only issue then is being able to transmit tones in instances involving using "SEND" button or "Send By Enter Key" which doesn't happen now. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out > > Hi Richmond > > I have not tested this last version yet. > I will give it a try when I am back from work.
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
Hey, Steiner I have it installed. Before I did anything else, I modified the Pilot CQ to add my callsign and Grid Locator (EM79). When I selected the Pilot CQ (I'm using the "SEND" button now) I found four tone "beeps" transmissions being transmitted. When I pressed the "SEND" button, I transmitted the CQ sequence but with no PILOT Tones. My Pilot CQ is: CQ CQ CQ DE W6IDS W6IDS EM79 CQ CQ ..etc etc etc HmmmI'm not totally clear on what's happening or if I accidentally did something wrong in modifying the Pilot CQ. Can you clarify your sentence abut the Pilot Tone below also? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out > MFTT 3.0.143 > # Pilot Tone will be inserted automatically after a transmission pause > of equivalent 4 words time > # Thin grey line added to spectrum display, indicating the center > frequency of Rx-Band-Pass-Filter > # Double click on "Rx . Hz" will copy the Tx freq. > # Double click on "Tx . Hz" will copy the Rx freq. > # Tool Tip Text added to UI elements
[digitalradio] OH, so close and yet............
VOILA! Before I knew what was happening, I found myself suddenly printing a CQ on MFTTY from WB4MWD on 3591 around 0200Z. He had an S4 or so signal here in Richmond, IN. Only problem was that he was competing with an RTTY signal who suddenly appeared on frequency AND...AND...there was this PACTOR MBO that was a little off frequency giving him competition as well. Surprising thing...TO ME...was that I was printing his CQ while being pretty well covered by the RTTY station. That surprised me. I didn't answer 'cause I was fumbling trying to reply and then the XYL had a problem, then...then... Well, suffice it to say I at least did break the ice for receiving. Now for the transmit. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m
Many thanks, Seigfried. I'll digest this and when I get home from work, I'll begin to seriously play with the program. I do recall the info regarding the "pilot", however, after successfully finding myself with the program installed now, I did not make the connection mentally at first since it's new for me. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m dear howard the pilot is a macro that sends a pilot-tone and the beginning of your transmitted text it is explained on the homepage how this work but i will try to explain it the other sees the pilottone on his waterfall
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m
Yessir, the new version works now. I've found I cannot PTT through the COM1 - it looks like I'll be using the VOX option instead (which does work). I am still going through this material and trying to get a handle on my "learning curve." I am not quite sure what to do next other than look for a MFTTY signal to copy. While I can key the transmitter VOX and can hear my tones, I don't know if my transmit status is fully operational. I see that I do not have access to audio controls like I would have with Windows XP. So, I manually turned up my mike gain to get reasonable RF output. It's not quite clear to me just how I would get city, name, etc into the program for use in a MACRO like you have set up in the program. Where does the word "PILOT" fit into all of this, that I've seen in the CQ button, etc? Still plugging along here... thanks for the help thus far! Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Norbert Pieper" To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m > Hello Howard, > > The issue is solved: > Cause of Problem: the file c:\Window\system32\dx8vb.dll is not > registered. > > Solution: Download and install new version of MFTT it will fix the > Problem automatically.
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m
Forgot to mention, if it matters, that I'm running VISTA. Howard W6IDS - Original Message - From: "W6IDS" To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m > > Hey, Steinar! > > Tried to bring up MFTTY but encountered a problem. > > I get this flag: > > Run Time Error '429': > > ActiveX component can't create object. > > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN > > - Original Message - > From: "Steinar Aanesland" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:35 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m > > >> Hi all, >> >> I am monitoring dial 3588 USB (1000Hz) now > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m
Hey, Steinar! Tried to bring up MFTTY but encountered a problem. I get this flag: Run Time Error '429': ActiveX component can't create object. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m > Hi all, > > I am monitoring dial 3588 USB (1000Hz) now
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MFTTY 14068
Hey! When I get that puppy running, why will I take a look at it? H, kind of a dumb way to ask. Uh, will it "flic my bic?", blow me away, or perhaps "shiver me timbers?" Doubt it will "float my boat." Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV MFTTY 14068 >I am inside all day getting ready for my 15 year old's birthday party > ! While around, I have the rig on 14068 USB with MFTTY active. > > Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] mftty
Hello, Do we know if the application will run on a VISTA 64 OS? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "dg9bfc" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:56 PM Subject: [digitalradio] mftty > download of mftty works again > http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html > greetz
Re: [digitalradio] Cheap USB Soundcards : Update
Nice effort there, Andy. I still want one and appreciate your attention to the small stuff. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:49 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Cheap USB Soundcards : Update >I am going to return the cheap $6.50 sound cards and replace them with > > Part #: HE-280B > Warranty: 1 Year > > > The new ones have a better driver and will costs $7.50 . The old ones > work just fine but the XP driver does not support volume adjustments > via the Sound Card Mixer on received audio, several hams have assured > me that the ones I just ordered have C Media drivers. > > When they arrive, I will notify those who said they wanted one . > > Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?
HI... For a "newbie" you're being just a tad bit too judgemental in wielding such a broad brush. I've been licensed over 50 years and can assure you that there's much more to this hobby than simple robotic contact exchanges for a post card in MANY "Oldsters" thinking. That said, too many exotic modes is an opinion that has as much value as your broad brush statement chastizing Hams who have nurtured this hobby long before you came along. Have fun with this stuff. You've surely got a lot better equipment and modes and technology available than in times past, that's for sure. But, to be well-rounded in the hobby, you should remember there's more to it than just tinkering, testing, technical exploration, and such. There's the human aspect. Hams are Ambassadors-Without- Portfolio; always have been. It comes with the territory and tradition. Those stations who just want your info exahange are not just "oldsters" but rather, of all ages and nationalities. If you don't explore this, you'll be no different than an Engineer who lacks studies in the Humanities and the Arts. Quite shallow and socially limited. OH...BTW, welcome. You've got some exciting stuff in store for you, if you keep an open mind and let yourself explore. However, perhaps you'll find 50 years passing by before you know it and find yourself being confronted by a "newbie" then who's telling YOU that you're out of date. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Laurent Laborde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ? > I'm a begginer, licenced this year. > > I do not think that we have too many mode. > And the massive usage of psk31 is not a "beginer" problem. > It's the opposite. > We have too many old ham that just want a contact and a QSL. > And they use the most commonly used mode, psk31. > > I have absolutly no interest in contact and QSL. > Well, no interest, but i need a contact to test the mode, talk about > it, improve the transmission if needed. And not just sharing > macro-QSO. > > The only times i was able to really test, experiment, "on air" was > with exotic mode. > Anytime i tried to "chat" (technical) in psk31 i got the usual "k thx > bye" macro. > But never had this problem using Feld Hell. > > The problem is between chair and keyboard, nothing else. > > --
Re: [digitalradio] Tracking update: Cheap soundcard order
Hopefully, you got my response. If so, thank you in advance. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:39 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Tracking update: Cheap soundcard order > > > I have all 6 spoken for and 2-3 late arriving requests. When they > arrive, I will re-notify the people that first identified an interest > . If anyone backs out, I will offer to the others that requested. >
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ?
