Re: [digitalradio] help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V
Rick, Please continue the discussion here, or start a new group. The censorship and agenda that takes place on the hflink group will do more to harm the modes future in the amateur environment than anything else. Open discussion and community participation are key to the adoption of new technologies. I know I'm not alone, in spending my time composing responses and framing questions for group discussion on hflink, only to have my posts end up apparently in /dev/null. Its almost humorous, as some of the personalities that run the hflink group are fairly notorious as bullies on other groups, complaining that they are being censored, when their posts don't show up minutes after they click their mail clients send buttons. When the hflink crowd wants the participation and support of the amateur community for ale, I hope they let us know, as it certainly won't be something I find out via the hflink group anytime soon. 73, Erik, N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 North Bend, WA CN97ck Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, please use 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Rick wrote: I have been thinking about the possibility of forming an ALE related group which does not have an agenda and will be more open to problems and questions.
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using Xastir ?
Andy, Running it here, though not on HF, run on VHF occasionally, UHF rarely, and some TCP/IP. If you have questions, I'll help if I can, if not, several of the developers are on the APRS yahoo group, and very responsive. 73, Erik, N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 North Bend, WA CN97ck Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, please use 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Andrew O'Brien wrote: that should be anyone HERE On 6/30/07, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone hear running Xastir ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Wow, Brian, there's a lot of very good information in your post, my problem is that there is so much good fact, that it would be easy, too easy, to accept it all at face value. In my mind, I have a few issues, and I'll address them in line, though I really do think that parts your post should be the basis for a faq entry or a wiki or something. Comments below: 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Brian Kassel wrote: Guys: I have found that *MANY*, but not all, so-called Wide signals on PSK modes are caused by several things being overlooked at the *RECEIVE* end of the QSO. If adjusted properly, most newer radios should handle 50-100W signals providing of course that the transmitted signal is indeed clean to start with. Agreed, if you're saying well adjusted and operated modern receivers should handle being in reasonably close proximity to adjacent stations running 50 - 100 watts. That is not the issue, though, the issue is the need to run 50 - 100 watts (actually the issue I had was someone running 400 watts, but lets not let that interrupt the discourse) to maintain reliable communications. There are indeed plenty of bad signals on the air, but just running higher powers, or big antennas is not the cause by itself. Absolutely agree here, I know I can put out a terrible signal with my IC-703 at 2 watts into an MP-1, I can also put out a perfect signal with the same setup, and work stations 1,000's of miles away. Try to: Turn of AGC if possible, use RF gain to adjust signals. This will allow your receiver to have greater dynamic range. Use a Notch filter if available. Turn off the preamp, switch in the attenuator, especially on bands below about 30M. Absolutely agree, this is the part that really should be in a faq or wiki. I'm not real keen on the attenuator bit, but then that could just be my experience with the attenuators in my rigs, I find that I get better printing if I let the computer audio software handle this, but then it could be my rigs. If the above doesn't work, try a better sound card. When strong signals are encountered, this is where the more inexpensive models start to fold up. Why is that folks will spend many thousands on a fine rig, only to use a $15 sound card? In Digital modes, the sound card is an integral part of the RX chain. Sorry, this is where I really have to take issue. I can see why you think so reading a little ahead into your post. About the only amateur radio application that the generic modern sound card is not up to the task of handling is SDR. This is especially true when working with modern up to date software. About the only deficiency inherent in the common hardware is the problem of receive and transmit audio not being precisely aligned with each other. I honestly can't think of a modern version of any digital mode software that doesn't have an alignment or sound card setup functionality that either manually or automatically takes care of this deficiency for the operator. It is however very important that you go through the alignment process if your software of choice doesn't do it for you. If your software can't adjust for this, upgrade your software. The base software requirement for digital mode operation is a nominal sample rate of 11025 samples per sec. It's all the current software can take advantage of, and unless you are using a sound card as part of a sdr receiver, any fancier or more advanced features are just not taken advantage of by any of the software we use. That said, there are always some exceptions, certain old laptops and motherboard built-ins do have problems, strictly speaking, these issues are a matter of integration into the motherboard and the OS, not an issue with the base audio hardware's capabilities. The bottom line, is that unless you are planning to run an sdr receiver, any modern $20.00 add-on sound card that is supported by your operating system of choice will do a fine job. Please realize that distortion can occur in either the TX or the *RX* of any signal. Many hams don't realize that this basic fact about analog signals. Typically, in many cases, the cause of a wide appearing signal is in the transmitter. I get wide reports frequently. However, I monitor my output with a spectrum analyzer, and have done on the air tests to confirm that my signal is not running worse than -20 IMD, often much better than that. In fact it usually runs better than -25 DB. I run the SDR-1000 software defined radio at 5W (well below the 100W rating), a D-44 professional sound card, and an Ameritron ALS-500M amplifier (rated at 600W out) to get 50 -100W out. This is much more power than
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall before you guys key up must be clueless. I understand the competitive side, and I understand that there are 3 different mentalities somewhat at odds with each other (awards chasers, contesters, and rag chewers). I don't really have a problem with the dx chasers, they are easy to avoid, all piled up on a couple of specific frequencies. Contests can be exhilarating and fun as well. Though I do think it would be interesting to see the results published with the power output, in my mind I would still do the division in my head and make my own decision who the 'best' operators are (isn't that what competition is really about?). My issue is with the people who run 100's of watts when 20 would do. Back to my last (and only) example, I was talking about a casual rag chew between 2 stations less than 500 miles apart, under reasonable band conditions, yet one (and only one of the stations) felt the need to put 40 watts into his linear, feeding a 4 element beam at over 100 feet. Sorry guys, but thats just silly. Maybe I am clueless, but I'd like to think even the hard core contesters and DX chasers would agree with me on this. BTW, I do know enough to set my AGC appropriately, I do have a 300 Hz filter, and IF shift capabilities, and I do know how to use them. I even expect to 'need' them when I'm operating under the more hostile and combative operating conditions, i.e. in the middle of a contest, or if I decide I just have to park myself next to a dx feeding frenzy. The problem is I think that kind of operating should be the exception to the rule, unfortunately, it seems it is becoming standard operating procedure. I also maintain that the operators running 100's of watts when 20 or less would do, are violating both the FCC rules (for US operators), and the basic spirit of ham radio. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Roger J. Buffington wrote: Brian A wrote: You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3 KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so called problems disappear. Exactly right. Sometimes I call CQ and at first do not see (or hear) anyone coming back to my call. Then I kick in my cascaded 250hz filters, and suddenly there is a readable signal that was not readable without the filter due to some strong adjacent signal or other that had been de-sensing my receiver's AGC. Narrow filters are a must for effective PSK operations. Asking everyone to operate QRP so that no one's signal is strong is simply absurd; it is not the answer. What about my locals, who run around 50 watts and are still S9+20? Am I supposed to expect them to operate at 1 watt? Of course not. Those who operate solely with a 3 Khz passband on PSK are going to experience very poor operating results and no help for it. de Roger W6VZV Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought - Just a snippet of the original - about AGC
