Re: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?

[w6ids]

Hey!

I've got a PK-232MBX that's on line.  I use it from time to time
for PACTOR I keyboard-to-keyboard, FEC et al.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?


How many keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor stations would you estimate are 
QRV, John?

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FDMDV confusion

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: FDMDV confusion


> Hi Dave,
>
> A quote for this document
> http://n1su.com/fdmdv/FDMDV_Docs_Rel_1.0_revised.pdf
>
> "Tuning: Two methods of tuning are available, Manual Tune and
> Auto Tune. Both use the mouse pointer that changes to a “+”
>when moved within the display area. For Auto Tune, just left click
> anywhere within the display to sync your receive frequency to the
> TX signal.

 >SNIP<  >SNIP<

Hi Steinar, those were helpful tips for sure.  I installed the program
this afternoon and had immediate success with receive.  I heard
the following stations, starting at around 1700Z or so on 14.236:

K0PFX  MelSt. Louis
N1FFX  Gerry Sterling, MA  FN42
K4RTN Jack   Brooksville, FL

Signals were good and I copied all three stations fine with good
quality until fade caused deterioration..  Eventually, I left for some
shopping after a period.

Then, around 2025Z I tried again and picked up >/= 5/9 +5 signals::

W7QQF  ED  PHoenix  Calling a station but seeming to take turns
with -
K3DCC  Jim  Albuquerque, NM  and neither station heard the other.

WB6RPO and K3DCC sort of "collided" from time to time but when
both weren't talking at the same time, both were clear..

After not too long a time, next heard:

WB5RRR  Sandy Enid, OK  EM16 with a 5/9 + 10 signal and clear.
around 2032Z

I played around with your "hints 'n kinks" and saw the effects.  The
methods seemed to help nicely and showed me something I was
not aware of.  BTW, the quality of the signal audio tends to grow
on you.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
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: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
> 
> OK Dave,
> 
> You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form
>   of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a
> diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes
> they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs.

 

 > And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not
> give a damn
> about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really
> gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I
> admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The
> rest of the world has more radio hams than USA.
> 
> Merry Christmas!!!
> 

Uh, Demetre

Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments.

Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's 
agreements?  There's more of you outside the Continental U.S.,
therefore that's where the power lies?

Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want,
without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands 
because, as you wrote,

> in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not
> give a damn about band segments and all this stuff.

So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours?  Thanks for
making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre.  

My heart goes out to Dave.  He'll never win this thread's debate.
More's the pity, for us all.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies


> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>


>> 
>> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a 
>> digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended
>> stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the
>> frequency is locally clear.


>> 
>>73,
>> 
>> Dave, AA6YQ
> 
> Well,
> 
> Can you admit that there are people with different points of view
> Dave? I'm afraid you can't.
> 
> We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is
> acceptable in the hobby OM.
> 
> Merry Christmas and a Happy New year and smile a bit OM! 
> 
> Winlink, PACKET RADIO or e-mail, etc. are not evil! They are just
> another form of DIGITAL MODES which you might not like but others like
> them so there!!!
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY

Demetre...

What I've quoted in Dave's message are his core thoughts, the thrust of
his message thread.

Your reply, as I said in another message, does not touch his comments.
It's as if you were talking about a totally unrelated subject.

So, let me use the automobile analogy in my own way.  We all like the
automobile.  I'm sure you do as well.  What I do not like about the
automobile is its use by people to drive intoxicated, because they kill
and maim people.  I do not like the use of excessive speed because
speed kills - except on the Autobahn. I do not like automobiles
being driven on the wrong side of the highway, because that can kill
someone.  I do not like automobiles being driven at night without
proper lighting such as headlights and taillights.  I do not like an
automobile to be driven by an unlicensed driver for safety's sake.
I do not like an automobile to be moved down the highway without
a driver controlling it with his/her hands on the wheel.

What am I saying to you?  That I do not like automobiles or that
I do not like illegal and/or improper use of automobiles?

Tell me which?  

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

[digitalradio] Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[w6ids]

There have been recent comments attesting to the demise of
PACTOR I.  Is this true for all intent and purposes?

For curiosity, who's using PACTOR I for keyboard QSO's with an
outboard TNC such as the venerable PK-232 and others?

If there is such activity is is hit 'n miss or quasi-scheduled?

Regards,

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?


> Hello Howard,
>
> I use Pactor I every now and then for keyboard to keyboard. It is hit
> and miss for me; more a novelty than an oft-used mode.
>

Interesting.  Thanks for the reply, Bill.  I asked about this twice now
and yours is the first reply.  I asked also on the PK232 group with no
response and that surprised me a little.

Well, I have my original PK but without current upgrades.  I would like to
put it into use but if it is seldom used by anyone, I wonder if I might just
want to pitch it.I think it's a neat box and despite my liking PACTOR
if there's no chance of enjoying the mode much and no one is interested
it making the mode more active...  I like the mode myself but then
I suppose I'm old enough to want to hang on to "familiars" now I suppose.

I'm 62 and while I like SOME of the new modes now out, I still enjoy RTTY,
CW and (heavy sigh) PACTOR.  H, I even like the idea of digital
voice and DIGI file/pix transfers, and SSTV.

Where do you operate?  Is it hit 'n miss or perhaps a schedule?  I have
PKware installed and it's worked very well over the years.

I've been told that one use of the PK is to implement the upgrades to take
advantage of what is called superior filtering for PSK  and RTTY and such.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?


> Elaine and I had some attempts to work each other the past few days as I
> heard her on the bands but we were always quite weak to each other. If
> we had been using Pactor modems, especially those from non SCS
> manufacturers, I doubt that we would have had any luck connecting.
>
> We did have a small amount of success with MFSK16 which you would think
> would work the best. I know that I have more trouble tuning and locking
> in this mode than I used to but I am not sure why. The really curious
> thing is that Elaine switched to RTTY which you would think would be
> much worse of a mode and yet we were able to do some level of success in
> printing. Then she switched to Hell mode and while not the most
> sensitive mode, was able to copy about 50% of the characters since there
> was severe QSB on a barely discernible signal on the waterfall or by ear.
>
> It would have been interesting to try FAE 400 though, but maybe
> conditions were just too poor for even that mode.
>
> I could not imagine going back to hardware boxes due to the cost and the
> vendor lock in issue. At one time we had G-Tor on Kantronics, Pactor on
> SCS, and Clover II on HAL, and the only mode that had some level of
> compatibility was Pactor of the three proprietary (or quasi proprietary
> like Pactor) modes. We all know which one survived to go one and become
> the most popular of the three on the ham bands?
>
> The more hams that can use a given mode, the more chance of success of
> that mode with additional attributes taken into consideration
> (sensitivity, ease of use, ability to work under difficult conditons, 
> etc.).
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons wrote:
>> *//*
>> */I prefer live chat via Pactor-I .. /*
>> *//*
>> */The problem is the decline in general usage by /*
>> */most radio amateurs who prefer to not purchase a /*
>> */a TNC for this mode, and instead use soundcard/*
>> */modes .. /*
>> *//*
>> */Jus sayin /*
>> *//*
>> */Elaine /*
>>
>> --
>> Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons
>> WA6UBE / AAR9JA
>> http://www.qrz.com/wa6ube
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>
> View the DRCC numbers database at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1204 - Release Date: 
> 12/31/2007 12:20 PM
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[w6ids]

SHEESH!  Apologies to All... looks like a bit of operator error
is apparent with the message below.  I was editing a reply and
probably "pushed the wrong switch" as I got up to take care of
a chore.  Sorry for the trash being sent.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "w6ids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?