HI Andy.. Yes, please. Count me in. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ? >I am about to order a USB external sound adapter for US$6.50. The > shipping however is $8.00 , more than the product itself ! So, > perhaps I should order several of them and just mail them to others > than want one. They apparently weigh 4oz, sticking one in the US mail > should cost a couple of dollars, not 8.00 (a guess) I have seen a > couple of well known hams use these for digital modes. > > Anyone else want one ? > > Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations
Hi Patrick.. I would really like to hear what that sounds like I know someone who speaks French. I'll pass it by her. Best Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations Hello Howard, Now you think sincerely that it is cluttered. Nice! As we say "Les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas" which means "It is useless to discuss tastes and colours".
Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
Hi Roger, Well, it appears so. I must admit, I never actually paid much attention to the matter as such. I simply "worked around it" not making the connection to what has become a volatile subject. I never paid attention to PMBOs, I just operated as conditions allowed. Since I began to play with PACTOR I more and MFSK, outside of the "normal" PSK31 arena, the matter of the unattended operations of what I've learned to be PMBOs became verry apparent. I never really knew where PMBOs were set up and still don't; I do know where a few are now and yes, I've been stepped on which is how I learned the locations for those that I AM aware of. Same thing happened on 30 meters recently with PACTOR I and narrow band SSTV testing. Surprise! There's a couple of PMBOs and PACKET operations there that I didn't know were alive, on or near frequencies frequently mentioned for use in the forum. I had checked the freqs for activity. After waiting, began the CQ and after perhaps 10 minutes, I found myself covered with a strong signal almost on top or very nearby . I don't go to the freqs anymore. - Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5 > w6ids wrote: >> >> >> Hi John >> >> At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting >> with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a >> cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or >> losing privileges. >> > Your post seems to indicate that the station that initiated the S-9 > signal either did not listen, or could not hear, the other signals on > the frequency. This is the inherent problem when there is no one > listening *at the location of the transmitter.* > > de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Introducing the K3UK Quick and Dirty Guide to Narrow-Band SSTV
Quick and dirty guide? Hmmmnice work pal. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "DIGITALRADIO" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:09 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Introducing the K3UK Quick and Dirty Guide to Narrow-Band SSTV
Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
Hi John At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or losing privileges. I can hear a PACTOR signal underneath but obviously, cannot copy. I'm hearing now three total PACTOR signals. Still listening Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5 > Looking for P1 connect and Roger. >
Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
Hey, John. Been on freq but not hearing PACTOR I. Called a few times. Did hear weak CW on occasion and one or two newer modes. I've heard you and I think I'm hearing you now at 0426Z but unable to print. Signals come and go momentarily on top of you (i.e. CW, Spanish sigs, a PSK31, but unable to print. Continuing to monitor. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5 > Looking for P1 connect and Roger. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations
Hey Patrick! NOOO.it's cluttered..really. You fall back onto that old song of yours about not being a specialist, which I take in this context to mean talented enough, to work with the GUI. I don't believe that for a minute, my good man. Working the GUI may not be one of your more interesting chores and you may not have a clue as to an improved layout, but don't tell me you don't have the talent to handle it. "I" don't have the talent for it I think. I've been on this planet 60-plus years now; I can tell when someone is blowing smoke in my directionwell, usually...uh...most of the time. Best Regards, Sir Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations Hello Howard, But I understand that you think it is cluttered. It is simply complex (as digital modes are not always very simple). However I'm not a specialist of programs and GUI. Anyway we have the chance to have a big diversity of excellent programs, so... 73 Patrick
Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode
OH! OK, so we're doing that on the site as well. Super. I'll peek on the page often then for PACTOR I and MP73 as well. Now if conditions will just bless us for a period of time. Have you been able to actually see it function in the field? Comments? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode > Howard, > > I am just doing some testing of the MP73-N etc modes on 30m. I didn't know > they existed until Jens, OV1A mentioned them. > > I post my spots on http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m/ >
Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode
- Original Message - From: "Russell Blair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode > Howard, I down loaded MMSSTV 1.11G and you said you > added MP73 to MMSSTV is there some thing I need to add > for Narrow Band to work in MMSSTV ?. > > Russell NC5O/qrp > HEHyepsure did and I am amazed that I never even gave the ability to do that a second thought in the past. Unless I've misunderstood the feedback recently, I simply right-clicked on one of mode keys. When that's done, a slew of different mode-types suddenly appears in a list and it's a bit lng per se. Scan the list and you'll see MP73 and AS FAR AS I KNOW, click on that item and the mode you right-clicked on will be changed to MP73. I picked the Commodore button and changed it to MP73 mode. It appears to work - I saw the change when I tested it on 10.132 in the wee hours this morning. I just need some feedback on what the testing status is for the mode and how we might coordinate it so we're not all squinting into the horizon looking for a trail of smoke somewhere. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode
- Original Message - From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode >I was wondering if a recognized 30m Narrow Band SSTV calling frequency >would > be a good thing to discuss? Because it is narrow band and the usable area > on > 30m is limited it makes sense to me to try to encourage a calling > frequency, > similar to 14.230 on 20m. > > To try and hunt through the 30m spectrum for an SSTV transmission with > unknown offset is going to kill interest before it starts for most folks. > Hi Sholto... Are we testing narrow band at all now? It seems like it's disappeared, after I added MP73 to MMSSTV. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations
HI Leigh. That makes sense, but it would require Patrick to work with the GUI and he's not willing to do that, according to past comments. I think that would start a "domino effect" in the layout to remove clutter and I don't think he wants to get involved in that. Pity. Great program and innovative otherwise. I'd finally buy my license for it if he'd work on that GUI Sorry, Pat. It's just a li'l issue with me. I suspect most everyone else has easily adapted to the layout. Leigh just flicked my switch with his observation. No disrespect intended. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations Patrick, Yes, but MultiPSK and DRM780 and fldigi and other programs already support MFSK and other modes. My point is that few know about MFSK picture mode, even though it is implemented in many programs, because it is accessible only when in MFSK mode and is hard to find. So, I propose simply making it more easily accessible, for example, by making it available on a main menu, or even as its own mode. In reality, it would simply be MFSK and would start with the Open File dialog box for image types, and in the case of MultiPSK and PocketDigi, it would send the RSID for MFSK. Leigh/WA5ZNU
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Well, s? I "thought" that might have been the case but then, I could have been wrong...so I cashed in my $ .02 worth In fact, it happened today...talked with VE1XL (Dick) in Canada using PACTOR I and near the end of the contact, I could hear a ('scuse me but) PMBO or at least a station sounding like one right close to use and fairly strong. Gave Dick some competition for sure. It was surprising because I had been listening for about 15 mins on 3.5880 with no activity noted at all. Then, after talking with Dick for the better part of an hour, voila! There's this PACTOR station suddenly making its presence known. I did post a "cut 'n paste" of the chat just for show 'n tell and give a little push for PACTOR I activity - it still works, of course. It was fun today. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:55 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot > Hello Howard, > > I was actually agreeing with John; sorry to all if it was poorly > worded. When operating Pactor (and in the past using Amtor), I too > have been interfered with and when I queried the other stations they > said something to the effect that, "I thought you were a bot". > Obviously no excuse.
