Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card
try download v2.2.2 De: wa4sca alanbiddl...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,3 marzo, 2010 01:33 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Guessing you have a SignaLink USB card? I found, or better didn't find, the same thing. I checked 3 other programs to see if it had gotten lost, but they found it just fine. No doubt it will be discovered in the next revision. ;) Alan WA4SCA
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
Hi Tony, you will have to repeat the test next days when i improve lenght interleaver as I had expected :-) The first think i said about ROS is that minimize the power at the same character/minute rate, and that is just what you are tester :-). You cannot match Washl Function FEC with Viterbi Algorithm. If you want OLIVIA be equal of robust that ROS you will have to transmit much slower than ROS necessarily. You can see as the different between OLIVIA and ROS is the not inconsiderable number of 5 dBs (3.2 times less power at the same character/minute). Equally, the next mode ROS 8 baudios/2250 Hz will be 3dBS better than ROS 16 baudios, but, obviusly is half as slow than ROS 16. You can not go against mathematics. About frequency spreading of 25 Hz, thats is a value exaggerated. Normally, the spread doppler is usually of 1 or 2 Hz in the higher bands of the HF. About ROS threshold, ROS is designed in a way that the Initial Acquisition Sequence poses no funnel. That is, the Initial sequence always has better sensitivity than the data demodulator. Sometimes you will see the initial sequence is activated but the data cannot be demodulated. This is how it should be. Good job, and i expect you repeat the test with the new improvements I am making. De: Tony d...@optonline.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:29 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rate WPM Olivia 128/2K -14db 163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db 64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16 That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose can answer that. I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. Many thanks to Jose for the new mode. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
KH, ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds. So, has no sense what you proposse. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 00:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I dont create ROS 1 baud only for EME operation. ROS 1 baud is also for QRP enthusiasts in HF. I think these people have the same right to experiment with weak signals in HF, and we should select some channel for this propose. But obviusly, should have more channels to 16 bauds than 1 baud. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,2 marzo, 2010 01:42 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be stupid. The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests to 16 baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users than 1 baud if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, allowing for more users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily for VHF/UHF, where it is more effective, would provide more suggested space for 16 baud users on HF and relieve congestion. 20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be applied to other bands. Perhaps I misunderstood you. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: 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 kh...@comcast. net 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 be 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] ROS carrier pattern when idle
KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: 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 kh...@comcast. net 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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: 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 kh...@comcast. net 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 be 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] ROS carrier pattern when idle
It is correct, especially in multipath channels (HF). And remember that ROS 16 is two times more fast than OLIVIA 32/1000. Despite that, it is more robust. De: Warren Moxley k5...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 21:37 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Jose, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished.Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem You may be directing you statement to Skip. I have not downloaded ROS yet. I was waiting for your mode to mature a bit. I am very interested in new modes and am an always interested in experimented with them. you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. I have no doubts, I was not really asking how ROS works, but am asking those who have played with the mode to date their real world experience. Jose, When you designed this mode, what were the major benefits you were going for over other modes like Olivia for example. I assumed that it was better resistance to QRM, is this correct? Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es wrote: From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 1:41 PM Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished. Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. Thanks De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Jose, When all users are using latest version of ROS then you will see as other ROS not interference with ROS. About packet, pactor 2, etc... it's obvious . They occuped an important part of spectrum. have you tested what happen if Olivia is tx over other Olivia? or over packet? Some things are of sense common De: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:33 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Warren, Please allow me put my two cents. I would not expect so if the spreading code is the same. The adventage of CDMA is code orthogonality, each user has a different chipping code that has little correlation with other user's codes., and so, there is little mutual QRM. As far as I have seen, ROS uses a 3 kHz fixed bandwidth, irrespective of signalling speed. ROS 16 is affected by packet, pactor 2 and other ROS users QRM, printing only garbage in such cases. ROS 16 looks good on a clear channel, but crumbles under QRM. Not to be surprising when confined to just 3 kHz. Anyone can figure out just by listening on 14101. Perhaps ROS 1 fares better, but so far I can't tell. To me, so far, Olivia is the toughest chat mode, and includes a lot (perhaps, too much!) flexibility. Likewise, JT65A if you want to squeeze QSO's out of thin air, but is hardly conversational at all. You can, in very short sentences (believe it is 13 characters), but you lose the adventage of some special hard coded short hand sentences (RRR, RO, 73 and such). Not a big penalty, but nevertheless, a penalty. 73, Jose, CO2JA El 26/02/2010 01:42 p.m., Warren Moxley escribió: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