>
> I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of
> years, roughly 1989-2003 or so.  Pactor was quite popular until the
> early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez.  This ushered
> in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a
> TNC unnecessary to work these new modes.

HI Roger,

I possted this off line nto you because it would seem that the notion of
PACTOR and the PK232 is not mainstream enough to keep it in the forum.
I only received three responses to my query so that makes the point.

I'm sorry, but I have never understood WHY the mode got dropped just
because PSK came alive.  I see no reason why it can't be as fun  to
use as legacy RTTY.  I'm probably "odd man out" but frankly, after
some trial and error testing, I have little interest in MT63, Olivia, Throb,
Feld, most of the modes in Patrick's MultiPSK, and the like.

I DO like PACTOR, along with DIGI pix and file transfers, DIGI voice,
SSTV, RTTY, PSK and it's variants, etc.  I know that my PK232 can't
work the new modes that have come along but I think "so what?"

I remember many enjoyable contacts using my PK232 with really
good copy.  OK, so it might not be as "fast" as PSK but most hams
can't type fast anyway.  I type 75 wpm myself but find it not to be an
advantage.  The important point for me is that I had a $300 box that
worked just fine and gave me some interesting operations.  Yes, I
do know that 'puters can do wonders with DSP and such.  However,
look at how many hams still use legacy PCs for their station use,
yet (if stories are true) they had no compunction in trashing fully
functional boxes simply because THEY chose to stop using them
like sheep in a flock.  That didn't happen with RTTY and it's still
a relatively popular "nitch" mode.

Heck, I could have incorporated a T/R function, etc into the PK rather
than springing for a RIGblaster, for heaven's sake.  DUH!

It seems like Hams were too quick to chuck $300 or ?? out-of-pocket
TNCs away to deliberately make them obsolete for interest's sake, not
because of the box as such.  That's like throwing a Collins or Drake or
Hallicrafters unit in the trash just because it's not quite up to par with
the expensive state-of-the-art, mostly foreign produced, whistle 'n bells
toys sold today.

Personally, I don't care about PTC II, myself.  I can't afford the box
anyway, yet I see a value for the mode.  Ergo, at the least I can have a
PACTOR-type ability with the PK232.  It DID work before and there's no
reason why that box can't provide service today.

I've read where the thinking is that most hams won't bother with the
PACTOR I if only because of little desire to buy an "expensive" outboard
TNC.  What about the hams who never threw away their original TNC,
the one sitting in the closet per se?  It takes little cost to put them back
on line, yet they sit, even for lack of use for RTTY at least.  Again, I do
know it won't measure up to the SCS units but so what?  I have a
Collins KWM-2A ensemble, Drake ensemble, and an IC-746.  They do
not come up to the standards of the more expensive products available
today but.so what?  They work and they're fun to use.  Besides, I
don't owe any money on them either .

I dunno, IMOH I just think we've misplaced some of our valuable neurons
along the way due to shallow and simplistic thinking.

Well, I didn't intend this to be a diatribe.  I'm probably beating the 
subject
into the ground with no possibility of success in a turnaround.  Anyway,
I appreciated your comments, the message was a good read.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now

[w6ids]

Hi Demetre,

Listening but nothing heard yet.  Numerous signals abound
the frequency but will be monitoring.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] CQ PACTOR on 14.07750 now


> Hi Nick and all,
> 
> Happy New Year. I am calling CQ on PACTOR right now and I will
> continue until 16.00 UTC.
> 
> Anyone from USA interested please reply on PACTOR 1 or 2.

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[w6ids]

Hey Charles!

Me thinks you've got a rather broad brush being used here.

Someone says that PACTOR is dead..period.  Another has said
that PACTOR is deadand if I was smart, I'd pitch my AEA unit
like everyone else.

You, speaking for Packet enthusiasts, say Packet operators won't
climb on board this innocent proposal because they're constantly
being QRMed by PACTOR lids and for that reason, the Packet
operators want nothing to do with anything that remotely touches
PACTOR.

That isn't fair to me, and any number of other folks who like the
PACTOR I mode and are kindling a small surge of rebirth in the
mode's interest.  I've always followed the rules as they have, I'm
sure.  Individual PACTOR I operations cannot possibly be linked
to BOTS, Winlink or whatever.  I'm sure that Jack has been a
considerate and law-abiding Ham for all his licensed life and
means no ill-will towards anyone, least of all disrespect.

I bet you and the others don't even know Jack and doubt you
have ever been deliberately interferred with by him.  I doubt
he'd like to be included in any association with Winlink and
the BOTS any more than I would.

That message you quoted was a friendly, enthusiastic idea that
came about from some ideas that have been bantered about
offline amongst myself and some others who want to use  our
TNCs and PACTOR I again, just because.

Seriously, this business about Winlink and BOTS is getting
just a bit hysterical I think, to the point of irrationality.  I say
that simply because of your reaction and you're not alone at
all.  AND...it's understandable for sure.

But, jeez, Charles.  Aren't you being a bit harsh to the point
that you're taking a swipe at everyone?  That's exactly what
the Packet operators don't want for themselves.

I was on last night running my PK232 through its paces and
getting reacquainted with it.  I even made a couple of contacts
with it using PACTOR I during Sunday and it was fun!  Surely,
you're not going to call me a lid simply because of using the
PACTOR mode, alledged to being mis-used by others
alledged to have a totally selfish agenda are you?

Just my polite $ .02 worth.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Brabham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.


> Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from
> Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally
> will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way.
>
> The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a
> god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97
> and The Amateur's Code.
>
> - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that
> is...

Re: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:58 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] for anyone that cares


>I have been calling CQ on 7077.5   P1.
>
>

Hello, John.

Been listening around  0223Z - I just saw your message then - not
hearing you.  There is some voice activity quite nearby but no
indication of your P1 signal.