[digitalradio] PACTOR I Activity
Hello Again, Had a great chat with VE1XL (Dick) in Hillsborough, New Brunswick, that lasted the better part of an hour. I copied him on this message so that I could pass along the two links below for him to use: We're posting activity on the following sites: http://www.obriensweb.com/sked http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ Dick was saying that his operation is a bit "hit 'n miss" so the links may help him. KU2A (Nick) picked him up after we dropped the link. He then got picked up by K3CXB (Walt) who was having his first PACTOR contact ever. He was learning with software based PACTOR I so stayed FEC I believe. I'm wondering if he was using MultiPSK since he said he did have AMTOR ARQ in the package and wanted to try the ARQ. Anyway, thought I'd pass along the moment to you. Here's a little cut 'n paste just to show 'n tell: CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN EM79NV CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN EM79NV CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN EM79NV CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN EM79NV HOWARD in RICHMOND, IN EM79NV at 01:26 UTC K W6IDS de VE1XL => hello. Not too many of us around. Name here is Dick and my QTH is Hillsborough, New Brunswick. BTU OM. W6IDS de VE1XL => VE1XL VE1XL (Dick) DE W6IDS W6IDS Dick and nice to see you on the mode. Yes, you're right. There's not a lot of PACTOR I on the air but interest is gaining more momentum lately. I think it stems from the DIGITALRADIO message forum discussions involving andi-Winlink operations, PMBO stuff, etc. Your call is anice surprise for sure. Name is Howard as youmay have noticed. Location is about 37 miles West of Dayton, OH right on the OH/IN border. I'm using a PK-232MBX that I've had since 1989 and am giving it a workout. Surprised at how much I've had to relearn for not using it much. Your rst is S8 S8 with just a little QSB but not bad. You took a little dive at 0132Z but hung in there. Software in use is the WinXP package and it has seemed to work well. BTU, let's see how you are doing... VE1XL VE1XL DE W6IDS W6IDS K K W6IDS de VE1XL => RR FB Howard and it sure is nnice nice to hear your signal and to meet you. I am a long-time Pactor operator and I manage to snag a few QSO if I listen long enough. I hope you are correct in that maybe all the comotion will stur up more interest. I do find that most of the ot digital sound card modes are very much inferour.. Spelling.. I have been doing this in Amtor since 1987 and then came Pactor in the early 1990s or so and I have been here all along. hi. I am using an SCS PTC-2e. The radio is a Ten-Tec argonaut V QRP radio to a small linear amplifier to only about 50 Watts out to a dipole. My software is called NcWinPTC by PA0NC. I am familiar with the XP Ware you are using. A good program. FB your QTH and signal port. You are S-5 to S-6 with noise on the band. but this gets through very fine. I do have Pactor 2 and 3 here also. Nost of the WinLink 2K stations use the Pactor 2. BTU before I hog it all on you, Howard. W6IDS de VE1XL => VE1XL VE1XL (Dick) DE W6IDS W6IDS Tell you what, give me your email address and I'll send you two links that PACTOR operators are posting their activity. I'm posted there now, and just noted that we're connected.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hi Danny, I replied up here 'cause I wasn't sure what I was going to snip out from your message, yet. Why not apply the rationale to transmitters in general? YOU can't transmit for your thrice-weekly sked because your station detects VERY nearby signals and will not transmit...until the current "interferring" QSO terminates? THEN, you can transmit on the sked frequency. Or, you just come up on frequency, very close to 14.236 Digi voice group or very close to 3.713 Digipix group and you're going to want to ask if the frequency is use (albeit you can aurally sense the ongoing comms nearby) - only you can't because of the "Busy Guard" and thus, nothing transmitted to interfere with the pix or voice transfers. O, you come up to 3.713 and want to key up to declare that the digital NOISE is crap!, and then whistle or whatever - only you can't 'cause of the "Busy Guard." I can see all sorts of possibilities for the technology. Hmmm, now when the folks on 3.713 stop transmitting the digital pix and there's silence. and then you CAN transmit your anti-digital pix diatribe, you can continue to spew out explitives and NONE of the folks can transmit until you stop (because of their own "Busy Guard" protection). I wonder if my example is as "incomprehensible" as another was said to be that I wote for a different subject. Don't ask me what my point is. I was just musing over your scenario and this blossomed out of that. First the BOTS, then.. the rest of the interference. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot > Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox > sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes > up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the > freq > (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there > operating).
Re: [digitalradio] calling CQ
Hey John, Been listening, John. Didn't hear a peep from out your way. I was copying some "5s" and "7s" on PSK on 7.070 area, perhaps it's simply the propogation beast that's at fault. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:41 PM Subject: [digitalradio] calling CQ > Calling CQ 7077.7LSB Pactor one at this time. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hey, Bill, NO, John isn't alone in the experience. It happens frequently enough as to catch the attention. Is it simply because the PACTOR mode is being used? I dunno, but it does happen with enough frequency to raise the "ear brows." This is especially so when the signal is quite strong. Just my $ .02 worth which will not buy you even a plain donut hole. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot Hello John, Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm.
Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
- Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations.. > > Howard - when I call out a dial frequency for pactor such > as the one I hang out on 7077.5 it's going to be LSB always. > I think we have been close a number of times. > Roger that! I'll make sure, John. Thanks. Yes, I bet we have been close.that's why I'm still trying. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......
- Original Message - From: "Jack Chomley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:57 AM Subject: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations.. > Hi all Pactorologists! > > I now have my band scanning function running (I think!) for Pactor > connects. > The controller talks to my Icom 718 to scan 10 frequencies in 5 > bands, the scan delay for each frequency is 3 seconds. My tones > are Mark 1600 Space 1400 with USB mode on all frequencies. Hi Jack! Are you going to continue to post operations on http://www.obriensweb.com/sked and http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ for the scanning? Perhaps your scanning of the freq list will give me a better opportunity to work you. I did connect with Demetre, SV1UY, on 20m yesterday and had a brief but nice chat. The band was a bit busy but we connected succesfully. It surprised both of us; He had wondered about the ability of PACTOR I to pull it off due to the competition of nearby signals who came and went. Overall, some contacts were made with KU2A (Nick), NT3K in NM, N1DP in ME, NO4Y in NC, WB2JEP (AL) - running MultiPSK, and VK2PN. The QSO with AL, WB2JEP lasted the better part of an hour. I'm still trying for W0JAB (John) and you, of course. I've heard no signal from you whatsoever to date, same think for W0JAB. I'm still trying and I'm sure the effort will pay off before long. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ
- Original Message - From: "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ > Copying you FB in South Carolina, Howard, using DigiPan 2.0. > > Sorry - No Pactor 1 transmit capability - my PK-232 is in mothballs! > Super! Thanks, Skip. Well, shucks, would have been neat to pick you up, Skip. I picked up NT3K (Ken) in Las Cruces, NM with an S9 signal both ways on 14.078 and it made for pretty well 100% copy using FEC. Had no problems at all. The contact lasted about an hour or so. He was using his MultiPSK package. No one bother us for using PACTOR, had no apparent problems with any PMBOs either. I know, I know, PACTOR I is verrry "retro" but what the heck - it was great fun. C'mon, Skip. I know you've got a few things on your plate, what with NBEMS and all, but take a few sometime; break out that PK and play with it. It's still viable - it's better than just leaving the electrolytics to dry up if it isn't broke. Thanks again.. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ
Just for info, I'm on 18.085 running PACTOR I and calling CQ.pointed Westerly. I'm posted on the spotting page: http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ if anyone might be interested.in trying it Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.
- Original Message - From: "vk4jrc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up. > Hi all Pactor & Packet people, > > Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor & > Packet operators. > See http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ > Hope this will stir up some interest > Thanks Sholto :-) > > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 > 11:29 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.
