[digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy
This is an OLD problem. Hams were complaining about this when I first got licensed in 1955. Only AM and CW, and mechanical RTTY then. So if you find a cure, tell us. Until then, just keep your side of the street clean. And remeber, ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE OENING MOUTH (or transmitting) Ted Stone, WA2WQN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB3FXI" wrote: > > I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net > last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. >
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I guess I can chime in here with my 2 bits. Why not use cw as the common communication mode. My computer, using MultiPSK, can read CW quite well. And I understand that morse code recognition actually uses very little of the computer's resources. It is relatively easy to add a function to a computer program... much easier than adding the same function to a 'conventional' transceiver. Ted Stone, WA2WQN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Trevor ." wrote: > > Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was > looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org > > On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June > 1976) says > > "Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission said, > "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are > herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part > 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the Commission continued, "to replace > the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an > amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the > authorised limitations any emission would be permitted." > > It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is > needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to > re-introduce Docket 20777 > > Trevor >
[digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum
I had the idea that a reason spread spectrum was not legal was that the use of a psuedo-random spreading sequence lent itself to the development of an unbreakable code (or at least a difficult to break code) that would allow secret communications by people inimical to the good old USA. And I think that is a valid point. Ted Stone, WA2WQN
[digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
This sounds familiar. There has always been a conflict between DXing and rag chewwing. The elimination of macros sounds a bit like outlawing Q and number codes in CW. But who wants to send 'best wishes' when 73 will do. We really need a gewntleman's agreement to separate dx and cvommunications channels, not to mention nets. Ted Stone, WA2WQN (Lic. 1955) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" wrote: > > I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch on > Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when > working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity > , and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that > had got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had > in the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged > the QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST > working? > > I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ? > > Andy K3UK >
[digitalradio] Re: An open letter: W1AW and 80m psk31 interference
I would like to put in a few words in defense of the ARRL. I learned the code prior to getting my novice license in 1955. At the time, that was just about the only way one could learn, at least on a kid's salary. These transmissions have been on forever, so I do question why this frequency was used as the primary PSK31 frequncy. W1AW was already there. And the ARRL has been our BEST friend. Hams work many modes, from CW (A1) through advanced digital and signal enhancement (spread spectrum). For me, ham radio led to a carreer as an electronics engineer, designing receivers, transmitters, and RF components for over 40 years. I am now retired, and am again active in Ham Radio. I think this gives me a long term, if quite personal, perspective on the subject. Ted Stone WA2WQN (the Well Qualified Nut) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Due to an unfortunate coincidence, W1AW's CW broadcasts pretty > much wipe out the 80m psk31 sub-band for a significant fraction > of the time. To try and address this, I have sent the following > open letter to W1AW at the ARRL, and also published it on my web > site: http://surriel.com/radio/w1aw-psk-interference >