Howard, The AGC controls in my rig seem next to worthless as well. I usually run a 706MkIIG, and it is notorious for pumping when the front end gets overloaded. It also isn't able to really set the AGC off, there are 2 settings, 'fast' and 'something slower'. Digital modes are the only place where I can actually tell the difference between the 2. Its actually kind of interesting, Running SuperBrowser you can be printing a dozen qso's at once, change the AGC to 'Fast' and all of a sudden you'll have 2 or 3 stations, at about 50%. If it weren't for the ability to watch this cause and effect, I wouldn't honestly know there was a difference in my particular rig. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Howard Brown wrote: I realize you had a larger topic here but one thing you said is particularly interesting to me, and may be to others: BTW, I do know enough to set my AGC appropriately, I do have a 300 Hz filter, and IF shift capabilities, and I do know how to use them. The filters in my TS2000 work very well in this regard. The AGC however does not seem to be of value. Can you describe how you set the AGC to help with this situation? Howard K5HB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Well Danny, I've got to say I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, and I'm just a little hopeful that a few of the list members did a little thinking, and that a few newbies 'might' have realized they can 'get by' without a $3k linear and an additional $200 a month on the old electric bill. Even the it takes a kilowatt to drown out everyone else on the band so that a person half way around the world running a K2 on a battery into a wire can't ignore me guy hasn't risen to defend the 400 watt rag chewer. In my mind, I'll take that not as a victory, but at least to mean there is hope. In the end, its a hobby. There are people in the world that define who they are by something they are passionate (or perhaps obsessive) about. I long ago learned it is pointless to challenge their beliefs, successfully doing so is tantamount to invalidating their lives. Its much easier to enjoy life, and let them find comfort in their own beliefs. I'll stick around and jump back up on the soapbox every now and then, I don't need a victory, just getting a few people to actually think is more than I should really have hoped for. Who knows, if enough people think about it, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, friends they may think it's a movement. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Danny Douglas wrote: Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than anyone else. Some PSK operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. They dont need it, know they dont, but do it so they CAN be the loudest on the bands. I have heard them time and again, when someone else trys to come in and say something. Suddenly there is silence, they they go to talking about the other guy not having a linear since they cant hear him 40 over s9, like they can each other. Or better yet, the jerk in Florida who comes on top of a conversation, calling for someone in California (who he hasnt talked to in the past 4 hours) and cant quite hear someone calling him so goes back to calling his buddy. He then states this is W4X in podunk city Fl. calling W6XXX on 'OUR ASSIGNED AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCY, blah blah blah. There are pigs/ Hogs/ Jerks everywhere. It doesnt matter that he is running 400 watts on the PSK band. He is allowed to do it by the rules, and hang the power necessary for communications. He is going to do it his way, and ignore every one else. Then of course you have the other guy who hears this, brings his kw up on the freq, and blows away not only the offending station, but everyone else - to make his point. And to those who say THEY need that 100 or 200 or 300 watts to make the contact, because of all the other interference --- you wouldnt need it, if the others were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of outshooting the other guy. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: list email filter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall before you guys key up must be clueless. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
I know I started this thread with the idea of dividing contest points by power output, I did choose the word silly in the subject intentionally, but, the real problem is that there is a ssb contesting mindset that is filtering over into common usage. Yesterday there was a station, over 800 miles away from me, taking out my entire waterfall (no contest on, and the station he was working wasn't DX, or a rare county/grid square, in fact it was a casual rag chew). I was running DM780 in SuperBrowser mode, and 'reading the mail', following about 10 qso's at the same time, I'm certain I could have shifted away and filtered him out, but then I'd only be able to print a couple of the ongoing qso's I'd been monitoring. At any rate this gentleman was running his brag macro, a 4 element beam at over 100 feet (and no, I was no where close to being on a direct line between the stations)... I immediately went into personal fantasy mode, imagining what I could do with such an antenna, lets just say that with an antenna like that, when running psk, the biggest power draw in my shack would probably be the rotor... anyway, this op went on to explain/complain that he couldn't really get any power out of his linear, as he couldn't feed it with any more than 40 watts without distorting (goodness knows what his output power was, but I'm guessing that if his tower were any shorter, his neighbors would get their fluorescent lighting for free). This was the point where I decided to go mow the lawn. As to the physics of more power on successful qso'ing, perhaps it is more important to consider the 'physics' of afsk and sharing the ssb audio passband of the average ham rig with a dozen or more signals. The key word here is 'sharing', and the problem is that with the growing popularity of digital modes, especially those that can 'get through' in the doldrums of the solar cycle, there are too many high power ssb stations out there that run in a 'I've got a linear and its my given right to use it, take no prisoners, me first' mindset, and it wrecks the experience for the rest of us who have to 'share' with them. Lets not forget that the 'cool' thing about psk31, is that it is narrow and fast enough for casual keyboard to keyboard ops. By its very nature, it plays well with others in a confined space. Your signal may only be 31Hz wide on the waterfall, but if you cancels out everything else 1.5KHz wide on either side of it, you are really occupying 3KHz not 31Hz, aren't you? I would propose that considerate narrow band digital operators boycott qso's with any operators running needlessly excessive power. As they say, we are known by the company we keep. These operators are not ignorant, they know what they are doing to others on the band, and they don't care (this is, by the way, the very definition of being both inconsiderate and rude). I honestly think the only way to correct their perception and operating practices is to ignore them. Just like a child throwing a tantrum, when they realize being loud won't help them get their way, they'll stop screaming. They'll modify their behavior to a more 'acceptable' standard of operating, and that will improve the experience for us all. We can't fight the contest sponsors, and the marketing machines that want us to buy a linear, because 'it will get you DXCC on psk31 in no time at all', by passively accepting it. It may not be 'our' fault, but, I believe 'we' are the only ones with both the ability and incentive to fix it. If you're a DX station, and you really want to make my day, the next time 20 is 'open' and a big gun is chasing you, tell him the frequency is in use, and enjoy some nice leisurely rag chews with a few 20 watt stations (you might even call for any qrp stations, hihi). A few DXpeditions with a policy of ignoring the over powered could change our world. Ask yourself how it is that the whole world can hear and work the DXpedition station running a 100 watt barefoot rig off a battery at 20 watts into a dipole strung between 2 coconut trees, but we seem to believe we need 400 watts into a 4 element beam to make the other half of the same or lesser qso, especially when the guy before us just completed the same qso with an FT-817 and a slinky in his attic? 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks.