On the Spot Page and monitoring 14.078 as of 1615Z Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "vk4jrc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up. > Hi all Pactor & Packet people, > > Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor & > Packet operators. > See http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ > Hope this will stir up some interest > Thanks Sholto :-) > >
[digitalradio] PACTOR I ARQ QSO
Hello to all, I had a surprise chat with NO4Y, Herman, Elizabeth City, NC at 1746Z on14.080 dial today. Nice signal into Richmond, IN and I have to say it was GREAT fun using my archaic, out-of- date, PK-232MBX and XPware software. Of course, my activity was not without blemish. While calling CQ, again on 14.080 dial, another strong PACTOR station started sending on 14.0811 dial. I was unable to copy it at all but it sounded "different". In trying to tune it in, I did notice that I picked up a fragment of a CQ string from W6FSY; I don't think that strong PACTOR signal was him however. Started calling CQ again when it was quiet and found myself in the company of one of the "musical" multi-tone modes just above me. Fairly strong signal; never have really learned how to tell one multi-tone signal from another by ear and on the fly, sadly. I did post a PACTOR I spot on: http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ and found quite a few stations posting there, though not much from the U.S. I did see one MULTIPSK entry amongst all the SCS units and one other PK-232 listing. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares
- Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares >I have been calling CQ on 7077.5 P1. > > Hello, John. Been listening around 0223Z - I just saw your message then - not hearing you. There is some voice activity quite nearby but no indication of your P1 signal. Not sure when you started but, for what it's worth Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.
Hey Charles! Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here. Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period. Another has said that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit like everyone else. You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't climb on board this innocent proposal because they're constantly being QRMed by PACTOR lids and for that reason, the Packet operators want nothing to do with anything that remotely touches PACTOR. That isn't fair to me, and any number of other folks who like the PACTOR I mode and are kindling a small surge of rebirth in the mode's interest. I've always followed the rules as they have, I'm sure. Individual PACTOR I operations cannot possibly be linked to BOTS, Winlink or whatever. I'm sure that Jack has been a considerate and law-abiding Ham for all his licensed life and means no ill-will towards anyone, least of all disrespect. I bet you and the others don't even know Jack and doubt you have ever been deliberately interferred with by him. I doubt he'd like to be included in any association with Winlink and the BOTS any more than I would. That message you quoted was a friendly, enthusiastic idea that came about from some ideas that have been bantered about offline amongst myself and some others who want to use our TNCs and PACTOR I again, just because. Seriously, this business about Winlink and BOTS is getting just a bit hysterical I think, to the point of irrationality. I say that simply because of your reaction and you're not alone at all. AND...it's understandable for sure. But, jeez, Charles. Aren't you being a bit harsh to the point that you're taking a swipe at everyone? That's exactly what the Packet operators don't want for themselves. I was on last night running my PK232 through its paces and getting reacquainted with it. I even made a couple of contacts with it using PACTOR I during Sunday and it was fun! Surely, you're not going to call me a lid simply because of using the PACTOR mode, alledged to being mis-used by others alledged to have a totally selfish agenda are you? Just my polite $ .02 worth. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Charles Brabham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up. > Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from > Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally > will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. > > The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a > god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 > and The Amateur's Code. > > - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that > is...
Re: [digitalradio] CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now
Hi Demetre, Listening but nothing heard yet. Numerous signals abound the frequency but will be monitoring. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: [digitalradio] CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now > Hi Nick and all, > > Happy New Year. I am calling CQ on PACTOR right now and I will > continue until 16.00 UTC. > > Anyone from USA interested please reply on PACTOR 1 or 2.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
- Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? > > I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of > years, roughly 1989-2003 or so. Pactor was quite popular until the > early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez. This ushered > in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a > TNC unnecessary to work these new modes. HI Roger, I possted this off line nto you because it would seem that the notion of PACTOR and the PK232 is not mainstream enough to keep it in the forum. I only received three responses to my query so that makes the point. I'm sorry, but I have never understood WHY the mode got dropped just because PSK came alive. I see no reason why it can't be as fun to use as legacy RTTY. I'm probably "odd man out" but frankly, after some trial and error testing, I have little interest in MT63, Olivia, Throb, Feld, most of the modes in Patrick's MultiPSK, and the like. I DO like PACTOR, along with DIGI pix and file transfers, DIGI voice, SSTV, RTTY, PSK and it's variants, etc. I know that my PK232 can't work the new modes that have come along but I think "so what?" I remember many enjoyable contacts using my PK232 with really good copy. OK, so it might not be as "fast" as PSK but most hams can't type fast anyway. I type 75 wpm myself but find it not to be an advantage. The important point for me is that I had a $300 box that worked just fine and gave me some interesting operations. Yes, I do know that 'puters can do wonders with DSP and such. However, look at how many hams still use legacy PCs for their station use, yet (if stories are true) they had no compunction in trashing fully functional boxes simply because THEY chose to stop using them like sheep in a flock. That didn't happen with RTTY and it's still a relatively popular "nitch" mode. Heck, I could have incorporated a T/R function, etc into the PK rather than springing for a RIGblaster, for heaven's sake. DUH! It seems like Hams were too quick to chuck $300 or ?? out-of-pocket TNCs away to deliberately make them obsolete for interest's sake, not because of the box as such. That's like throwing a Collins or Drake or Hallicrafters unit in the trash just because it's not quite up to par with the expensive state-of-the-art, mostly foreign produced, whistle 'n bells toys sold today. Personally, I don't care about PTC II, myself. I can't afford the box anyway, yet I see a value for the mode. Ergo, at the least I can have a PACTOR-type ability with the PK232. It DID work before and there's no reason why that box can't provide service today. I've read where the thinking is that most hams won't bother with the PACTOR I if only because of little desire to buy an "expensive" outboard TNC. What about the hams who never threw away their original TNC, the one sitting in the closet per se? It takes little cost to put them back on line, yet they sit, even for lack of use for RTTY at least. Again, I do know it won't measure up to the SCS units but so what? I have a Collins KWM-2A ensemble, Drake ensemble, and an IC-746. They do not come up to the standards of the more expensive products available today but.so what? They work and they're fun to use. Besides, I don't owe any money on them either . I dunno, IMOH I just think we've misplaced some of our valuable neurons along the way due to shallow and simplistic thinking. Well, I didn't intend this to be a diatribe. I'm probably beating the subject into the ground with no possibility of success in a turnaround. Anyway, I appreciated your comments, the message was a good read. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
SHEESH! Apologies to All... looks like a bit of operator error is apparent with the message below. I was editing a reply and probably "pushed the wrong switch" as I got up to take care of a chore. Sorry for the trash being sent. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "w6ids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? > > - Original Message - > From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:52 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
- Original Message - From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? > Elaine and I had some attempts to work each other the past few days as I > heard her on the bands but we were always quite weak to each other. If > we had been using Pactor modems, especially those from non SCS > manufacturers, I doubt that we would have had any luck connecting. > > We did have a small amount of success with MFSK16 which you would think > would work the best. I know that I have more trouble tuning and locking > in this mode than I used to but I am not sure why. The really curious > thing is that Elaine switched to RTTY which you would think would be > much worse of a mode and yet we were able to do some level of success in > printing. Then she switched to Hell mode and while not the most > sensitive mode, was able to copy about 50% of the characters since there > was severe QSB on a barely discernible signal on the waterfall or by ear. > > It would have been interesting to try FAE 400 though, but maybe > conditions were just too poor for even that mode. > > I could not imagine going back to hardware boxes due to the cost and the > vendor lock in issue. At one time we had G-Tor on Kantronics, Pactor on > SCS, and Clover II on HAL, and the only mode that had some level of > compatibility was Pactor of the three proprietary (or quasi proprietary > like Pactor) modes. We all know which one survived to go one and become > the most popular of the three on the ham bands? > > The more hams that can use a given mode, the more chance of success of > that mode with additional attributes taken into consideration > (sensitivity, ease of use, ability to work under difficult conditons, > etc.). > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons wrote: >> *//* >> */I prefer live chat via Pactor-I .. /* >> *//* >> */The problem is the decline in general usage by /* >> */most radio amateurs who prefer to not purchase a /* >> */a TNC for this mode, and instead use soundcard/* >> */modes .. /* >> *//* >> */Jus sayin /* >> *//* >> */Elaine /* >> >> -- >> Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons >> WA6UBE / AAR9JA >> http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube >> >> > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1204 - Release Date: > 12/31/2007 12:20 PM >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