Not sure when you started but, for what it's worth

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

[digitalradio] PACTOR I ARQ QSO

[w6ids]

Hello to all,

I had a surprise chat with NO4Y, Herman, Elizabeth City, NC
at 1746Z on14.080 dial today.  Nice signal into Richmond, IN
and I have to say it was GREAT fun using my archaic, out-of-
date, PK-232MBX and XPware software.

Of course, my activity was not without blemish.  While calling
CQ, again on 14.080 dial, another strong PACTOR station 
started sending on 14.0811 dial.  I was unable to copy it at all 
but it sounded "different".  In trying to tune it in, I did notice that
I picked up a fragment of a CQ string from W6FSY; I don't think
that strong PACTOR signal was him however.

Started calling CQ again when it was quiet and found myself in the
company of one of the "musical" multi-tone modes just above me.
Fairly strong signal; never have really learned how to tell one 
multi-tone signal from another by ear and on the fly, sadly.

I did post a PACTOR I spot on:
 http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ and found quite a few
stations posting there, though not much from the U.S.  I did see
one MULTIPSK entry amongst all the SCS units and one other
PK-232 listing.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[w6ids]

On the Spot Page and monitoring 14.078 as of 1615Z 

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "vk4jrc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.


> Hi all Pactor & Packet people,
> 
> Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor &
> Packet operators.
> See  http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/
> Hope this will stir up some interest
> Thanks Sholto :-)
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "vk4jrc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor & Packet Spot Page now up.


> Hi all Pactor & Packet people,
>
> Sholto, KE7HPV has been kind enough to put up a spot page for Pactor &
> Packet operators.
> See  http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/
> Hope this will stir up some interest
> Thanks Sholto :-)
>
>
> 73s
>
> Jack VK4JRC
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
>
> View the DRCC numbers database at 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 
> 11:29 AM
>
> 

[digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ

[w6ids]

Just for info, I'm on 18.085 running PACTOR I and 
calling CQ.pointed Westerly.

I'm posted on the spotting page:

http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/

if anyone might be interested.in trying it 

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PACTO! I CQ


> Copying you FB in South Carolina, Howard, using DigiPan 2.0.
>
> Sorry - No Pactor 1 transmit capability - my PK-232 is in mothballs!
>


Super!  Thanks, Skip.  Well, shucks, would have been neat to pick
you up, Skip.  I picked up NT3K (Ken) in Las Cruces, NM with an
S9 signal both ways on 14.078 and it made for pretty well 100%
copy using FEC. Had no problems at all.  The contact lasted about
an hour or so.  He was using his MultiPSK package.

No one bother us for using PACTOR, had no apparent problems with
any PMBOs either.  I know, I know, PACTOR I is verrry "retro" but
what the heck - it was great fun.

C'mon, Skip.  I know you've got a few things on your plate, what with
NBEMS and all, but take a few sometime; break out that PK and
play with it.  It's still viable - it's better than just leaving the 
electrolytics
to dry up if it isn't broke.

Thanks again..

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN 

Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Chomley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:57 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations..


> Hi all Pactorologists!
>
> I now have my band scanning function running (I think!) for Pactor 
> connects.
> The controller talks to my Icom 718 to scan 10  frequencies in 5
> bands, the scan delay for each frequency is 3 seconds.  My tones
> are   Mark 1600   Space 1400 with USB mode on all frequencies.

  

Hi Jack!

Are you going to continue to post operations on
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked and
http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ for the scanning?

Perhaps your scanning of the freq list will give me a better opportunity to
work you.

I did connect with Demetre, SV1UY, on 20m yesterday and had a brief
but nice chat.  The band was a bit busy but we connected succesfully.
It surprised both of us; He had wondered about the ability of PACTOR I
to pull it off due to the competition of nearby signals who came and went.

Overall, some contacts were made with KU2A (Nick), NT3K in NM,
N1DP in ME, NO4Y in NC, WB2JEP (AL) - running MultiPSK, and
VK2PN.  The QSO with AL, WB2JEP lasted the better part of an hour.

I'm still trying for W0JAB (John) and you, of course.  I've heard no signal
from you whatsoever to date, same think for W0JAB.   I'm still trying
and I'm sure the effort will pay off before long.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations......

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] VK4JRC Pactor Operations..


>
> Howard - when I call out a dial frequency for pactor such
> as the one I hang out on 7077.5 it's going to be LSB always.
> I think we have been close a number of times.
>

Roger that!  I'll make sure, John.  Thanks.
Yes, I bet we have been close.that's why I'm still trying.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[w6ids]

Hey, Bill,

NO, John isn't alone in the experience.  It happens frequently
enough as to catch the attention.  Is it simply because the
PACTOR mode is being used?  I dunno, but it does happen
with enough frequency to raise the "ear brows."  This is
especially so when the signal is quite strong.

Just my $ .02 worth which will not buy you even a plain
donut hole.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:16 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot



Hello John,

Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when
operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor.
I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm.

  

Re: [digitalradio] calling CQ

[w6ids]

Hey John,

Been listening, John.  Didn't hear a peep from out your way.
I was copying some "5s" and "7s" on PSK on 7.070 area,
perhaps it's simply the propogation beast that's at fault.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:41 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] calling CQ


> Calling CQ 7077.7LSB  Pactor one at this time.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[w6ids]

Hi Danny,

I replied up here 'cause I wasn't sure what I was going to snip out
from your message, yet.

Why not apply the rationale to transmitters in general?   YOU can't
transmit for your thrice-weekly sked because your station detects
VERY nearby signals and will not transmit...until the current
"interferring" QSO terminates?  THEN, you can transmit on the
sked frequency.

Or, you just come up on frequency, very close to 14.236 Digi voice
group or very close to 3.713 Digipix group and you're going to want
to ask if the frequency is use (albeit you can aurally sense the
ongoing comms nearby) - only you can't because of the "Busy Guard"
and thus, nothing transmitted to interfere with the pix or voice
transfers.

O, you come up to 3.713 and want to key up to declare that
the digital NOISE is crap!, and then whistle or whatever - only you
can't 'cause of the "Busy Guard."

I can see all sorts of possibilities for the technology.  Hmmm, now
when the folks on 3.713 stop transmitting the digital pix and there's
silence. and then you CAN transmit your anti-digital pix diatribe,
you can continue to spew out explitives and NONE of the folks can
transmit until you stop (because of their own "Busy Guard"
protection).

I wonder if my example is as "incomprehensible" as another was
said to be that I wote for a different subject.  Don't ask me what my
point is. I was just musing over your scenario and this blossomed
out of that.  First the BOTS, then.. the rest of the interference.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot


> Jack.  We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem.  Your mailbox
> sits there silent.  Somone else gets on the freq and calls it.  It comes
> up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the 
> freq
> (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there 
> operating).