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone want to help a newbie
Dan, Sorry to hear you're not having any luck. I'm not exactly local... being on the other side of the Olympics and Puget Sound from you, but I'd be happy to help. I've got a SL1+ hooked up to my 706MkIIG, and have used it with a variety of software to make contacts. It's worked great for me, even WSJT. Like I said, I'd be happy to help you trouble shoot it. For starters, here's a list of questions, the answers will help us determine what's going on with your system: -How is it (the SL1+) connected to the radio (via the accessory connector, the data connector, or the mic and speaker jacks)? -How is the SL1+ jumpered internally? -What are your 706MkIIG settings for menu 30 VSEND SEL (if you're using the ACC port) or menu 29 9600 MODE (if you're using the data socket)? -Is your AGC set to 'slow'? -Do you hear signals in your 706 speaker, that your computer can't decode? -Have you tried any other software, just to see if you could hear and decode anything else via the SL1+ and your sound card / computer? -When you try to transmit via software, does the 706 key up? -If it does key up, can you monitor it in another receiver, and hear what it sounds like? -Have you tried transmitting with headphones plugged into your audio out, instead of the SL1+, and heard the sounds the computer is generating? With just a simple wire tossed in the tree, I had up to a dozen psk qso's printing at the same time on 20m yesterday. No real DX, but I could hear North American stations working each other and working DX stations I couldn't hear. The east coast, south, and midwest were booming in, as well as Alaska and California. When it comes to digital, the bands are often only 'dead' when no one tries. We might be too close for anything but NVIS on hf, but we should certainly be able to hear (and work) the same distant stations as each other. Can you get into the irlp repeaters in the Port Angeles and Sequim area, if so, we could talk directly rather than via email (I've also got skype and aim, both with video and audio conferencing capabilities). Feel free to email me off list if you'd like, like my sig says, send any direct emails to mycall at 12bars dot com. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Dan Smith wrote: Hi all. Dan here KD7UFF in Forks, WA I have a Tigertronics SL1+ I have it set up right (I think) But I have only had another call sign show up once when I used it on JT65A I have not even tried anything else yet. I am about to give up and sell this thing. So if anyone near me feels like giving me a hand I would be really thankful.. I have read the Guide that one person on this board made.. I seem to have everything right But no luck.. If I can't figure it out soon I may just sell the whole SL1+ Its set-up for a 706M2G... Thanks in advance.. 73 Dan/KD7UFF kd7uff(at)yahoo.com
[digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.
Now, everyone remember their (and my) blood pressure... just a minute while I get the asbestos armor adjusted... Rant What would the bands be like if say... digital contest points were ahhh divided by power output, and people started working on operating skills? Or does the concept of using the minimal power necessary for reliable communications really fly in the face of the plug-n-play point-n-click crowd? /Rant I know it's not a new idea, just getting tired of seeing my whole waterfall blank out to a single station. Honestly, there are stations out there that are worse than my microwave oven. Oh well, at least I know how well my IF Shift works, and I've finally found a use for my narrow filter on the digital modes. Well, I feel much better now. ;) -- 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks.
Re: [digitalradio] USB Rig Control Interface
Check the IC-7000 group messages, folks there have been talking about a radio shack scanner cable that works. They have/had two models; a serial version that was on close out for $5.00, and its usb replacement for less than $30.00 (I think). Anyway, there are several threads there with the exact parts numbers (apparently the closeout one's part number is not in the computers anymore, you have to know what you're looking for, and find it on the shelf yourself (typical RS customer service these days... thanks but I've already got a cell phone, and no I don't need any batteries)). 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Tony wrote: All: Does anyone know of a cheap USB rig control interface for Icom? Westmountain Radio makes the Rigtalk http://www.westmountainradio.com/RIGtalk.htm but it seems a bit pricy at $60 bucks... Tony KT2Q Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Global Standard Re: 141A
In other words, if you want to play with it on a computer as a sound card based mode, you currently need a Microsoft environment. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. expeditionradio wrote: Is this app operating system neutral or is it dependent on a single OS? Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E Hi Doc, 141 ALE is completely OS neutral. It is a US federal standard. Over the past 5 years, it has become the defacto universal global standard for HF connectivity for voice and/or data communications. Until recently, only about a thousand hams had 141 ALE capability. ALE (-144) is currently implemented in many different operating systems such as: 1) Hardware (no external computer required) embedded in transceivers such as Icom IC-F7000, Vertex VX-1700, Micom, Harris, Rockwell, RS, Codan, etc. etc. 2) Software (PCALE, MULTIPSK, or MARS-ALE) running on computers interfaced to ham or commercial transceivers. 3) External ALE hardware controllers interfaced to HF commercial or mil transceivers. More information, click here: http://hflink.com Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] HF search text
Any chance we could setup the yahoo group database to collect this info, and then just generate a new one on an as needed basis? -- 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3805 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. w6ids wrote: Well, I'm happy to read that YOU'RE doing this. I was going to set out to try to make one for myself. S, I'll give you my stats if you don't have it: W6IDS EM79 Regards, Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
[digitalradio] Digital voice sound card modes
Are there any codecs or sound card based modems that are inter operable with the hardware boxes? I.E. can I use sound card software at the shack to talk to an AOR modem mobile (or some other codec based hardware), and vice versa? 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3805 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. John J wrote: Fine : Can we use WinDRM to receive DRM Shortwave Broadcasts? If so , that's good. If not , where do we get a codec to allow it ? Consider : , We can them use shortwave DRM broadcasts to test our systems and to enjoy what shortwave has to offer and , by successfully receiving a shortwave broad casted DRM signal we will know our system works. Even if we need another program to receive SW broadcaster's DRM, that lets us test our hardware connections and much moire 73 John
[digitalradio] Seriously off topic, but... Apologies
It has come to my attention that some of you have emailed me at this email address directly. My apologies for ignoring you, but all email coming to this account that doesn't come through a Yahoo group is automatically trapped as spam and deleted, I never see it. If you ever want to email me directly, follow the instructions in my spiffy new signature. Sorry, my intention was never to ignore anyone (other than the spammers who harvest emails from the Yahoo mailing lists). -- 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3805 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, and deleted. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks.