- Original Message - From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? > Hello Howard, > > I use Pactor I every now and then for keyboard to keyboard. It is hit > and miss for me; more a novelty than an oft-used mode. > Interesting. Thanks for the reply, Bill. I asked about this twice now and yours is the first reply. I asked also on the PK232 group with no response and that surprised me a little. Well, I have my original PK but without current upgrades. I would like to put it into use but if it is seldom used by anyone, I wonder if I might just want to pitch it.I think it's a neat box and despite my liking PACTOR if there's no chance of enjoying the mode much and no one is interested it making the mode more active... I like the mode myself but then I suppose I'm old enough to want to hang on to "familiars" now I suppose. I'm 62 and while I like SOME of the new modes now out, I still enjoy RTTY, CW and (heavy sigh) PACTOR. H, I even like the idea of digital voice and DIGI file/pix transfers, and SSTV. Where do you operate? Is it hit 'n miss or perhaps a schedule? I have PKware installed and it's worked very well over the years. I've been told that one use of the PK is to implement the upgrades to take advantage of what is called superior filtering for PSK and RTTY and such. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
There have been recent comments attesting to the demise of PACTOR I. Is this true for all intent and purposes? For curiosity, who's using PACTOR I for keyboard QSO's with an outboard TNC such as the venerable PK-232 and others? If there is such activity is is hit 'n miss or quasi-scheduled? Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
- Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a >> digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended >> stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the >> frequency is locally clear. >> >>73, >> >> Dave, AA6YQ > > Well, > > Can you admit that there are people with different points of view > Dave? I'm afraid you can't. > > We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is > acceptable in the hobby OM. > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year and smile a bit OM! > > Winlink, PACKET RADIO or e-mail, etc. are not evil! They are just > another form of DIGITAL MODES which you might not like but others like > them so there!!! > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY Demetre... What I've quoted in Dave's message are his core thoughts, the thrust of his message thread. Your reply, as I said in another message, does not touch his comments. It's as if you were talking about a totally unrelated subject. So, let me use the automobile analogy in my own way. We all like the automobile. I'm sure you do as well. What I do not like about the automobile is its use by people to drive intoxicated, because they kill and maim people. I do not like the use of excessive speed because speed kills - except on the Autobahn. I do not like automobiles being driven on the wrong side of the highway, because that can kill someone. I do not like automobiles being driven at night without proper lighting such as headlights and taillights. I do not like an automobile to be driven by an unlicensed driver for safety's sake. I do not like an automobile to be moved down the highway without a driver controlling it with his/her hands on the wheel. What am I saying to you? That I do not like automobiles or that I do not like illegal and/or improper use of automobiles? Tell me which? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
- Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > > OK Dave, > > You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form > of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a > diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes > they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. > And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn > about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really > gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I > admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The > rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. > > Merry Christmas!!! > Uh, Demetre Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments. Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's agreements? There's more of you outside the Continental U.S., therefore that's where the power lies? Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want, without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands because, as you wrote, > in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours? Thanks for making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre. My heart goes out to Dave. He'll never win this thread's debate. More's the pity, for us all. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FDMDV confusion
- Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FDMDV confusion > Hi Dave, > > A quote for this document > http://n1su.com/fdmdv/FDMDV_Docs_Rel_1.0_revised.pdf > > "Tuning: Two methods of tuning are available, Manual Tune and > Auto Tune. Both use the mouse pointer that changes to a “+” >when moved within the display area. For Auto Tune, just left click > anywhere within the display to sync your receive frequency to the > TX signal. >SNIP< >SNIP< Hi Steinar, those were helpful tips for sure. I installed the program this afternoon and had immediate success with receive. I heard the following stations, starting at around 1700Z or so on 14.236: K0PFX MelSt. Louis N1FFX Gerry Sterling, MA FN42 K4RTN Jack Brooksville, FL Signals were good and I copied all three stations fine with good quality until fade caused deterioration.. Eventually, I left for some shopping after a period. Then, around 2025Z I tried again and picked up >/= 5/9 +5 signals:: W7QQF ED PHoenix Calling a station but seeming to take turns with - K3DCC Jim Albuquerque, NM and neither station heard the other. WB6RPO and K3DCC sort of "collided" from time to time but when both weren't talking at the same time, both were clear.. After not too long a time, next heard: WB5RRR Sandy Enid, OK EM16 with a 5/9 + 10 signal and clear. around 2032Z I played around with your "hints 'n kinks" and saw the effects. The methods seemed to help nicely and showed me something I was not aware of. BTW, the quality of the signal audio tends to grow on you. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN 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 <*> 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: Non mailbox use of pactor ?
Hey! I've got a PK-232MBX that's on line. I use it from time to time for PACTOR I keyboard-to-keyboard, FEC et al. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:40 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ? How many keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor stations would you estimate are QRV, John? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.
Hey, Rick.. If all but two PSK signals are "normal" in display and two or three signals suddenly BLOOM with little ragged edges around their skirts on either side causing them to be really wider than other signals. wouldn't that pretty much eliminate the soundcard question? I mean, if I'm showing 7 or 8 stations all sort of comparable, and then an "XE" and an "LU1" and maybe later a "KB9" appear, all showing considerable width and maybe some "raspies" on the signal, I wouldn't be concerned about my card here. Daily, I can sit on any band to monitor PSK and without fail there will be four or perhaps five stations during a given period who are noticeably excessive in width compared to the rest of the population on frequency. This happens all day long, regardless of the time or day. It seems to me that if it's the sound card, most all the stations are going to give the receiving station some problems, not just a couple. When I see a station that seems too hot, I'm not inclined to second-guess myself and hesitate to try to let the station know they're wide. There are a whole bunch of stations on the air that are simply not operating PSK properly. There's a whole bunch more who do not say anything at all when they come across a wide signal, even when they make contact and chat. Hmmm...with that said, YOU could then point a finger, huh? UH, am I saying that "I" can see a problem but another station can't, not just won't? Me thinks I'm starting to lose my momentum here. Well, since I've typed this li'l diatribe, here it is. Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought. > And to clarify ... exceeding necessary power is not the same as driving > the rig beyond linearity. It is the later that causes the wide traces > and multiple traces in most cases (sometimes could be due on the > receiving end with some lower quality sound cards). > >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice Repeaters on HF (Re: Nearly Vacant HF Spectrum)
Hello, Howard I snipped everything out except for that quoted, because I couldn't think of a better reason than that asked in your question. So I say, YES! (even if it might not be so, but let 'em think it is). Just by that, inovation might surface in the process. If we don't use the frequencies, then it's our own fault for not holding on to them when they're taken. Sorry if I took a simplistic view but what the hey. It's only one aspect of your thread, I know. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Howard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Digital Voice Repeaters on HF (Re: Nearly Vacant HF Spectrum) OK, I will ask... >SNIP< >SNIP< Is the primary purpose to use the bands so we don't lose them?