In fact, a person named Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL wrote to FCC in my representation without ask me previously, saying what he would think that ROS was, after to read an incomplete document. Here I think each person does their personal guesses as he believes that ROS works, without prior reading any documents. And when in doubt, it is best to go about preaching the forums that is illegal. 500 years ago I had been burned at the stake De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: sáb,27 febrero, 2010 00:39 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum I have to agree with Trevor. Not only did the FCC not declare or rule ROS in any way, but the author NEVER asked for any clarification whatsoever. Also of note, once the author understood the difference in the way spread spectrum was being interpreted, he immediately changed the reference to it in ALL of his documentation. AGAIN, the author NEVER approached anyone to seek ANY opinion about it. That was the result of someone else doing so of their own volition. The FCC did say they viewed it as spread spectrum, not because of any technical inspection by them, but solely upon the documentation presented to them, and they qualified THAT by saying they assumed the author knew what he had written. There should be no further argument, and Andy asked that it stop, but it seems certain folks still have an axe to grind over it. Seems some want Jose to publish his code. That is just plain wrong on so many levels. For someone to even ask that is beyond ludicrous in the first place. It is in effect penalizing the preacher and his sermon because the janitor asked a policeman if the grass was cut correctly. The two just do not belong in the same discussion. Jose has clearly stated, and shown in the technical specifications this is NOT spread spectrum, no matter how some want to try to declare it so. Sorry Skip, but a spectral display does not necessarily show if a signal is spread spectrum or not. Jose shows that there are FEC bytes in the signal that are generated even if there is no signal present. He is still the author of the program and should know by now what the differences in spread spectrum and FSK are. I, for one believe that if this gentleman is intelligent enough to write this code, he is also savvy enough to recognize if it is spread spectrum or not. He has nothing to gain by falsifying it since the program and his efforts are free, just like many other programs out there for us hams to use and experiment with. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this The FCC has ruled continues on. The FCC has NOT RULED on anything at all. PERIOD. An AGENT at the FCC answered a request for opinion' from an individual with no standing in the case as yet, and was presented with unfinished documents. That is like asking a doctor to prescribe medications for a patient he has never seen or even heard of, but some friend of the patient heard a rumor that the patient might feel bad. How could the doctor prescribe from that? I did not really want to get back into this but it seems certain erroneous parts of this discussion just will not die. If there is another agenda, please state it plainly for all to see. Else let's let the man try to work on his program rather than keep responding to these false innuendos created by folks with their own motives. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no trees to burn, etc etc etc. But Trevor is right. The FCC did NOT rule on anything at all. It does not matter what WAS in Jose's original documentation. Just because his original documentation may have said spread spectrum did not make it so. Jose NEVER asked ANYONE, let alone the FCC for their opinion. If someone else fouled the water for him, then as was suggested earlier, I suggest that Jose file his own lawsuit if that seems to be what is needed. IMHO John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: --- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G d...@... wrote: File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/message/ 34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The sentence: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original Request for clarification , which was basically some that Radio Amateurs
Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
Hi, Sieg, This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-) De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Hello Jose 1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 … in the info and on the upper gui-line 2. Had my first qso last night ….. yippie yeah :-D 3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right mouse … a macroeditor starts …. 4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or not….like in the soft mftty (see here:http://www.polar- electric. com/MFTT/ index.html ) 5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi Greetz Dg9bfc Sigi Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Please download the latest version.
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
Patient please. I am working in details more important, please believe in me. De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 20:46 Asunto: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Ok for the pilot tone ….. what about the rest userselectable macros , f-keys ?? Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:49 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Hi, Sieg, This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-) De:Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackstien @freenet. de Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Hello Jose 1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 … in the info and on the upper gui-line 2. Had my first qso last night ….. yippie yeah :-D 3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right mouse … a macroeditor starts …. 4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or not….like in the soft mftty (see here:http://www.polar- electric. com/MFTT/ index.html ) 5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi Greetz Dg9bfc Sigi Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta Please download the latest version.
Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull
Bo problem, It is the number by defect. After always i have to rename, but this time i forgot it :-) Donwload new version De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 22:37 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull Nice email feature. By the way, the version info says v2.1.1 but the exe file says 1.3.1 ? On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:50 PM, nietorosdj nietoro...@yahoo. es wrote: Download here: http://rosmodem. wordpress. com/ And configure the Email menu
Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes. De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes That is what i think So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the digiarea Dg9bfc Sigi At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a given short time in lower as 500hz So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is experimental! Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von max d Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Part 97.3 Definitions defines: SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website. For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions. After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be officially defined as Spread Spectrum. And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Just my thoughts, Max NN5L
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. Spread spectrum reduce energy density. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose’s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial ), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De:KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
I don't understand what you say? De: Wolfgang dl7nb dl...@gmx.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? think I lost your id number in icq... clicked to fast... 73 Wolfgang, dl7nb www.dx-buddy. net Am 25.02.2010 um 00:30 schrieb jose alberto nieto ros: Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
And ROS is legal because is not a SS modulation. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:47 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? CHIP64 is legal above 222 MHz -- they're assuming that the user will notice that it's spread-spectrum and act accordingly. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:30 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Hi Bonnie, i saw in the first place of that list: Chip 64 explaining clearly that Chip 64 is Spread Spectrum. Then, what have to say ARRL about it ? They are publishing a SS in his own officcial website. Somebody can explain me what happen here? De: expeditionradio expeditionradio@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 23:20 Asunto: [digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published? Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
Does not believe that even you, Andy. I know you are a special interest ROS dont was used, i dont know why. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:58 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM. Same impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other well known modes. In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better than ROS 1. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty. net wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. com said: In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far... ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades. ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions. Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air impressions not lab tests. I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e., the fact that ROS is 2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000 and 200 Hz respectively. Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands? -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD. Reply to
Re: AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
You are right De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:19 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? As i know it is about 2.5khz wide … so a “normal” ssb filter would work … but do not use a “narrow” ssb filter Dg9bfc Sigi Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 10:21 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? You must configure your receiver without any king filter. ROS filter the signal better than the transceiver. Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS. De:Ugo ugo.dep...@me. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com CC: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Hi All. Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this... I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ? In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to receive/decode ros ? Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE (sent with iPhone) Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net ha scritto: Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. De:KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far
Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far
, Tnx for trying. I've had 5 e-mails from earlier CQs on 14101 (Italy and Hungary), so the e-mail software is working OK. 02/23 14:28 K3UK No hearing u Bob[x] 02/23 14:23 G6LUG cq ROS 14.103 02/23 14:18 K3UK OLivia, 14109[x] 02/23 14:11 K3UK 14101 ROS 16 RX: 14:10 UTC 62.5 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6SZ W6SZ pse k#253;#202; STOP[x] 02/23 14:08 K3UK 14101, weak ROS16, no ID heard[x] 02/23 10:03 K3UK 20M showing signs of life..[x] 02/23 09:59 G6LUG ok, 73 for now. JI4POR was just CQing on 14101, but I had QRM from the VK3 QSO. Hard to believe HI. 02/23 09:57 K3UK back later... 73[x] 02/23 09:52 K3UK 20M still dead here..., maybe another hour before it opens[x] 02/23 09:50 K3UK Probably PACTOR on 14101[x] 02/23 09:50 K3UK As a Lancastrian, I could say it is dull all the time in Yorkshire...[x] 02/23 09:47 G6LUG ...another partial decode from VK3QX.unfortuna tely I have QRM from EU stations on the frequency :-( 02/23 09:41 G6LUG Unfortunately there is a strong pulsing signal on 14101I'm not sure what mode it is - quite a wide signal 02/23 09:39 G6LUG First decode on 14.101 is a partial decode from VK3QX. 02/23 09:37 G6LUG GM, WX cloudyjust d/loaded the new version of ROS. Installed without a problem. 02/23 09:36 K3UK How are things in Hull today ?[x] 02/23 09:35 K3UK Morning Bob..[x] 02/23 08:42 K3UK QRV 14101, listen only... ROS-auto[x] 02/23 03:13 KC5NYJ 73 02/23 03:13 K7TMG GN all. K7TMG QRT 02/23 03:02 K7TMG OK, 14107 USB in Olivia 500/64 02/23 02:58 K7TMG Sure, what freq? 02/23 02:57 LU2VC anyone for 20 meters? 02/23 02:57 K3UK As Luc, said the email idea is very useful.[x] 02/23 02:56 K3UK Thanks, Sholto, Ted, Claudio[x] 02/23 02:56 K3UK OK, so much for that experiment.[x] 02/23 02:55 LU2VC Nothing in LU and strong ssb local qrm 02/23 02:55 VE2FXL nothing also Andy, 80m would be better 02/23 02:54 KC5NYJ i got nothing on 7073 02/23 02:54 K7TMG Nothing here yet Andy. 02/23 02:53 KC5NYJ it's SMTP using gmail's SMTP server and a gmail account 02/23 02:51 K3UK Folks, how does the email from ROS work? Some sort of mail server built in that conencts to Jose's site and then sends Gmail ?[x] 02/23 02:49 K3UK 10 watts[x] 02/23 02:49 K3UK white line in FL-Dgi is on 1000hz sholto[x] 02/23 02:49 K7TMG OK got it. Can you try again? What power level are you running? 02/23 02:49 K3UK center[x] 02/23 02:48 VE2FXL no copy 02/23 02:47 K7TMG Is that 1000Hz in the center of the transmission or do you mean from 1000Hz to 1500Hz ? 02/23 02:47 VE2FXL Still no email reply on 7040 but someone seems to call me back 02/23 02:47 K3UK 10 watts[x] 02/23 02:46 K3UK 7073 1000 Hz, 500-64[x] 02/23 02:46 K7TMG Sorry Andy, was away form the keyboard. What offset are u using? 