[digitalradio] Digital radio?
Somehow it seems that the spirit of amateur radio that is supposed to advance the radio art, has left the ham shack, and been replaced by a fear of anything that might challenge the status quo. Digital radio is exciting, because in the world of surface mount technology, its one of the last refuges for technical innovation available to the modern if not average ham, and some of us seem to be letting the politics of a single system divert our efforts. Here we sit in the golden age of information and communication... oh forget it, I'm heading outside with a slingshot to see if I can get my wires back in the trees. See you on the air! 73, Erik N7HMS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)
Walt, Are there really ~500k 'active' operators, and more than 200k on HF? Or is that just licenses that haven't expired? I personally know 2 licensed 'hams' in my area that don't even know what their call signs are, let alone have any intention of ever owning or operating a radio, and they tell me that there are lots more like them... organizations such as the local ski patrol have pushed to have all their members licensed, they drilled on the tech pool questions and became hams, 5 years after testing, less than 2% of them are active (could put a basic 2m fm station on the air with less than 48 hours notice). I used to be the local ARES resource coordinator, and wrestled with the problem of trying to recruit some of the nearly 130 licensed hams in my area (population 6k) into participating in local emergency communications, fewer than 30 of the over 130 licensed hams were active. The inactive licensees actually seemed to have less interest in amateur radio in general than the general public. It was much easier to recruit new members, and get them licensed than it was to get a response out of the existing amateur population. Of the ~130 I doubt more than a dozen or so would care less about bandwidth based band plan proposals, and I doubt more than 3 or 4 even know about it. Don't know what it would really take to get the board to 'listen', but as the vast majority of the respondents seem to be opposed to the proposed changes; and the fact that they have an unsolicited response rate as high as it already is, to a proposal with virtually no mass publicity, not a politician in the world would consider themselves to have a mandate. I doubt they'll ask us, because if they did, they wouldn't like the answer or the numbers at all. Remember, 'smart' lawyers never ask questions they don't already know the answer to, and 'smart' politicians never ask questions when they know the answer they'll get doesn't support their position. Erik N7HMS Walt DuBose wrote: But is 1471 such a large number given that there are about 500,000 active amateur radio operators in the U.S. and more than 200,000 on HF? If there were 10 times the number of responses, then the Board might listen. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden transmitter issue. The sad fact is that they are probably right, there is enough bad will against the system amongst the ham community, that if 'they' did implement automatic signal detection and a qrm avoidance process, they probably would experience a drastic reduction in throughput. Of course if the system had been well behaved and less proprietary all along, the current animosity probably wouldn't have ever existed. Both the frequency in use signal detection issue and the hidden transmitter issues have already been solved, at the tax payers expense. Those who claim the problem is 'difficult' or 'unsolvable', either don't understand the problem, are intentionally misrepresenting the complexity of resolving it, or are just repeating what they've been told. Very elegant solutions are already available either in open source, or via the freedom of information act. This is a problem that was solved decades ago by radio astronomers, who resolved it in real time with computers which were dinosaurs compared with the modern junkers many of us have lining the walls of our garages. The real issue, is that 1) the average ham, and the well above average bureaucrat don't understand the problem, and 2) those who could 'fix' it believe that doing so would cripple their system to the point of making it totally unusable, in short their only incentive is to not fix it. I think the American ham community would actually jump at the 'opportunity' to be regulated by bandwidth, if they could also get rid of the misbehaving (semi)automated systems. The real block to progress, is that the wardens of Bonnie's Technology Jail, haven't or won't resolve the qrm problem to pave the way for bandwidth regulation change. Most of the resistance to the bandplan by bandwidth proposal(s), is in fact opposition to the continuation and proliferation of a 'bad' system, and not opposition to bandwidth based band plans at all. 73, Erik N7HMS Danny Douglas wrote: If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem to get around them. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card.
[digitalradio] Busy frequency detector (process definition).