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
HI Roger, I've read all the segments of the thread and I, personally, do not see any anti-U.S. rhetoric in the comments. I do see reaction to excessive authoritarian control over our hobby in this country by individuals outside the CONUS environs. Besides, us "Yanks" have a fair amount of country-bashing history when holding up the tenets of THIS country on more than one occasion. That said, there's one thing we all seem to have in common and that is a healthy desire for government controls (and quasi- agencies like ARRL) to get off our backs and let us experiment and grow like we used to. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up .. > > I said it once before, and I will say it one last time. Slurs against > *any* country on this reflector or in any other amateur radio venue are > absolutely contrary to the spirit of international brotherhood that has > always been the hallmark of amateur radio. John, if you have personal > problems, solve them. Don't bring your anti-US prejudices here. > > Having said that, I too am tired of the ARRL rant. > > de Roger W6VZV > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007 1:39 PM
Re: [digitalradio] HF search text
Well, I'm happy to read that YOU'RE doing this. I was going to set out to try to make one for myself. S, I'll give you my stats if you don't have it: W6IDS EM79 Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "John GM4SLV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HF search text > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:35:40 -0700 > WN1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> To the person who is compiling an HF deep-search >> text: please post here when you do that. > > Hi Orrin and others, > > I'm adding every Call/grid square I get sent, or that I can deduce from > reading messages on this list. >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off
Hello Cesco... I am assuming the file is created "automagically" by the software. What's the purpose of the date? Should I go in and edit the file manually? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "cesco12342000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:22 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off > How would one format an "HF call3.txt" example from file: ZS6GPM,KG33XU,,10/02 i think format is callsign,locator,,date additional entry would be: HB9TLK,JN47HJ,,3/07
Re: [digitalradio] WSJT recompile
Not from here, Leigh, other than to add that it seems to make sense to create a version that is more applicable to HF requirements. Nothing wrong with that at all. Thanks for the effort; should be interesting. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Leigh L Klotz, Jr. To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] WSJT recompile I am working on recompiling WSJT, as I mentioned to Cesco. I have got it down to one unsatisfied link error, probably due to compiler version skew (gmttime_ in Audio.so). >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] JT65 "Flatten Spectrum" Option
Andy, I dunno about that. It all depends on whether or not your flattened spectra lasted for more than four hours! Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65 "Flatten Spectrum" Option Yes, I noticed my spectra was flattened . I was hoping it would not cause my wife to leave me and...oh wait, wrong subject. Seriously, I did some Spectra testing last night and found turning it off solved the problem. Then this morning I received a message "Unable to allocate a bivariate polynomial for factorization". That sounds more painful that a flattened spectra. >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] JT65 5mw QSO with XE2AT!
Hmmm.. there's a lesson here isn't there? When no one is looking, what do YOU do normally? Amazing, indeed. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:18 PM Subject: [digitalradio] JT65 5mw QSO with XE2AT! All: Managned to work Al, XE2AT on JT65 with 5mw this evening on 20 meters. All was using a 40 meter Bazooka antenna with tuner. Turned the power down to 1mw (according to Oak Hills WM2 QRPp wattmeter) while sending 73 and Al heard me! Amazing mode...
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off
How would one format an "HF call3.txt" Guess I need to take a peek at my folders and look at it. I'm assuming such a file use is possible? It's used for decision-making by the software sometimes in determining validity of callsigns or?? I'll bet it's discussed in the docs, but tell me anyway. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:25 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off Hi John, Sure you already know this but the key was the "0 3" >SNIP< >SNIP< As I hope I made clear; deep search using call3.txt is great for EME, with known precautions. On HF it is less useful. Perhaps running -30 db S/N of HF with a dedicated HF call3.txt file it might be entertaining.food for thought. >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off
Well, Bill, I'll thank you for that. It answers a nagging question. I've seen instances where I've seen myself being called by a number of stations over time periodically.and I wasn't even keying the rig. Can you explain what is happening - I DID have Deep Search ON as I recall. Only recently did I switch it off. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Deepsearch on JT65 HF --turn it off All, Per topic, deepsearch is great for EME, a wonderful feature. But on HF is is of little value and will only lead to false decodes and "stations answering you when you haven't transmitted". Decode menu, JT65, check "No deep search" >SNIP< >SNIP<
[digitalradio] My Own JT65A Monday - FINALLY
Hello, All. I've been playing with this mode and making piece meal contacts as it were while learning. Mostly, I've been receiving. I know the thing works, but there's this thing about a learning curve, time accuracy, etc. So, I was kind of surprised when I actually pulled off the sequence of making a contact that is located elsewhere besides CONUS: 222800 0 -21 7.1 -127 3 222900 10 -5 1.5 -124 0 * CQ JS1OYN PM951 0 223200 4 -7 1.8 -16 3 * W6IDS JS1OYN PM95 1 0 223400 4 -9 1.1 -16 3 # W6IDS JS1OYN PM95 OOO 1 0 223600 10 -20 -17 3 RRR ? 223800 10 -19 -17 2 73 ? I had to dial the station in manually; it was originally +135 from me, so on the fly didn't do too badly. For Bill P., this kinda reminds me of PSK63 testing (GRIN) but with more hope for success it seems. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Using the SpecJT to aide in tuning
Hello Andy and the group, I forgot to ask about the manual transmit process which you mentioned and that I experience also. Have you possibly run across any insight into what it is or why it happens? Are we actually simply resending the text over again, or ??? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Using the SpecJT to aide in tuning Yeah , good news Howard. Your question about manual transmit is an interesting one. It appears to be expected that one does it automatically, auto on , and you manually select the message to send at each over. However, I have the same problem as you, the message is not decoded until its time for me to transmit automatically. >SNIP< >SNIP< When I manually send, the software stops at the right time and then starts again immediately. When that happens, I don't worry, I just press the stop TX button quickly. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 20M JT65
I'll be up and listening..it's 0054Z now. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: KT2Q To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:04 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV 20M JT65 ALL: VE3FGU is CQ 14076 JT65 @ 0001z, April 12 000100 3 -14 -0.3 482 2 * CQ VE3FGU FN04 1 0 Tony KT2Q
Re: [digitalradio] Mode du Jour /Universe of users ( was ) Do we need a separate group for JT65A?