   

[digitalradio] PACTOR I Activity

[w6ids]

Hello Again,

Had a great chat with VE1XL (Dick) in Hillsborough, New Brunswick,
that lasted the better part of an hour.  I copied him on this message
so that I could pass along the two links below for him to use:

We're posting activity on the following sites:

http://www.obriensweb.com/sked


http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/

Dick was saying that his operation is a bit "hit 'n miss" so the links
may help him.  KU2A (Nick) picked  him up after we dropped the link.
He then got picked up by K3CXB (Walt) who was having his first PACTOR
contact ever.  He was learning with software based PACTOR I so stayed
FEC I believe.  I'm wondering if he was using MultiPSK since he said he
did have AMTOR ARQ in the package and wanted to try the ARQ.

Anyway, thought I'd pass along the moment to you.  Here's a little
cut 'n paste just to show 'n tell:

CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN  EM79NV
CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN  EM79NV
CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN  EM79NV
CQ CQ CQ de W6IDS W6IDS RICHMOND, IN  EM79NV
HOWARD in RICHMOND, IN  EM79NV at 01:26 UTC K

W6IDS de VE1XL =>
hello. Not too many of us around. Name here is Dick and my QTH is 
Hillsborough,
New Brunswick.  BTU OM.

W6IDS de VE1XL =>

VE1XL VE1XL (Dick) DE W6IDS W6IDS


 Dick and nice to see you on the mode.  Yes, you're right.
 There's not a lot of PACTOR I on the air but interest is gaining
more momentum lately.  I think it stems from the DIGITALRADIO
message forum discussions involving andi-Winlink operations,
PMBO stuff, etc.  Your call is anice surprise for sure.

Name is Howard as youmay have noticed.  Location is about
37 miles West of Dayton, OH right on the OH/IN border.

I'm using a PK-232MBX that I've had since 1989 and am giving it
a workout.  Surprised at how much I've had to relearn for not
using it much.

Your rst is S8 S8 with just a little QSB but not bad.  You took
a little dive at 0132Z but hung in there.  Software in use is
the WinXP package and it has seemed to work well.

BTU, let's see how you are doing...

VE1XL VE1XL DE W6IDS W6IDS K K


W6IDS de VE1XL =>
RR FB Howard and it sure is nnice nice to hear your signal and to meet you. 
I
am a long-time Pactor operator and I manage to snag a few QSO if I listen 
long enough.
 I hope you are correct in that maybe all the comotion will stur up more 
interest.
 I do find that most of the ot digital sound card modes are very much 
inferour..
Spelling.. I have been doing this in Amtor since 1987 and then came Pactor 
in the
early 1990s or so and I have been here all along. hi.
I am using an SCS PTC-2e. The radio is a Ten-Tec argonaut V QRP radio to a 
small
linear amplifier to only about 50 Watts out to a dipole.  My software is 
called
NcWinPTC by PA0NC.  I am familiar with the XP Ware you are using.  A good 
program.
FB your QTH and signal port.  You are S-5 to S-6 with noise on the band. 
but
this gets through very fine.  I do have Pactor 2 and 3 here also. Nost of 
the WinLink
2K stations use the Pactor 2.  BTU before I hog it all on you, Howard.

W6IDS de VE1XL =>

VE1XL VE1XL (Dick) DE W6IDS W6IDS

Tell you what, give me your email address and I'll send you two
links that PACTOR operators are posting their activity.  I'm posted
there now, and just noted that we're connected.

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............

[w6ids]

Well, s?  I "thought" that might have been the case but then,
I could have been wrong...so I cashed in my $ .02 worth

In fact, it happened today...talked with VE1XL (Dick) in Canada
using PACTOR I and near the end of the contact, I could hear a 
('scuse me but) PMBO or  at least a station sounding like one
right close to use and fairly strong.  Gave Dick some competition 
for sure.  It was surprising because I had been listening for about 
15 mins on 3.5880 with no activity noted at all.  Then, after talking 
with Dick for the better part of an hour, voila!  There's this PACTOR
station suddenly making its presence known.

I did post a "cut 'n paste" of the chat just for show 'n tell and give
a little push for PACTOR I activity - it still works, of course.  It was
fun today.  

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot


> Hello Howard,
> 
> I was actually agreeing with John; sorry to all if it was poorly
> worded. When operating Pactor (and in the past using Amtor), I too
> have been interfered with and when I queried the other stations they
> said something to the effect that, "I thought you were a bot".
> Obviously no excuse. 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations

[w6ids]

HI Leigh.

That makes sense, but it would require Patrick to work with the GUI
and he's not willing to do that, according to past comments.  I think
that would start a "domino effect" in the layout to remove clutter
and I don't think he wants to get involved in that.

Pity.  Great program and innovative otherwise.  I'd finally buy my
license for it if he'd work on that GUI

Sorry, Pat.  It's just a li'l issue with me.  I suspect most everyone
else has easily adapted to the layout.  Leigh just flicked my switch
with his observation.  No disrespect intended.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations


Patrick,
Yes, but MultiPSK and DRM780 and fldigi and other programs already 
support MFSK and other modes.

My point is that few know about MFSK picture mode, even though it is 
implemented in many programs, because it is accessible only when in MFSK 
mode and is hard to find.
So, I propose simply making it more easily accessible, for example, by 
making it available on a main menu, or even as its own mode.  In 
reality, it would simply be MFSK and would start with the Open File 
dialog box for image types, and in the case of MultiPSK and PocketDigi, 
it would send the RSID for MFSK.
Leigh/WA5ZNU

Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode


>I was wondering if a recognized 30m Narrow Band SSTV calling frequency 
>would
> be a good thing to discuss? Because it is narrow band and the usable area 
> on
> 30m is limited it makes sense to me to try to encourage a calling 
> frequency,
> similar to 14.230 on 20m.
>
> To try and hunt through the 30m spectrum for an SSTV transmission with
> unknown offset is going to kill interest before it starts for most folks.
>

Hi Sholto...

Are we testing narrow band at all now?  It seems like it's disappeared, 
after
I added MP73 to MMSSTV.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN 

Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode

[w6ids]

- Original Message - 
From: "Russell Blair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode


> Howard, I down loaded MMSSTV 1.11G and you said you
> added MP73 to MMSSTV is there some thing I need to add
> for Narrow Band to work in MMSSTV ?.
> 
> Russell NC5O/qrp
> 

HEHyepsure did and I am amazed that I never even gave
the ability to do that a second thought in the past.

Unless I've misunderstood the feedback recently, I simply
right-clicked on one of mode keys.  When that's done, a slew
of different mode-types suddenly appears in a list and it's a
bit lng per se.