Folks, I really don't know if I am failing to understand the problem, or underestimating the complexity of the solution, but I'd like to propose at least a dialog here of what it would take to implement a busy frequency detector. I'm not at all interested in discussing systems that may or may not use such a detector, or the politics / etc. involved. I am interested in at least defining the process of how a busy frequency detector should work, and defining some base requirements for how well it would need to work to be considered 'adequate' for use in amateur radio. My idea is to first define what the system should do, then define how well it would have to work to be considered successful or useful, and finally to consider the technical details required to implement such a system. To that end, the following to which I am inviting comments from this group, is my first pass at defining what a busy frequency detector should do (please hold comments on how well it would have to work, and how to implement it for follow-up threads, for now lets focus on getting the process definition refined): General process flow for a signal detector / frequency busy detector implemented as a part of a semi-automated RF based client server message transport system. - A server (semi-automated which will respond to a request) is listening on a fixed frequency and 'sampling' a given range of its audio passband at a given sample rate. At this time is is listening to 'noise', and remembering what noise 'probably' sounds like. - The server learns and continuously refines its model for what noise has sounded like recently, and 'predicts' what noise is likely to sound like in the very near future, adapting to minor changes in noise. - The server 'hears' a client request. The client is not automated, and a human listened to the frequency to determine it was not in use (it is possible for this process to be replaced by the same black box used on the server side to determine if the frequency is in use). The clients request to the server should serve as a QRL? to all stations on frequency that can hear it. If the client receives a QRL (i.e. any signal that isn't an ACK from the server), it sends a CANCEL to the server. If the client doesn't get an ACK from the server, it will assume the server has detected the frequency is busy on its end, and wait a reasonable period of time before retrying to connect to the server. - If the server doesn't 'think' there is any other signal in its pass band, the server waits a given period of time, 'listening' for a QRL from any stations that may have heard the client request or a CANCEL from the client. If it doesn't hear a QRL (which for our purposes would be any signal that isn't a client request), or a CANCEL from the client, the server will ACK the client request, the ACK will function as the servers QRL?. If the server 'thought' there was already a signal in its passband, it would ignore the clients request outright. - The server listens for a given period of time for a response to its ACK/QRL?, if it doesn't hear one, it 'decides' the frequency is clear and responds to the client request. - So what do you folks think, is this a reasonable process for an rf based client / server busy frequency detection system? 73, Erik N7HMS PS. Everyone knows a software project will never be successful without a catchy acronym or code name... if this ever becomes a real software product / project, lets NOT use the acronym BFD!
Re: [digitalradio] Best 40KHz for PSK SSB QRP on 40 80M?
I thought that 7000 - 7025 was the Extra CW / RTTY / Data segment? At any rate, aren't we (USA licensed amateurs operating in ITU Region 2 or in international waters aboard a USA registered ship) allowed to operate CW anywhere we have privileges (with the exception of 60m)? Or have I missed something with the recent changes? Erik N7HMS kd4e wrote: Andrew O'Brien wrote: Can USA ops actually use 7035 ? I worked an African there the other night via Feld Hell but then wondered if I was not supposed to be down there with data modes? USA 7000 - 7125 is OK for Data 7025 - 7125 is Data CW CW is not permitted in 7000 - 7025
Re: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!
Not the moderator, but my comments are below. Erik KI4HMS/7 Roger J. Buffington wrote: What does any of this have to do with digital radio? Mr. Moderator, why Perhaps because digital modes usually require the use of computers? Though I do agree the school yard king if the hill stuff gets real old real quick. is this thread, which has nothing to do with amateur radio, let alone digital radio, permitted, whereas threads dealing with the legality/illegality of modes and the new regs, are not? Perhaps because we spun of a dedicated and separate group to contain the mostly American political discussions? de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
Yes! :( Erik KI4HMS/7 John Bradley wrote: Are lawyers and lobbyists a growth industry? John VE5MU
Re: [digitalradio] The Digital Radio Group
Andy, Would it be too much to ask to request that these rule changing discussions move to the 'political' group? They started out being informative and of interest to all subscribers, by pointing out the new regs, but they're starting to degrade. We may all feel badly about the rule changes, and its surely an emotional issue for many, but they are shortly to become officially enforceable regulations. At any rate, we did spin-off a separate group for just these types of discussions. Thanks, and 73, Erik KI4HMS/7
Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
not_so_tongue_in_cheek If I am 800 miles away, outside the local disaster and power outage area, and could have provided assistance, but can't hear you through my local BPL QRM, or have given up HF communications all together as the newly required digital BPL busting technologies are too expensive to play with, don't we all lose? /not_so_tongue_in_cheek Erik KI4HMS/7 Jose A. Amador wrote: kd4e wrote: (text snipped) As you noted, if we boost the power level of the transmission we enhance the probability of overcoming the BPL QRM/QRN, but we do so at the price of increased cost and added energy -- which may be a precious commodity in an emergency deployment. We also risk generating our own QRM/QRN to nearby Ham non-Ham gear. What am I missing? tongue_in_cheek That if it is an EMERGENCY situation, don't worry, power lines will be down , and so, there will be no BPL QRM. /tongue_in_cheek -- Thanks! 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot) com 73 de Jose, CO2JA Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 16QPSK Modulation and Baud
You say A highspeed, error free, robust, realtime, HF data mode is needed. Why would the radar images have to be digital? It's not perfect data, but continuously changing. When I view radar and satellite imagery of storms on my television set, the signal I receive isn't digital, and it doesn't need to be for me to get full benefit of the information. It seems to me that digital is only 'really' important when you need an exact perfect copy, and usually when perfect copy is needed, the messages are a lot smaller and concise? Perfect digital copy is important where the purity of the received data places public safety at risk, but I really can't see real time weather radar info's data purity being that critical. Erik KI4HMS DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: Let me give one incident where high through put would be most desirable... When hurricanes hit the Texas Gulf Coast, all but radio communications can be lost between Brownsville, Texas to Houston, Texas. The weather stations there may have their eather radars operational but unable to send the picture or data to other weather stations. A highspeed, error free, robust, realtime, HF data mode is needed. The radar information may be 7.50 K bytes or larger. This data would need to be repeated every 5-10 minutes during critial stages of a hurricane. Walt/K5YFW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 16QPSK Modulation and Baud