Hello Andy... The group has been an interesting read for me, regardless of the nature of threads. That said, your message seems to follow the focus on repetitive station or callsign activity. Isn't that the nature of the message which started this thread when "jhaynesatalumni" wrote: > Or is the message volume going to die down after everybody here has > worked everybody on all bands? While I agree with you wholeheardedly, the thread almost begs the question "what's the purpose of the forum?" Fresh callsigns for JT65A or popularity won't change the basic reason for the message segment quoted above, as I see it. The quote seems to have an issue with the message volume. If the other modes have limited numbers of users, the activity will be low but the message volume high and just as focused as for JT65A until a level of balance is reached. Yet, they do not draw the same type of observation as has just happened for JT65A. When the other experimental modes appeared, were there not very active message threads within a limited following - albeit still limited? The forum seems to be perfect for NEW modes or the adapting of a mode for another use. The JT65A level and type of message activity seems to be a perfect fit for the forum at this point in time. The activity and back 'n forth chatter is healthy and energetic. Otherwise, what's the point of the forum? If not this activity, then what else? Just musing.. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:01 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Mode du Jour /Universe of users ( was ) Do we need a separate group for JT65A? With regard to the question about should the JT65A talk be shifted to it's own dedicated group, Danny is correct, he pointed out that I formed this group years ago when the custom was to have a group for each mode. I wanted to discuss them all, not go to an individual group for each mode. One issue , with the less used digital modes, is the fact that after a while you are working the same people over and over again. This is true for ALE, Olivia, DominoEX, Feld Hell, PAX2, and more. PSK31, RTTY, and MFSK16 are the only ones that seem to have wide enough use to produce variety . Even RTTY in contests tends to be the same 200-300 hams. JT65A has a new crop of call signs that are not commonly seen on the other experimental digital modes but time will tell, whether this mode will become popular enough to ensure some freshness of contacts.
Re: [digitalradio] Do we need a separate group for JT65A?
Hey Danny. You know, I don't have a problem posting my newbie/learning messages off line to whomever I am getting help from. I concur with your message but if there's ONE member who perceives the thread to be merely that of confirming contacts and not learning curves, there may be others. Besides, 'tis better to look goofy in private than expose to everyone how much of a mushroom you are. That's always safer Hmmm... the thread is kinda like BETA testing. When we've got the kinks ironed out off line, then Andy could publish an ONLINE update to the Bozo project he created. That way the forum is krispy clean. I'm going back to that...thaterOTHER mode and continue fiddlin' and wrack up the world-wide contacts with everyone. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Do we need a separate group for JT65A? Isnt this the reason for the group? If we had a separate group for every mode, there would be dozens of sites we woudnt even be aware of, and it would drag none of us into researching the modes ourselves. If the mode gets big enough, and lasts, beyond the initial excitement of a new mode, then it is possible it does need a new group, or spotting group at least, but for now, lets leave it be.
Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0
Thanks, Dave. I wasn't sure because of the PSK limitation. Can't be too careful; still learning. I'm running an ICOM IC-746 so I don't think I'll have problems. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Dave Sparks To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0 Hi Andy, I've been running at half power but I suspect that most transceivers could safely transmit at full power for a minute or less followed by at least a full minute's rest, which is the nature of the mode. 73 de AF6AS Dave >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0
Are we under the same power constraints as PSK or is full power allowed (meaning w/o linear) for JT65? - Original Message - From: KT2Q To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HB9TLK JT65 7076.0 Andy, Boy, that would be something. I was running 20 watts / rotatable dipole on the tower at 75 feet. Cesco's antenna is a low G5RV with a barefoot rig. He usually runs 50 watts on digital.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Introducing " The Complete Bozo's Guide To HF JT65A"
Hey Andy! Dave's right. Yessir, great job for the Bozo support here in Indiana. The issue of frequency adjustment needs a little more clarification for putting the transmitter on the mark. BTW, just for discussion - what would be wrong sending something like "KB3MOW W6IDS OOO", "KB3MOW W6IDS RRR" and "KB3MOW W6IDS 73" ?? Seems to me it clears up things across the board for HF and this mode. No possible chance for confusion. I've been tempted to do it. - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Introducing " The Complete Bozo's Guide To HF JT65A" --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Corio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice job, Andy, but you never got deeper into the frequency alignment. > >SNIP< >SNIP< I am decoding you at -5 DF and N5BA at -13 , I never did try to get closer to him. When there is a pile up and you are not sure whether the RO or RRR is to you or someone esle near by, check the DF when you received a line with the call sign you are working. Note the DF then, if you see an RRR or RO that is from a vastly different DF, then chances are you are getting someone else's RO/RRR and not the one you need. >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A on 18.102 MHz
I'm monitoring there now on USB. Hearing RTTY at the moment and either Packet or Pactor off on the side at 1415Z - 1430Z so far. LSB seems quiet; RTTY and the other signal BARELY discernible. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A on 18.102 MHz Steinar, Good Morning...I am there also. Hope to work Norway on this band. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] help prevent qrm
Initially, I was going to send this to another person, but in rereading your message, I cut 'n paste it to you. It was more appropriate. What are your thoughts regarding the position of your signal on a given frequency, perhaps 7076, or 18102? One forum member strongly recommended in a message a couple of days ago to make sure the transmitter was REALLY, REALLY close to the station being monitored. This will enable both parties to decode each other without taking up too much bandwidth. He also made the comment that he had been set up fairly narrow and missed a DX contact because he was not printing the DX, even though the DX station was calling him nearby. He wants an effort made to tune the transmitter to the sync tone position of the station you're copying. With RIT off, and my ICOM IC-746 tuned to 18102 and printing a station, won't I be right on frequency or really close to him and his sync tone position as such? In my mind, that will not happen unless by chance, it seems to me. I'm asking because I had thought that my transmit frequency would be changed much like for PSK but it apparently is not the case. So, if that is so, I wonder what the correct protocol would be to accomodate many stations on or about 14076, 18102, 7076, etc etc? AND, not take a huge amount of bandwidth in each case, a protocol that we can all agree upon and adhere to as applies to HF ops with VFO controlled equipments? Otherwise, if I'm trying to tune my ICOM so that his sync tone is "zero beat" or whatever, in WSJT, it'll take forever due to the very slow decode processing that occurs. H...is this software normally used with channelized radios on VHF/UHF? What if we set up specific frequencies to operate on, sort of like mini- channels; so many Hz between each one? With RIT off, maintaining USB or LSB consistently, with today's radios, wouldn't better operating practices be enjoyed along with fairly consistent success? It seems to me that the matter of the importance of the Sync Tone would be better addressed than by happenstance. Just asking newbie questions, perhaps with an air of the mushroom notwithstanding. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD To: DIGITALRADIO ; WSJT Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 9:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] help prevent qrm 20m was a mess today, everyone planting on 076. this is not necessary ! try this... set in spectrum the jt65 DF axis option freeze the program to 0, with tol to 200 tune whichever station you wish to tune by shifting your dial to place the sync tone on 0 >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] Using the SpecJT to aide in tuning
