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