Scan the list and you'll see MP73 and AS FAR AS I KNOW,
click on that item and the mode you right-clicked on will
be changed to MP73.

I picked the Commodore button and changed it to MP73
mode.  It appears to work - I saw the change when I tested
it on 10.132 in the wee hours this morning.

I just need some feedback on what the testing status is for
the mode and how we might coordinate it so we're not all
squinting into the horizon looking for a trail of smoke
somewhere.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode

[w6ids]

OH!  OK, so we're doing that on the site as well.  Super.
I'll peek on the page often then for PACTOR I and MP73
as well.  Now if conditions will just bless us for a period
of time.

Have you been able to actually see it function in the
field?  Comments?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SSTV & MP73 Mode


> Howard,
>
> I am just doing some testing of the MP73-N etc modes on 30m. I didn't know
> they existed until Jens, OV1A mentioned them.
>
> I post my spots on http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m/
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations

[w6ids]

Hey Patrick!

NOOO.it's cluttered..really.   You fall back onto that old song of 
yours
about not being a specialist, which I take in this context to mean talented
enough, to work with the GUI.  I don't believe that for a minute, my good
man.   Working the GUI may not be one of your more interesting chores
and you may not have a clue as to an improved layout, but don't tell me
you don't have the talent to handle it.  "I" don't have the talent for 
it
I think.

I've been on this planet 60-plus years now; I can tell when someone is
blowing smoke in my directionwell, usually...uh...most of the time.

Best Regards, Sir

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations


Hello Howard,

  

But I understand that you think it is cluttered. It is simply complex (as 
digital modes are not always very simple). However I'm not a specialist of 
programs and GUI.

Anyway we have the chance to have a big diversity of excellent programs, 
so...

73
Patrick

Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[w6ids]

Hey, John.

Been on freq but not hearing PACTOR I.  Called a few times.
Did hear weak CW on occasion and one or two newer modes.
I've heard you and I think I'm hearing  you now at 0426Z  but
unable to print.  Signals come and go momentarily on top of
you (i.e. CW, Spanish sigs, a PSK31, but unable to print.

Continuing to monitor.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN


- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5


> Looking for P1 connect and Roger.
>

Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[w6ids]

Hi John

At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting
with an S9 signal.  It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a
cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or
losing privileges.

I can hear a PACTOR signal underneath but obviously, cannot copy.
I'm hearing now three total PACTOR signals.

Still listening

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN


- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5


> Looking for P1 connect and Roger.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Introducing the K3UK Quick and Dirty Guide to Narrow-Band SSTV

[w6ids]

Quick and dirty guide?  Hmmmnice work pal.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "DIGITALRADIO" ; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:09 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Introducing the K3UK Quick and Dirty Guide to 
Narrow-Band SSTV

   

Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5

[w6ids]

Hi Roger,

Well, it appears so.  I must admit, I never actually paid much
attention to the matter as such.  I simply "worked around it"
not making the connection to what has become a volatile
subject.  I never paid attention to PMBOs, I just operated as
conditions allowed.

Since I began to play with PACTOR I more and MFSK, outside
of the "normal" PSK31 arena, the matter of the unattended
operations of what I've learned to be PMBOs became verry
apparent.  I never really knew where PMBOs were set up
and still don't; I do know where a few are now and yes, I've
been stepped on which is how I learned the locations for 
those that I AM aware of.

Same thing happened on 30 meters recently with PACTOR I
and narrow band SSTV testing.   Surprise!  There's a couple
of PMBOs and PACKET operations there that I didn't know
were alive, on or near frequencies frequently mentioned for
use in the forum.  I had checked the freqs for activity.  After
waiting, began the CQ and after perhaps 10 minutes, I found
myself covered with a strong signal almost on top or very
nearby .

I don't go to the freqs anymore. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5


> w6ids wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Hi John
>>
>>  At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting
>>  with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a
>>  cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or
>>  losing privileges.
>>

> Your post seems to indicate that the station that initiated the S-9 
> signal either did not listen, or could not hear, the other signals on 
> the frequency.  This is the inherent problem when there is no one 
> listening *at the location of the transmitter.*
> 
> de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations

[w6ids]

Hi Patrick..

I would really like to hear what that sounds like I know someone
who speaks French.  I'll pass it by her.

Best Regards,

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Redefining SSTV operations


Hello Howard,

  

Now you think sincerely that it is cluttered. Nice!

As we say "Les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas" which means "It is 
useless to discuss tastes and colours".

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ?

[W6IDS]

HI Andy..

Yes, please.  Count me in.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:41 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Anyone need a $6.50 soundcard ?


>I am about to order a USB external sound adapter for US$6.50.  The
> shipping however is $8.00 , more than the product itself !  So,
> perhaps I should order several of them and just mail them to others
> than want one. They apparently weigh 4oz, sticking one in the US mail
> should cost a couple of dollars, not 8.00 (a guess)  I have seen a
> couple of well known hams use these for digital modes.
> 
> Anyone else want one ?
> 
> Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Tracking update: Cheap soundcard order

[W6IDS]

Hopefully, you got my response.  If so, thank you in advance.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Tracking update: Cheap soundcard order
> 
   
>
> I have all 6 spoken for and 2-3 late arriving requests.  When they
> arrive, I will re-notify the people that first identified an interest
> . If anyone backs out, I will offer to the others that requested.  
> 
  

Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most ?

[W6IDS]

HI...

For a "newbie" you're being just a tad bit too judgemental
in wielding such a broad brush.  I've been licensed over
50 years and can assure you that there's much more to this
hobby than simple robotic contact exchanges for a post card
in MANY "Oldsters" thinking.

That said, too many exotic modes is an opinion that has as
much value as your broad brush statement chastizing Hams
who have nurtured this hobby long before you came along.

Have fun with this stuff.  You've surely got a lot better
equipment and modes and technology available than in
times past, that's for sure.  But, to be well-rounded in the
hobby, you should remember there's more to it than just
tinkering, testing, technical exploration, and such.  There's
the human aspect.  Hams are Ambassadors-Without-
Portfolio; always have been.  It comes with the territory
and tradition.  Those stations who just want your info
exahange are not just "oldsters" but rather, of all ages
and nationalities.  If you don't explore this, you'll be no
different than an Engineer who lacks studies in the
Humanities and the Arts.  Quite shallow and socially
limited.

OH...BTW, welcome.  You've got some exciting stuff in
store for you, if you keep an open mind and let yourself
explore.  However, perhaps you'll find 50 years passing by
before you know it and find yourself being confronted by a
"newbie" then who's telling YOU that you're out of date.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Laurent Laborde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Multiple Digital Modes: Time to get rid of most 
?