Walt, I don't doubt that the source data is 20K/Minute or greater, what I question is whether or not sending the 'source' is necessary? It seems to me that you are asking us to find ways to solve a problem, it often helps to step back and look at the problem and ask questions. I make my living as a consulting engineer, and I know I exasperate many of my clients on the first day I walk into a project because, rather than following their predetermined thought processes, I make it a point to question their thought processes. Basically, I define and solve problems, and help implement solutions for a living. It is not unusual for the solutions I engineer to differ greatly from my clients preconceived notions of what they initially thought they needed, but I do solve their problems. What I question is whether or not we shouldn't look at technology solutions that for instance don't require transmission of 20K/Minute of text, but still solve the problem. Especially for a weather system (I've lived through hurricanes, and spent a fair amount of time in tornado alley as well, so I do understand the importance of this information to public safety), it seems that what we are monitoring is a changing system, we might be able to come up with a data model of it that may be a little more granular, be represented by a lot less data, and still get the job done. We often have more sensors and more precision available to us than we need to make decisions, sometimes we need to trim the data. When normal comms are functioning 100% sending the full data with the greatest precision possible is great, when the normal comms fail, we are left in a fall back position. If we allow our 'fall back data channel' to choke because we are trying to provide a 100% solution, haven't we failed our mission? What if we could condense or abbreviate our data stream significantly, wouldn't it be a worthwhile effort to pursue? Engineering is a discipline of making the appropriate economic trade offs, we live in an era of the information age where data memory, storage, and processing capacity are extremely cheap. Usually bandwidth is cheap as well, so we have a certain mindset about not spending effort or money to maximize its efficient use. In this case though, bandwidth isn't cheap, one could argue that from a public safety point of view, it may be the most precious of resources, which leads me back to my point... is it not possible to spend money and processing power on finding a way to greatly reduce the size of a data frame, thereby reducing the bandwidth requirements of the system? Isn't it possible that effort in this direction might yield the greatest overall system performance. 73, Erik KI4HMS DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: Erik, Send me your E-Mail address and I will send you an 40K sample file of NWS data in csv (delimited text format) that represents 2 minutes of WX radar data. I would never want to send this to the entire net. Walt/K5YFW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Basic Question On Icom 706 and Rascal interface
Chas, You've got it right. To do digital communications via software and a computer sound card, you need three basic connections (regardless of what radio you are using, though I suppose one of those could be optional). Setting aside the desirability to in some way isolate your computer and radio grounds, you need the following: You need to get the radio's received audio from the radio to the computers sound card, so that the software on the computer can demodulate it into text (or image in the case of sstv or fax). You need to get the audio coming out of the computers sound card to your radio so that it can be transmitted. You need a way to tell your radio to transmit, this it the connection that 'may' be optional, as I suppose you 'could' use vox, though I wouldn't recommend it. It is also possible to control this via rig control... see the next paragraph. Most sound card interfaces (which is what the rig blaster and rascal (I'm not really sure about the rascal) really are for) handle these three connections for you, some more modern ones incorporate rig control as well. BTW, some sound card interfaces handle ptt for you as well, they effectively function like vox on the computer side, but provide hardwired ptt on the radio side (this is actually my preference, as I don't need to have a free serial or parallel port on my computer (I use a laptop that doesn't even have serial or parallel ports). Computerized rig control is optional, it is not required for you to use sound card modes to digitally communicate. It is a 'nice to have', in that it lets you create a computer controlled and coordinated operating station. On many radios computer control is a viable way to signal the radio to transmit, so you have 3 basic options when it comes to getting the rig to transmit: a 'hardwired' ptt connection, a vox setup, or a command from a computerized rig control. To answer your 706 specific question, all that is needed is a properly connected serial (rs-232 or usb) to ttl interface that connects from your computer (rs-232 or usb) to your radio (ttl) to do radio control. My guess is that the vast majority of Icom radio's in digital service are being controlled by computer, and very few are actually using the 'Icom CT-17 CI-V' interface. In my case I have used the programming cable for my Yaesu VX-7R (which is an RS-232 to ttl converter), with a stereo to mono adapter, which works great with both my 706 and 703. The software you need doesn't come from Icom, most of it is available for download on the internet, and it's discussion is one of the basic reasons this group exists. There are books and faqs available, but really the internet, especially this group, and a few others dedicated to specific programs are your best source of information (in all honesty, the state of the art in digital comms moves so quickly that the published works have a hard time keeping up). 73, Erik KI4HMS/7 schuetzen wrote: Am I wrong? I thought that all the 7xx series Icoms which had CI-V needed only an interface cable between the remote outport on the back of the radio and a USB or a 232 serial port (depending on the cable)? Software from Icom I suppose would be necessary but there was no need for a CT-17 or a rascal or a rigbuster, etc. If this is incorrect, please let me know. I am just now getting into HF Digital and know NOTHING about hardware, software or peripherals. All I know is what I am getting from bothering elmers and googling. Should be a decent book or FAQ on the subject. G 73 chas K5DAM/AAR6TU Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why PACTOR for WL2K ?
A few admittedly disjointed thoughts... True, but at the time they chose Pactor II, and finally Pactor III what alternatives were available, and more to the point, what alternatives are available now? There is a fair amount of misinformation about the bandwidth usage vs. data rate of Pactor. In some ways, they are really three vastly different protocols, with different bandwidth footprints, error recovery capabilities, and data rates. Compared to modern sound card modes, Pactor III doesn't really have that much of an edge, especially during times of poor propagation. I always thought part of the reason WL2K went with the later members of the Pactor family, had to do with SailMail's predecessor's influence, and the commercially installed hardware used to monitor marine weather faxes on the marine hf bands. BTW, it is not true that all PMBO's will accept Pactor I connections. Many of them will not. The original question though was whether it wouldn't be better to use a more commonly available (i.e. cheaper) protocol, especially as it would increase the number of potential participants in a true emergency (or drill). I'm not sure that's really the right way to think about it though, given the nature of the available protocols, bandwidth, and human nature to participate in 'aid work', it might actually be a more responsive usable network if the number of pmbo's and the number of stations connecting to them was limited. Similar to the digipeater problem, where too many makes the network performance much worse rather than better. If we could all of a sudden have both an unregulated number of pmbo's on the air, and a proportionally larger number of stations routing traffic to them, it's fairly likely that the entire network would collapse, and little to no traffic would get through. I know we (the hams with an interest in emergency response volunteerism) don't like to feel as though there is an economic filter preventing us from participating, but it may in fact be a good thing, that there is a practical limit to the system. Just a few thoughts... 73, and have a great holiday weekend. Erik KI4HMS On May 26, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Dave Bernstein wrote: At the time Winlink chose Pactor, what alternatives were available? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why PACTOR for WL2K ?