Well, all I can say is THANKS!, Andrew. Your little blurb about that Sync Tone did the trick. I was clueless about the real relationship between SpecJT and WSJT displays. I was on 7076 when a signal came up. I just clicked on what appeared to be the Sync Tone in WSJT and Voila! The "slider" on SpecJT suddenly moved to the signal I was seeing and topped astride it. Up until then I wasn't printing anything - after the slider moved, I printed a CQ and tried my hand at connecting with the station as shown below - it worked: 022700 4 -3 0.2 -196 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 022800 1 -30 0.1 40 5 * 022900 6 -4 0.2 -196 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 023100 7 -5 0.3 -196 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 023300 5 -4 0.2 -196 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 023500 6 -4 -0.9 -196 3 # W6IDS W6SZ DM14 OOO 1 0 023700 10 -5 -0.8 -196 3 # W6IDS W6SZ DM14 OOO 1 0 023900 9 -5 -0.8 -196 3 # W6IDS W6SZ DM14 OOO 1 0 024100 10 -16 -196 4 RO ? 024300 10 -18 -196 4 RRR ? 024500 10 -8 -196 4 73 ? 024600 5 -2842 2 73 ? 024700 9 -3 -0.8 -196 3 * TNX 1 0 Now, I have to admit I wasn't watching to see if everything lined up in WSJT as you described.I was too excited. All I did was click on that large pulse. After that contact, I found I was printing a whole bunch more than in previous days of testing: 024900 6 -4 -0.80 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 025000 2 -14 -0.5 24 3 * HB9TLK K3UK FN02 1 0 025100 7 -2 -0.90 3 * CQ W6SZ DM14 1 0 025200 10 -1824 4 RO ? 025300 10 -14 -475 3 RRR ? 025400 10 -2025 5 RRR ? 025500 10 -10 -475 2 RRR ? 025600 10 -1925 0 73 ? 025700 10 -7 -475 4 73 ? 025800 0 -31 -1.5 -498 7 025900 4 -8 -1.9 -474 4 * K3UK HB9TLK JN47 1 0 03 0 -33 10.0 -388 41 030100 5 -13 -1.9 -474 4 * K3UK HB9TLK JN47 1 0 030200 0 -32 4.0 -719 2 030300 9 -12 -1.9 -474 4 * CQ HB9TLK JN471 0 Anyway, I broke the ice tonight. Still a bunch to put together but at least I accomplished something. That was neat! When making a contact, are we supposed to manually engage each of the TX1 - TX6 message keys in the proper sequence, or does it all happen "automagically" with the "AUTO is ON" engaged? I turned the AUTO to off during the exchanges because I noticed that I was going into transmit mode before the DECODING was done and I could see his transmission. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 8:11 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Using the SpecJT to aide in tuning I got a couple of useful tips today, played around a little and thought I would pass a long some information to fellow JT65A rookies. >SNIP< >SNIP< Enter the SPECJT. I had no clue about this display other than it looked cool. By it's self it appeared to do nothing. However if you have SPECJT and the WJST waterfall on the screen at the same time, you will notice SPECT responds to clicks on the WJTS mains screen waterfall. I am told that a good precise frequency can be achieved by sync'ing with the tones. "the sync tone would be at 0, and the three red lines will be in the RO/RRR/73 positions...easy to decode even if timing off. The lowest tone is always the sync tone, even when sending the SH messages (WD4KPD David) >SNIP< >SNIP< So, it seems that our goal should be to find the sync tone, align it with the left most green line by clicking on in in the JT65A waterfall and getting the RO/OOO stuff within the three RED lines on SPECJT.
Re: [digitalradio] Some notes on JT65-on-HF operation
I downloaded the utility yesterday. It works as advertised. The clock is right on the mark. Nice addition, just as you say. Looks like it will eliminate any problems regarding clock accuracy and JT65A. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:27 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Some notes on JT65-on-HF operation Hi "Dimension 4" is a nice little program to "Always keep your clock synchronized(..)"
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol
Hey Andy, Bear with me here. I am hearing signals on 14.076 but apparently not decoding all the time. Suddenly there will be the "huh?" from the program with RRR ? and such displayed on a particular line. BUT, never did see a callsign anywhere. Then, without warning, I see: 151100 2 -10 -1.4 32 3 # W6IDS K7UV DN31 0 10 Now, apparently I'm being called by HIM.though I had not been sending up to that point, just listening and my presence was not visible. I just clicked on TX1 and sent the li'l callup message shown there (I had double-clicked on his call to insert). Saw no reply from the station. I did see following lines ending with RO ?, another ending with OO ? and then finally 73 ? I believe I screwed up my end of things 'cause I read in one of your messages that "AUTO" was supposed to be on. I did not do that. When Auto is on (and "TX first" is UNCHECKED, the exchange sequence (general messages) take place automatically and in the right sequence, once I first start transmission with TX1? Without touching anything, I then subsequently printed CQs from EA4RH and OZ1JVX and also then EA4RH calling OZ1JVX: 153100 11 -9 4.4 -22 3 * CQ EA4RH IN80 1 0 153300 0 -17 5.3 30 7 153400 0 -17 3.4 -474 3 153500 5 -10 4.4 -22 4 * CQ EA4RH IN80 1 0 153600 0 -18 3.5 -474 1 153700 3 -12 5.2 -19 2 * OZ1JVX EA4RH IN80 1 0 153800 0 -18 1.2 -474 1 However, no comm exchange occured it seemed. I'm showing medium strength signals at one point, yet while decoding, no info is displayed for several minutes, despite the signal sending. This now raises a question about tuning. All I do is load the program and do nothing with the SpecJT waterfall window. Right now, the scale at the top reads from "0" to 1300 Speed "4". Does the program automagically lock onto a signal(s) and decode them? I began today with clicking on a weak signal around 460, the "slider" then jumped over to it and settled just a little "offcenter" to the right of the trace. Signals seem to be around from 20 to perhaps 900 all morning, but I did not see any indication that the program was trying to seek and lock on any of them per se. Are we supposed to "point 'n shoot" like we might for PSK? Are we supposed to have the "scale slider" sit right on top of a signal with the red markers equally straddling the trace to get proper print? While typing this message, here's what I've been receiving in the background. I can see the signals, some stronger than others, but no intelligence being printed: 162600 10 -2022 3 73 ? 162700 10 -2020 4 73 ? 162800 4 -2819 3 73 ? 162900 0 -16 -0.9 19 5 163000 1 -16 0.0 19 3 # 163100 0 -13 4.0 19 3 163200 0 -20 0.1 19 3 163300 0 -12 2.4 19 3 163400 1 -19 -1.9 19 3 * 163500 0 -21 -1.0 19 1 163600 0 -13 7.3 19 3 163700 0 -19 7.9 19 1 163800 0 -11 3.8 19 3 163900 0 -16 -0.2 972 1 164000 2 -11 -1.3 980 5 # 164100 0 -20 0.5 -207 25 164200 0 -18 2.1 -210 4 164300 0 -21 4.9 -210 11 164400 0 -13 0.1 -137 3 164500 0 -19 6.8 942 1 164600 0 -14 5.5 759 3 164700 0 -16 2.4 -137 3 Now, I know you're just a "ROOKIE"that said, any insight you can shed for me? I'd entertain any insight from anyone else also, for that matter. I think others will be interested - there's been a few off line comments to me, expressing some "intuitive difficulties" as I during this learning curve. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol Dave, JT65A is the submode for HF use. The same protocol is used since the software is the same. One station calls on the "first minute" (00,02,04,06, etc) and the other on the second (01, 03, etc). >SNIP< >SNIP<
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Confused
Well, it's receiving by George but I'm not sure if it's consistently. However, I did read in a later message tonight where the bandwidth is such that the mode searches (s) making it easier to tune or some such thing. Anyway, caught the following in part: 003300 1 -12 8.9 291 5 # W6IDS DL3AAL J052 0 ? 0 3 It seems like I was being called. Wonder if DL3AAL is on the forum? Got his transmission here in Indiana even with him seemingly weak. That said, a bit earlier I was transmitting "CQ", later to find that there's a sequence protocol for even mins or odd mins I think for this. Wonder if DL3AAL had actually heard me - otherwise, was surprised to see my call on the line. Can't seem to see how the screen is copied and then pasted into the message here. Screen Print? No, that can't be right. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Alan Tindal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "w6ids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Confused > Hi Howard, Yes,I feel it could be interesting but like you there isn't > much info on actual setting up & operating. > I have manage to get the TX side working & receiving something,but > what it is I haven't got a clue, just row of numbers. > I guess we will have to search a bit more for info.