> I'm a begginer, licenced this year.
>
> I do not think that we have too many mode.
> And the massive usage of psk31 is not a "beginer" problem.
> It's the opposite.
> We have too many old ham that just want a contact and a QSL.
> And they use the most commonly used mode, psk31.
>
> I have absolutly no interest in contact and QSL.
> Well, no interest, but i need a contact to test the mode, talk about
> it, improve the transmission if needed. And not just sharing
> macro-QSO.
>
> The only times i was able to really test, experiment, "on air" was
> with exotic mode.
> Anytime i tried to "chat" (technical) in psk31 i got the usual "k thx
> bye" macro.
> But never had this problem using Feld Hell.
>
> The problem is between chair and keyboard, nothing else.
>
> -- 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Cheap USB Soundcards : Update

[W6IDS]

Nice effort there, Andy.  I still want one and appreciate 
your attention to the small stuff.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:49 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Cheap USB Soundcards : Update


>I am going to return the cheap $6.50 sound cards and replace them with 
> 
> Part #:   HE-280B  
> Warranty:   1 Year  
> 
> 
> The new ones have a better driver and will costs $7.50 .  The old ones
> work just fine but the XP driver does not support volume adjustments
> via the Sound Card Mixer on received audio, several hams have assured
> me that the ones I just ordered have C Media drivers.
> 
> When they arrive, I will notify  those who said they wanted one .  
> 
> Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] mftty

[W6IDS]

Hello,

Do we know if the application will run on a VISTA 64 OS?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "dg9bfc" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:56 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] mftty


> download of mftty works again
> http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html
> greetz

Re: [digitalradio] QRV MFTTY 14068

[W6IDS]

Hey!

When I get that puppy running, why will I take a look at it?

H, kind of a dumb way to ask.

Uh, will it "flic my bic?", blow me away, or perhaps
"shiver me timbers?"  Doubt it will "float my boat."

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] QRV MFTTY 14068


>I am inside all day getting ready for my 15 year old's birthday party
> !  While around, I have the rig on 14068 USB with MFTTY active.
> 
> Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m

[W6IDS]

Hey, Steinar!

Tried to bring up MFTTY but encountered a problem.

I get this flag:

Run Time Error '429':

ActiveX component can't create object.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:35 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m


> Hi all,
> 
> I am monitoring dial 3588 USB (1000Hz) now 

Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m

[W6IDS]

Forgot to mention, if it matters, that I'm running VISTA.

Howard W6IDS

- Original Message - 
From: "W6IDS" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m


> 
> Hey, Steinar!
> 
> Tried to bring up MFTTY but encountered a problem.
> 
> I get this flag:
> 
> Run Time Error '429':
> 
> ActiveX component can't create object.
> 
> Howard W6IDS
> Richmond, IN
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:35 AM
> Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY on 80m
> 
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I am monitoring dial 3588 USB (1000Hz) now 
> 
> 
> 
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m

[W6IDS]

Yessir, the new version works now.

I've found I cannot PTT through the COM1 - it looks
like I'll be using the VOX option instead (which does work).


I am still going through this material and trying to get a
handle on my "learning curve."

I am not quite sure what to do next other than look for a
MFTTY signal to copy.  While I can key the transmitter
VOX and can hear my tones, I don't know if my transmit status
is fully operational.  

I see that I do not have access to audio controls like I would
have with Windows XP.  So, I manually turned up my mike
gain to get reasonable RF output.

It's not quite clear to me just how I would get city, name, etc
into the program for use in a MACRO like you have set up
in the program.

Where does the word "PILOT" fit into all of this, that I've seen
in the CQ button, etc?

Still plugging along here... thanks for the help thus far!

Howard   W6IDS 
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Norbert Pieper" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m


> Hello Howard,
> 
> The issue is solved:
> Cause of Problem: the file c:\Window\system32\dx8vb.dll is not 
> registered.
> 
> Solution: Download and install new version of MFTT it will fix the 
> Problem automatically.

   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m

[W6IDS]

Many thanks, Seigfried.  I'll digest this and when I get home from work, I'll 
begin
to seriously play with the program.  I do recall the info regarding the "pilot",
however, after successfully finding myself with the program installed now, I did
not make the connection mentally at first since it's new for me.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN
  - Original Message - 
  From: Siegfried Jackstien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY on 80m


  dear howard
  the pilot is a macro that sends a pilot-tone and the beginning of your 
transmitted text
  it is explained on the homepage how this work but i will try to explain it
  the other sees the pilottone on his waterfall

 

[digitalradio] OH, so close and yet............

[W6IDS]

VOILA!  Before I knew what was happening, I found myself suddenly printing
a CQ on MFTTY from WB4MWD on 3591 around 0200Z.  He had an S4 or
so signal here in Richmond, IN.

Only problem was that he was competing with an RTTY signal who suddenly
appeared on frequency AND...AND...there was this PACTOR MBO that
was a little off frequency giving him competition as well.

Surprising thing...TO ME...was that I was printing his CQ while being pretty
well covered by the RTTY station.  That surprised me.

I didn't answer 'cause I was fumbling trying to reply and then the XYL had
a problem, then...then...  Well, suffice it to say I at least did break the 
ice
for receiving.  Now for the transmit.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79
 

Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out

[W6IDS]

Hey, Steiner

I have it installed.  Before I did anything else, I modified the Pilot CQ to 
add my callsign
and Grid Locator (EM79).  When I selected the Pilot CQ (I'm using the "SEND" 
button
now) I found four tone "beeps"  transmissions being transmitted.  When I 
pressed the
"SEND" button, I transmitted the CQ sequence but with no PILOT Tones.

My Pilot CQ is:

CQ CQ CQ DE W6IDS W6IDS EM79
CQ CQ ..etc etc etc

HmmmI'm not totally clear on what's happening or if I accidentally
did something wrong in modifying the Pilot CQ.  Can you clarify your
sentence abut the Pilot Tone below also?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN


- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:08 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out


> MFTT 3.0.143

> # Pilot Tone will be inserted automatically after a transmission pause
> of equivalent 4 words time
> # Thin grey line added to spectrum display, indicating the center
> frequency of Rx-Band-Pass-Filter
> # Double click on "Rx . Hz" will copy the Tx freq.
> # Double click on "Tx . Hz" will copy the Rx freq.
> # Tool Tip Text added to UI elements

   

Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out

[W6IDS]

No problem, Steinar.

I'm just working my way along my learning curve here.

I just noticed that I get the Pilot tones when I have the 
"Send Immediately" box checked.  Then, when I select the
Pilot CQ, the tones are sent at the beginning of each line as
typed in the box.  If i select "Send By Enter Key" or if I
UNCHECK BOTH selections, the "SEND" button appears
and in any case, NO Pilot tones are sent.  They're sent ONLY
when the "Send Immediately" box is checked.