Doc, Comments inline. On May 26, 2006, at 6:14 PM, doc wrote: I need to share two qualifiers here: 1. Due to the impossibility of predicting where and how a given disaster may impact a region one must and should strategize for the greatest possible redundancy. I completely agree, redundancy is always a good thing. I'm the Resource Coordinator for my local ARES/RACES team, and have 2 identical Pactor I capable hardware TNC's ready to go, should we ever need to get into a PMBO when both our internet connection is down, and our vhf/uhf links to nearby stations with internet access are also down. We have a lot of redundancy in our system, by design, that still doesn't mean it would be a good thing to have 'too many' hf links into the WinLink system going at the same time. I would only deploy our HF capability if I was a) directed to by the controlling agency in the disaster, or b) all other ways for us to access the WinLink system had failed. FWIW, almost every EOC I've been in in the past 10 years has had at a minimum Pactor I HF capabilities, I don't know if they were setup for AirMail, but they did have the hardware. 2. It is a trivial matter to establish a protocol for the handling of digital traffic the same as it is for voice or CW traffic. Simply add a station ID filter for those you wish to include or exclude. This is part of the task of the Incident Command - Communications folks. They first need to assess their resources, could be all of those they hoped for, none of those they hoped for, or just some holes. They assign resources as needed and screen-out or redirect those they do not need either to standby, join a different system, or QSY. It seems like standard NET protocol. Am I missing something? -- Thanks! 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com Ham Links: http://bibleseven.com/hl.html Again, I agree with you, when you are talking about a traditional NTS style traffic net, running one via digital keyboard to keyboard modes rather than CW or SSB, and it is a direct comparison, and standard operating protocols work. However, Winlink does not fit the standard NTS network model, it is not a station to station message net, but an on demand email delivery system. I don't believe the standard Net traffic handling protocols apply here, there isn't a human NCS directing the traffic, traffic is just dumped into the network by any originating station. There are collision and recovery algorithms, but I maintain that if you increase the number of stations, you will over saturate the 'net'. This is one of the reasons I don't believe WinLink is 'the answer' to emergency communications, it is one of the tools we have to apply to the problem of communicating during and in the wake of a disaster, but it is not the only tool at our disposal. In fact, there are many instances where it is the wrong tool completely. In our last state wide drill, I manned an AirMail 'terminal', our scenario called for our team to basically communicate with our upstream incident command only via airmail, compared to the other groups that were managed through traditional on the air NCS traffic, we didn't fair too well. We didn't even get the activation call email until over 30 minutes after the other teams were activated, though our final reports were more thorough and accurate, they weren't even all received by our incident commander until after the drill had completed. Winlink has definite strengths, and weaknesses, its not 'the answer', but one of many tools we need to be able to deploy when the situation at hand calls for it. 73, Erik KI4HMS Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why PACTOR for WL2K ?
Dave, Is there anywhere we can read up on why the first iteration of SCAMP fell short? If it showed promise (and communication on this list indicated it did), why hasn't there been a second iteration? I completely understand that it would have been foolish from a system point of view to abandon existing Pactor 2 and 3 systems, and that a software based system would be deployed in parallel rather than as a replacement, thats just good systems engineering. 73, Erik On May 26, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Dave Bernstein wrote: To my knowledge, there were no soundcard-based error-correcting protocol implementations available at the points in time when Winlink chose Pactor II and Pactor III. SCAMP was an attempt to implement such a protocol, but its first iteration fell short and there's been no sign of any second iteration. Had it been successful, SCAMP would not have replaced Pactor 2 and 3 in WinLink service, as many public postings from Winlink personnel made clear. It would have provided a new, lower-cost means of accessing Winlink that would have been attractive to new users, but existing users would have had no incentive to replace their already- purchased SCS modems. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[digitalradio] Hardware for field day.
Hello, I realize this may be off topic for this group, though I suspect there to be some expertise here that may get me pointed in the right direction. I'm in the planning stages of putting together a digital station for my clubs field day effort. We will be running multiple stations, all on emergency power, and I'm really trying to stay away from having to deploy a noisy DC - AC inverter just to be able to plug in a wall wort transformer to power a USB hub. The basic problem, is that I need a stable, quiet, low current (3 amps) supply of 5 volts, preferably from 12 volts (+/-). Anyone have any suggestions? Something like a LD1085V with some over/under voltage protection and transient suppression perhaps? Thanks. 73, Erik KI4HMS/7 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Configuring FT-8800R to Digitasl modes
Sorry Rick, I really can't say off the top of my head, I've not done SSTV, and while psk31 is cool, it's so much slower than regular 1200 baud vhf packet, that I've never tried it over vhf fm either. With FM, you pretty much either have a signal or you don't, maybe on SSB psk31 might be cool for weak signal type stuff, but then the FT-8800 is an FM only rig. I did wire up the mini-din connector for packet (with a miniature inline switch to select either 1200 or 9600 baud operation) via a hardware tnc, I just used the diagram in the manual, and the diagram in my tnc's manual. Perhaps someone here can better help you with your sstv and psk31 questions. Have fun and good luck! Erik KI4HMS On May 1, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Ricardo Díaz Colombo wrote: Thanks Erik,,, I tought to use back conector. Is possible use this connector also for SSTV and psk31 in vhf??? Which pins are corrects to audio in and audio out?? Tnx for your support Rick - YV4ACJ
Re: [digitalradio] Interesting - A Soundcard in Your Cable?