02/23 02:46 K3UK Ok Claudio[x] On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 PM, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es wrote: Does not believe that even you, Andy. I know you are a special interest ROS dont was used, i dont know why. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:58 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM. Same impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other well known modes. In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better than ROS 1. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty. net wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. com said: In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far... ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades. ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions. Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air impressions not lab tests. I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e., the fact that ROS is 2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000 and 200 Hz respectively. Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands? -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD. Reply to
Re: AW: [digitalradio] ROS routine help
I have send you an email De: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:59 Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] ROS routine help Here … me me me ….dg9bfc (call) at freenet dot de Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 01:42 An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Betreff: [digitalradio] ROS routine help Hi, I have made a routine to send emails. i need somebody want to tester and i will send you the file. You need have a mail server, like Outlook or similar. Thanks
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
You must configure your receiver so that no filters are used (other than standard SBB ) . ROS filters the signal better than the transceiver. Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS. Jose Alberto Nieto Ros (edit by K3UK) De: Ugo ugo.dep...@me.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Hi All. Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this... I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ? In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to receive/decode ros ? Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE (sent with iPhone) Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net ha scritto: Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
And the creator of the mode, in this case myselft, is who has to explain the technical details. ROS is not a SS modulation definitively, is a FSK of 144 tones. I have to explain better in a technical informer De: Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 23:38 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Yes John. In the firt time, the document it was an introduction to SS, but the document didn't explain anything about Viterbi decoder, synronization, etc... ROS is not a SS modulation, ROS use Vitervi decoder for generate a matrix of 9x16 =144 tones but that is not SS. If a person send the incomplete file to the FFC without my authorization, that's is not my problem. He can send too to the FCC how work a racing car, for example. And in the second place, ROS is a beta version. That's mean that ROS is not finished yet, it is under experimentation. When I finish it then i will explain how work. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:51 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thanks again Jose, I have all your documentation (current only) and I think this is where some of the confusion was created. part of your documentation clearly defines the transmissions as spread spectrum. In the true sense, this is not really correct as you have noted. In true spread spectrum, the instantaneous transmitted frequency is not necessarily random at all. Rather, the transmitter and receiver MUST be synchronized to a common pattern via an algorithm/code of some sort. Since your transmitter output frequency is determined only by the input tones, which are determined by the input data + FEC coding, it does NOT become SS, as you have correctly noted. It should not be necessary to jump through numerous legal hoops solely because someone else sent an unfinished document to the FCC and asked for a ruling. So far, there has been no ruling, only and opinion based on the data presented in the request. My suggestion would be simply remove any references to spread spectrum and change those references to FSK instead in ROS documentation v1.01. This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. Thanks again, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, jose alberto nieto ros nietorosdj@ ... wrote: You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. _ _ __ De: John ke5h...@... Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`  Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ . wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj silver...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software. De: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De:silversmj silver...@yahoo. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to more possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width. The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations. Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate several ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is much easier to find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for even two ROS signals. These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find differently. I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift and flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone signals. Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we have found so far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB phone, but for very weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though the note is very rough sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can still be copied by ear as it modulates the background noise. 73 - Skip KH6TY Howard Brown wrote: Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the waveform? If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get it accepted. Howard K5HB From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS really well. It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this reflector. After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the code), then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions. As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS. This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101 De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid of the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal. 14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may not be as big on the other side of the big pond. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes. The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone is on 14.111.65 According to that, wich would the best option? De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short duration. It is worth a try, I think. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes. The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug
Interesting. I go to tester. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: dom,21 febrero, 2010 13:23 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS bug It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. emailaddress@ address.comemail addr...@address.com This is happened at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal. Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS
Hi, I know what is the the problem but i prefer it will be so. I explain me: If i put other button called STOP JUST NOW many impatient people at 1 baud could click to this button before the end completly the transmission, thinking the software has crashed or like similar, so the receiver could not decode all the message. So i prefer if you click PTT button accidentally you reset the software or you reset the computer :-), but that's option at 1 baud could be dangerous for impatient people. De: Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 20:14 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS Eaxctly the same thing happened to me yesterday David. I couldn't see a way other than closing the program. I'm sure Jose will update it soon. Toby. ---Original Message- -- From: Dave Ackrill Date: 20/02/2010 15:24:48 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS I've thought of another feature to add to the list. A button that stops transmission during a transmission period. The reason is I just came back to the PC and my 16 Baud 'CQ' call was loaded ready to go. However, whilst I was away, someone must have transmitted in 1 baud mode and, because my system was in 'Auto' it had changed to 1 baud. I did not realise this until I hit the PTT button and wondered why it was taking so long the transmit! Other than closing the program down and restarting it, I couldn't see a way to stop the transmission of a very long CQ string in 1 baud. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS
Hi, Glenn. Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please Thank you De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!! I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an over button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the over button. The over button would place the other stations call + my call K then switch back to receive automatically. Just a suggestion. Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done. Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? All, If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above the noise. I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and interpretation of the FCC rules. However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS is allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and fast flutter, as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and SSB, often with better copy than with SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement. I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even Olivia cannot, but the CW note is very raspy sounding, much like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard for digital operations. 73 - Skip KH6TY nietorosdj wrote: One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading. --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/members; _ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY 3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzE 4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3B JZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA 4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2x rA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1 lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA -?o=6Joe, N8FQ... http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of part 97 I am missing ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] ROS
Ah, OK, thats button exit already: Is the button: +BYE De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Hello Jose, It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station Button will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the stations equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the text field: his call de my call K . Then it would stop the transmission. I hope that I explained it better. Could it be used with the Custom button? RenameCustom either Over or End TX? Thank you Jose for this fine mode. Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV) From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Hi, Glenn. Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please Thank you De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietrace@ yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!! I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an over button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the over button. The over button would place the other stations call + my call K then switch back to receive automatically. Just a suggestion. Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done. Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S. 73 John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Ok what's the bottom line? Is it or is it not? At this time my in box is overloaded with ROS subjects. And rather reading them all or deleting all Can someone just tell me? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] (unknown)
I could not explain it better. Unfortunately there are people on this forum seems to want to look for the three-legged cat. De: AC TALBOT ac.tal...@btinternet.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:18 Asunto: [digitalradio] (unknown) The term Spread Spectrum can apply to any mode that spreads its energy over more than the necessary bandwidth. If we assume the necessary bandwidth to be equal to the signalling rate than anything other than single carrier modes technically fall into this category. Even WSPR coul dbe considered spread spectrum! Its 6Hz bandwidth is wider than the 1.5 B/s rate. Within the WSJT suite, JT65 is more of a spread spectrum mode, and outside Joe's suite, MT63 with its 2.5kHz for a few tens of Bits / second is even more extreme. Andy www.g4jnt.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
¿Olivia is only MFSK? Why there is so ignorant people in the world? De: Dave hfradio...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Jose (and all), My two-cents worth: Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS is not. It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. Dave K3DCW Dave Real radio bounces off the sky On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote: Jose, We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Yo only have to download the sound archive: The Man Of the Vara at 1 bauds (-35 dBs) and tester. The results speak for themselves De: n9dsj n9...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP? I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so guessing. I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwis e for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :) 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments
I made the experiment over AWGN and ROS is 2 dBs better than OLIVIA 32/1000. But we are comparing two modes at differents character rate. As you know ROS is two times faster than OLIVIA 32/1000. You should compare ROS 16 with OLIVIA 8/1000. Then the different is about 5-6 dBs for the same character rate. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 00:28 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS experiments My experiments (many receptions and 2 transmissions) today with ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode. Congratulations Jose. Of particular interest to me were the several occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the waterfall or audible to my ears. It will interesting to see if Tony K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare it to Olivia. My guess is that it will be close to that of Olivia 1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB. I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and layed out. Over the years we have had many modes come and go. I suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used. Andy K3UK