I should think that the tones should be sent anytime the CQ
is sent or perhaps when text otherwise is being sent and I
insert  somewhere inside any typed text.  However,
that isn't the case.  The only time the  tone is sent is
at the beginning of a line where I place .  It cannot be
inserted anywhere else, so that seems to make it difficult to
increase the number of Pilot tones as recommended in the
information I read.

Unless, of course, the Pilot tones are only used during a CQ
sequence, then all of this is moot.  The only issue then is
being able to transmit  tones in instances involving
using "SEND" button or "Send By Enter Key" which doesn't
happen now.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY 3.0.143 is out


> 
> Hi Richmond 
> 
> I have not tested this last version yet.
> I will give it a try when I am back from work.

  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY Tuning information

[W6IDS]

It seems to be an interesting piece of software, Norbert.
I was susrprised at how I was able to copy my first
CQ from WB4MWD while that station was basically
"covered" by a PACTOR MBO.  I don't know if that
was a "fluke" or not but will be curious to see if it can
be replicated in the future.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Norbert Pieper" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:54 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY Tuning information


> Hi Steinar,
> 
> no problem just click options and enter new Tx Center Frequency
> ( in the upper right corner ) click apply.
> 
> MFTT can handle any Tx Frequency from near zero up to near half of 
> TX sample rate of soundcard.
> 
> BR
> Norbert

   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out

[W6IDS]

I understand, Norbert, now.

Hthe information I read leads me to believe (and it's stated as 
such)
that the greater frequency of Pilot tones provides an aid to tuning.  IMHO,
it seems to me that the pause time that you stated is a bit too long to 
provide
benefit.  I don't know where I'd pause for an equivalent of 20 characters.

Right now, "I" am seeing a Pilot tone only at the beginning of the CQ
in which I included my callsign, City/State and Locator.  I think it could 
be
inserted by the operator at the end of each line of CQ for tuning.  I also
noticed that without looking at the screen, I instantly recognized the
signal by WB4MWD by virtue of the inclusion of the Pilot tones.  First
time I've been able to identify an exotic mode by ear per se, so the tones
have an additional value.

I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and
also allow for manual insertion as needed.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Norbert Pieper" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:55 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out


> Hello Howard and all,
>
> In fact the V3.0143 !!DOES!!- send out pilot tone by "SEND" button
> or "Send By Enter Key"
>
> The thing is that the pilot is sent out ONLY if there was a
> reasonable pause between the transmissions. I did set the pause time
> to a value that is equivalent to the transmission time of 4 Words
> (20 characters)
>
> This was done to avoid an un-needed "flood" of bothering pilots.
>
> My question to the group is:
> In Pratice:
> Is that pause time and the effective number of pilots sufficent or
> is there higher or lower occurrence of pilots needed?
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out

[W6IDS]

Hey, Skip!  Long time no.

Yes, I think you're touching on some things that could go well toward
enhancing the operation.  I, too, am having a little difficulty with the
TX Macro box as well.  However, I suspect that if we keep the
"cards 'n letters" coming in, there'll be some attention given to the
ideas for sure.

HI had not thought about using a "marco" for the 
thingie.  DUH!  I've been trying it by manually typing it in.   I wasn't
thinking macro in that instance.

Trying to capture the callsign, QTH, etc does take time and causes
dead time too, not to mention creating a "cumbersome" process.
But, then again, this is new as we are awareand interesting.

So far, I'm one up on the receiver side.  Still working to get my first
transmit check out moment.

Regards,

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "kh6ty" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out


>
>
>> I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and
>> also allow for manual insertion as needed.
>>
>> Howard W6IDS
>> Richmond, IN
>>
>
>
> Howard, for manual Pilot insertion, just configure a macro as only 
> and click that to insert a Pilot whenever you want.
>
> What I think FMTTY needs more than anything is the ability to double-click
> on a callsign and use it for the macros, such as  (for the other
> station's callsign). I cannot seem to get the TxMacro boxes to work. When 
> I
> configure a macro with  and put a callsign in for Box 1, I still get
> "" transmitting instead of the callsign. The macros also need to be
> linked to function keys for ease of keyboarding use. There really is not
> enough time to fill in the TxMacro box for every QSO. You have to capture 
> a
> callsign as quickly as possible in order to keep from losing a contact. A
> double-click has proven to be the fastest way to do that.
>
> For example, the significant default DigiPan macros which many are 
> familiar
> with are:
>
> F2 CQ
> F3 Call 3 (transmit, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, receive)
> F4 Call (transmit, 1x1)
> F5 BTU (1x1, receive)
> F6 Signoff (73, 1x1, SK, receive)
>
> This way, the new user only has to press F2 to call CQ, F3 to answer a CQ,
> and then just alternate between F4 and F5 for the QSO. When finished, he
> just goes to the next function key in line to signoff.
>
> Of course preferences of others may vary!
>
> 73, Skip KH6TY
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145

[W6IDS]

To All,

I did download the new release and found a couple of things.

Pressing the Appointments button takes me to K3UK's page but there's no way to
post comments or log in.

If I instead go to my "Favorites" and select the page, I can log in and post 
comments, etc.

Also, I've been running in HALF setting.  Has anyone tried the other settings: 
Double or 1/4?
I tried Normal and found garbage on the screen with no success in cleaning it 
up, operator
error possibility not withstanding.

Is there a real incentive for operators to be able to change tone frequencies 
in the TX options?

Are we supposed to uninstall the previous release before unpacking a newer 
release?

After running the newest version now for a few minutes, I find now that I 
cannot get it to go to
maximized from a minimized condition.  The small replica of the program does 
appear when
moving the cursor to the minimized position on the lower bar.

I also downloaded the Magic Clip, I believe it is called, and am playing with 
that for a bit.

Is there some way to save the definitions created in the Macro Keys rather than 
have them
erased each time a newer version of the software is installed?  That is one 
reason why I
am looking at that Magic Clip thingie and not just to reduce my transmitting 
burden

I know this is a "new" mode, but has anyone determined just what the direction 
will be for
MFTTY?  I think it's a slick offering but.that's just me.  I'd be curious 
about other
thoughts.

Howard W6IIDS
Richmond, IN
  - Original Message - 
  From: Siegfried Jackstien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Version .144


  new version of mftty
  now it is version 30.145
  see here
  http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html
  download it and try it out
   

  greetz
  dg9bfc

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145

[W6IDS]

Hey, Buddy.

Yeh, I know.  I've only heard ONE MFTTY station and that was on or near 3591.
It seems to me that perhaps 3591, give-or-take, would be the best if you wanted
to take a shot at my station.  I'll leave this thing on there (once I get it 
working 
right again) and perhaps we can contact each other and see how it works.