It is interesting, but it is really only half of what we normally think of as a sound card. It is only the line or mic input side, there is no line or headphone out functionality, as the musical instruments have no need. There are plenty of external USB and Firewire sound options that are appropriate though, i.e. they have both inputs and outputs, and are a better deal as well. I think I read recently of someone who embedded a Griffin iMic into a sound card adapter to create their own usb to radio device. I've thought of merging a Signalink1+ with just such an adapter myself, but hesitate, one set of cables linking 2 devices gives me the freedom to use them in multiple ways. 73, Erik KI4HMS On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Jerry W wrote: Could something like this be adapted to ham radio sound card modes? Jerry - K0HZI Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] description of digtal modes included in MULTIPSK by F6CTE
Wow, Pascal, thank you very much for hosting this, it is very cool and helpful (to a newbie like me anyway!). 73, Erik KI4HMS/7 On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:20 AM, Pascal BIMAS Perso wrote: Hello, You can find a description (text, screen save and audio sample) of each mode included in MULTIPSK by Patrick F6CTE on my site, here : http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en.htm . Sorry if there is again some mistakes or words no translated in English. 73 de Pascal F1ULT http://f1ult.free.fr
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QOTD
Folks, Its me again, and I'm afraid I'm suffering from insomnia, and in a 'Devil's Advocate mood', so read (or just delete if the mood suits you) the following with a grain of salt. It seems to me that perhaps simplification could be of some benefit, in short your various discussions are trying to 'boil the ocean'. You're trying to solve 3 separate problems (really 4, but the 4th is a subset of one of the others). In no particular order: You want to identify stations (and I'm hoping modes) in a way that all will be able to understand, the least common denominator solution as already pointed out would be to use CW (or perhaps voice depending on the bandwidth of the mode in use). It would be beneficial if not only the station id was sent, but also some sort of mode designator as well. For those that don't know Morse Code (and likely to be operating digital modes), this would almost always be machine sent, and fairly trivial for the machine to decode. For those who may be operating without a computer (gasp, yes there are some out there), they likely are either fluent in morse, or would be running voice, in which case they would never hear the narrow digital modes, if a mixed voice / digital / bandwidth band plan were adopted, voice id of the broader digital modes would suit these people as well as cw in the narrower bandwidth data portions of the band plan. Perhaps an important point here, is that the identification 'needs' to be done in a way that doesn't 'require' a computer to understand, but could be 'parsed' by a computer (at least in the case of non-voice CW based operation). Next up is the self policing monitoring issue, if we follow the above identification guidelines, we'll know both the 'who', and the mode. So what's left is to make it possible for the average ham with a desire to 'read the mail' to be able to do so. The soundcard modes and free distribution of the software, seems to solve this quite nicely. The real fly in the ointment, is the existing 'standardized' infrastructure, which is largely based on PACTOR I, II, and III. While it's no great burden to decode PACTOR I (lots of surplus tnc's have this capabiility, as well as a linux based soundcard solution). The fact remains that it is a big financial burden to decode PACTOR II and III, and our own organization is pushing this as the preferred solution. Perhaps this was understandable back in the pre-soundcard mode days, but I would say that with all the work done on digital modes that don't require a large single use proprietary hardware expense, its seriously time to make a 'course correction'. We should suggest in the strongest terms that our 'standard' infrastructure not be based on proprietary hardware, and should hold our own organization to task to make that change happen. I wonder if the Winlink2000 crowd wouldn't do themselves a great service by abandoning PACTOR for a mode that anyone with a computer could decipher. How much of the resistance in the ham community is because it is seen as an 'exclusive' club for those with the dedicated hardware as a requirement for membership. One might also wonder if they might not have a larger support and user base, if anyone could 'play' without joining the '$1,000 club'. Next up, is the QRM issue, I'd like to separate it from the automated response station issue, at least to start with (remember simplify...). As has already been pointed out, numerous times, the solution to QRM is for both ends to 'listen', if we can accept that call initiation (just like id'ing) is done in CW or voice depending on bandwidth (again, the least common denominators), then checking if a frequency is in use, can be done the same way it has been done for over 70 years... can't it? Remember, you don't have to be a daemon (pun intended for the unix crowd out there) cw operator to understand a simple QRL exchange, and if you're running a digital mode, it would again be fairly trivial for your software to hide the 'pain' of CW from you by completely automating it for you. Ok, now I've set the stage for automated station operation question, we have a utopian world where everyone can identify the id and digital mode being used, we have open standards for the modes (largely to placate the anti-WInlink2000 crowd, i.e. no more PACTOR II and III), and we have an automated (from the individual digital mode operator point of view) method for 'listening' for QRM, which can be interacted with by all operators, even those that aren't running a digital mode. What's left is to automate the operational aspect of the 'robot' station. Given what we've already got, it would seem that should also be fairly trivial, once proven to work, it's likely that such an automated robotic station would be more 'polite' than human operated stations, because it would not have the luxury, of ignoring that it had 'listened' to the best of the stations ability
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
Gentlemen, Like many of the members of this forum, I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Please allow me to (perhaps playing devil's advocate) ask a simple question. I understand the propagation and fading issues which are unique to HF, but from an experimental point of view, why couldn't USA hams do their development of new digital modes on say UHF? Once the technological hurdles have been cleared on UHF by the masses of USA hams that apparently aren't even allowed to experiment because of the repressive government regulations they are burdened with, couldn't the then proven technology be ported to HF? Our HF spectrum is extremely limited, to put it bluntly, hams all over the world are happily using it all now, that is to say, it's full up. Until we have a digital solution that will help solve that issue, and allow for more qso's in our little playground, why can't we experiment on UHF, and not bother displacing the existing HF activities? Just because we can use more bandwidth on 70cm, doesn't imply that we have to, just consider one of the design criteria to be a band width restriction. As they say, 'Inquiring minds want to know? 73, Erik KI4HMS/7 PS. I'm a no-code tech who has run Amtor, Pactor, rtty, and cw on both 2m and 440, just because I could run 9.6k packet instead, doesn't mean I have to. I for one would be happy to run experimental digital modes with other local hams on UHF, I see it as an underutilized resource, perhaps we can help justify keeping it, if we start using it to 'contribute to the advancement of the radio art.' On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Dr. Howard S. White wrote: JIm: You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and come up with new technologies... Instead of concentrating on all the potential and imaginary negatives... which very much reflect the old anti SSB and anti FM arguments...you need to look at the positives... There are a myriad of technologies for squeezing high baud rates into tiny channels... there are a myriad of new and not so new technologes out there ... such as TDMA, CDMA and Spread Spectrum... It's going to take some clever hams to develop these into a practical DV system for HF on Ham Radio... I believe that the technology is there to allow multiple QRM free multiple QSO's to share a standard HF voice bandwidth... some ham needs to put it together... and some ham (likely not in the USA under current baud rate limited rules) will likely do it.. Equipment.. Anything Hams develop will likely be computer based... maybe even sound card based as that is the cheapest technology and it is likely that you will still be able to use your HF transceiver New Modes: Stop being so negative.Heck... new modes is what this Reflector is all about... Olivia, Contestia...new versions of DV...we welcome new modes as they improve things I do not have all the answers.. I just know that there has to be a better way. DV... has lots of potential to give us more channel capacity with less QRM... we just need to legal framework in place so that we can experiment with it to dispell all those imaginary negatives __ Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA Website: www.ky6la.com No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911
