Re: [digitalradio] Re: Download JT65-HF1051.zip software

2010-06-14 Thread Wes Linscott
I am a newbie on JT65A and have been using the JT65-HF sofware.  It works well 
and is easy to use.  I've been enjoying the new (to me) mode.

Wes W1LIC




From: Warren Moxley 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, June 14, 2010 8:35:34 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Download JT65-HF1051.zip software

  
I have been using this software for the past week and it is the best for JT65A. 
I can find nothing I don't like about it.  I have a netbook I am using for 
digital radio and it very efficient and fast for decoding. Just remember, it is 
for JT65A only.

K5WGM


--- On Sun, 6/13/10, Alex  wrote:


>From: Alex 
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Download JT65-HF1051. zip software
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 6:31 PM
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>  >
>
> 
>>  
> 
>
>
>>--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>>>
>>> WSJT can decode multiple signals, same minute.
>>> Andy K3UK
>>>
>
>>Hi Andy,
>>i don't know how you're able to do it.
>>May be you run more than 1 session
>>Normally when i work JT65A i open concurrently JT65-HF1.051, WSJT7 and 
>>Multipsk 4.17 and the only that decode multiple signals, same minute, is 
>>JT65-HF.
>>If you want to do the same test you can discover what is the best software.
>>It needs a big screen and it's better to set a slow watefarfall speed for 
>>less CPU usage, especially for slow PC.
>>73 de Alex, IZ4CZL
>
> 

 

[digitalradio] Inquiry

2010-06-06 Thread Wes Linscott
I am quite new to digital modes and I often have trouble identifying what mode 
I'm hearing/seeing.  Is there a website which has examples of the various modes 
which would help me?

Wes W1LIC

Re: [digitalradio] ROS 10 meters

2010-06-04 Thread Wes Linscott
And cause QRM in the beacon subband...

So much for the "Gentlemen's Agreement"!

Wes W1LIC




From: Andy obrien 
To: digitalradio 
Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 7:42:58 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] ROS 10 meters

FYI

"Changes on 10 meters
29 May, 2010

At the suggestion of some USA operators, we are changed ROS 10 meters
frequency: Now is 28295 instead of 28305.

USA Hams of the  “ROS is not SS” Platform are not agree with ARRL
about ROS is view as SS, and they dont see any different between MT63
and ROS, except a more robutness for DX.

So they are going to use ROS on 10 meters.

Congratulations and enjoy ROS "




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



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks

2010-02-28 Thread Wes Linscott
The EPC PSK125 contest was in operation.  Is that possibly what you were 
seeing/hearing?

Wes W1LIC




From: jhaynesatalumni 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 8:05:55 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] New subject: FSK clicks

  
I was just listening on 80M - some kind of RTTY contest is on - and
I hear a bunch of normal-sounding FSK RTTY signals, and some that
are awfully clicky, like key clicks except it's FSK.  I wonder what
those guys are doing wrong.  Having the speech processor turned on,
perhaps?  Or too-rapid switching between mark and space?  Please
listen when you get a chance and see if you hear what I'm hearing
and if you can guess what is causing it.  On the waterfall it shows
up kinda like an overdriven PSK signal, but that shouldn't matter
so much for FSK.

Jim W6JVE


 

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Wes Linscott
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me . . .





From: Toby Burnett 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:44:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Lol    really sorry, must have clicked the wrong message to reply too. 

You guys didn't need to know that lol



---Original Message- --

From: Toby Burnett
Date: 26/02/2010 14:41:16
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

It's a voting ballot sheet. 

Trying to fix the 2m yagi beam.   God it's old but it was given to me and it 
may still work. 
Xxx
Picked up ALL the dog poop 5 bags worth, some not so easy.  

xx 

---Original Message- --

From: KH6TY
Date: 26/02/2010 13:39:44
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
  
> jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
> I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
> things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is 
FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an 
honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.


73, Skip KH6TY SK



jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.

If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of 
criticism ROS.

I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things 
in this group.





De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
> If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from 
the ROS documentation) :

1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth 
necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a 
code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished 
by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of 
the spreading signal used to spread the information.

Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation 
also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as 
spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined 
above.

Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ 
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS 
definitely is.

Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be 
used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, 
that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide.

BTW, this same issue came up during the "regulation by bandwidth" debate when 
the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, 
short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a 
short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy 
to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the 
same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like 
PSK31. 

The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one 
mode b e able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so 
QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would 
make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with 
wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This 
is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not 
create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does 
not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies.

upper

73 - Skip KH6TY

  

Alan Barrow wrote: 
  

If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?





 


Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

2010-02-24 Thread Wes Linscott
My DELETE button HAS been getting a workout this week... ;-)

Wes W1LIC





From: Toby Burnett 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 4:48:34 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

  
For the love of god,  (just an expression) 
Will everyone please stop !!

Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict.  It is 
beyond a joke surely. 

I must admit that I haven't  even read all the messages, but come on folks.   
This is getting out of hand. 
ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK 
signal that takes up an enormous band width. 
Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz  what 
is the problem. ?
Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum.  Stop all this 
crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem 
with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.)
It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in 
the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions.
Give us all a break, please. 

If you don't want to use it, then fine. 
If you do, then fine. 

I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday 
and the day before and the bloody week before that. 

Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency 
hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like?  Does it even look to see if the 
frequency is in use when it changes band automatically.  I think not. 
Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working 
olivia, rtty, ROS, etc .   NO

Give it up people
I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, 
understanding and experimenting. 
  Not bureaucracy and the like. 

My 2p worth.  I have had enough.    Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH 
software but in the end it isn't. 

Done

Had enough. 

T x
---

---Original Message- --

From: John B. Stephensen
Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
  
In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, 
ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical 
specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition 
that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the 
problem will be solved.
 
73,
 
John
KD6OZH
 
- Original Message - 
From: John 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
  
OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now  and with Andy as before ... this 
is starting to now become circular .

It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own 
words.

The author NEVER approached the FCC for an "OPINION" about his "unfinished" 
work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still "BETA" 

In the US, when has an "OPINION" of someone lower than the enforcing authority 
made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents 
(agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that 
agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having 
incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me.

Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his 
updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the 
US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as 
he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the 
transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that 
has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it 
is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here.

What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine?

Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is 
that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable 
things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is 
going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is 
likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting 
and waiting to jump on anyone "potentially" violating such a questionable 
matter in the first place.

As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate 
it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was 
ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR 
(the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood 
the difference in that definition, he immediately noted h