At least that would b e a beginning - you'd know that someone is keeping
watch out for your signal specifically.

You can also try this link out, log in, and when you're transmitting, post a
comment about it for others to see, including me.  We can coordinate there
as well -

http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN.
  - Original Message - 
  From: F.R. Ashley 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145


  I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once gotten a 
response or even heard an MFTTY station.  Where is everyone hiding?
  I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded there with 
PSK and all.  I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no luck there either.

  Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?

  73 Buddy WB4M

Re: [digitalradio] Windows Vista for digital mode soundcard applications ?

[W6IDS]

Hey, Andy -

My Info -=

Acer Aspire M5461

Pentium Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.2Ghz  2.2 Ghz
RAM 4 Gb
OS  64-bit  SP1  Vista Home Premium

I'm using Ham Radio Deluxe/DM780, Airmail, I've used Multipsk,
and tried PC-ALE.  I also have EasyPal working but, in MY case,
the software won't let me do a couple of functions while using
VISTA 64.  Specifically, creating waterfall text or pictures.

The only other issue I did have was a lack of backward compatibility
with PK-232 software, XPwin, that I used on an older XP computer
before it crashed three months ago, or so.

Otherwise, I've had no major issues whatsoever, in MY case.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew O'Brien" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:58 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Windows Vista for digital mode soundcard 
applications ?


>I am in the market for a new PC to be used in my shack.  I have found
> a few good deals, some with Vista as the OS.  There are some with XP
> but I was wondering about a switch to Vista.  My main applications
> would be Ham Radio Deluxe, Multipsk, FL-Digi, DX Lab , Microham device
> router, PC-ALE, and WSJT.  Anyone know if any of these applications
> have "issues" with Vista ?

Re: [digitalradio] Pactor scanning ?

[W6IDS]

Hey, John...

I think it was you that sent me a list of frequencies.  I lost them.  I've 
been working to
make Windows Live Mail dedicated for Winlink/PacklinkW and had a little 
operator
error in keeping it off the internet.  So, it picked up your messages and 
when I removed
the account for incom...@verizon.net, I killed a string of messages in the 
IN BOX.

Yours was one of them I believe.

Howard W6IDS

Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS

[W6IDS]

MessageDavid, I didn't see what MARS program you're affiliated with.  
Interesting read.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Little 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:23 AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS


  Andy,

  At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made 
requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer.  

  There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to 
make it more adaptable for use  to insert blocks of text for broadcast.

Re: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land

[W6IDS]

UH, John and Jack...disregard my other messages about the
time.  I just saw thisI'll keep an eye out...

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land


> Overnight 40 metered opened to VK land
> I copied Jack, VK4JRC calling CQ on a center
> frequency of 7041 on Pactor 1. About 06:00Z
>
> This is not the first time I have seen a VK station
> in the last 2 or 3 weeks.
>
> John, W0JAB

[digitalradio] Gotcha Again, John

[W6IDS]

John, connect with your mailbox around 18Z.  Put out a
Connect request and the mailbox responded with a GREAT
signal on 7041 CF.  7 Mhz seems sort of centralized around
the U.S. per se, but it appears CONUS comms on 7 Mhz
are pretty good.

I might play with Airmail mailbox, since I have AM here but
not doing anything with it since my Xpware program is up and
running.  However, I had some operator error problems come
up when I had XPware in mailbox mode - Airmail may be a
bit more friendly...maybe.

I need to have my chipset upgraded in my PK-232 at any
rate so that's my next project.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] 40 meter opened to VK land


> Overnight 40 metered opened to VK land
> I copied Jack, VK4JRC calling CQ on a center
> frequency of 7041 on Pactor 1. About 06:00Z
>
> This is not the first time I have seen a VK station
> in the last 2 or 3 weeks.
>
> John, W0JAB
>

[digitalradio] I Have A Mailbox UP To Try it.

[W6IDS]

Hello, Group -

I'm not one who's a heavy user of radio-based mailboxes - most likely
because of the Internet.  That said, I do see a need for one to help
with communications, activity, etc.  

SO, I put my Airmail to work and it's now accepting incoming
calls, when I'm not using my ICOM IC-746 myself for Kbd-Kbd 
PACTOR I QSOs or PSK, or ??

It's parked on 7041 CF for the time being.  I was thinking of doing
this after seeing that I missed a connect from Nick, KU2A in NH.
Also missed some typing from Jose, CO2JA and Octavio, PY4OLB.

I'm interested in increasing the actvity and keep striking out with
other connect attempts with Denmark, Greece and the Aussies.
So, maybe, just maybe this little addition might open an avenue for
providing some type of communications support in that endeavor.

So, the doors open to anyone who might want to give it a try and
that includes the VK2 and 4 folks, Demetre and Peter for sure.
If I need to change the frequency to accomodate some testing,
let's do it; I'll announce the freq change.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

[digitalradio] Your Mailbox

[W6IDS]

John,

Did you do anything with the "Info" selection on your mailbox menu?
If so, how/what??

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

Re: [digitalradio] Your Mailbox

[W6IDS]

HA!  I didn't see this message when I went to your mailbox this
morning.  I wanted to see what you did do with the Info command.
It looks like I saw the first creation without realizing it.   I saw
the message below AFTER I accessed your new Info thingie.

Where did you save that puppy for use? I'm looking at the Help
file now and I don't see a discussion about creating an "Info" file
and where it's stored.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Your Mailbox


> No I have not done anything with that file as yet.
> Never think about it till now. I'll get on that today.
>
> At 11:48 PM 4/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>Did you do anything with the "Info" selection on your mailbox menu?
>>If so, how/what??
>>
>>Howard W6IDS
>>Richmond, IN  EM79
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
>>http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>>
>>Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
>>Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
> Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.56/2058 - Release Date: 04/14/09 
06:17:00

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Damm, my SignaLink has Stopped TXing

[W6IDS]

Hello!

Since you stuck your toe in the water, care to elaborate a bit more?
Your observation is a bit cryptic.  I"m on the verge so I'm a bit
interested in YOUR experience.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79


- Original Message - 
From: "Raymond Lunsford" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Damm, my SignaLink has Stopped TXing


> Don't expect help from Tigertronics.
>
> On 10/20/09, Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle
>  wrote:
>> HI All,
>>
>> The SignaLink would not work with any data software even MixW.
>> I tried DM780, MMSSTV, WinMor, MixW and a couple of others.
>>
>> I pulled all the cables out and re-inserted them. This is a USB device so
>> there is no RTS or DTS to worry about.
>> It was very plain and simple, plug and go (basically).
>> The thing is it ran from the day I received it which was about 5-6 weeks
>> ago.

 

Re: [digitalradio] W0JAB ????????????????????????

[W6IDS]

I sent a message to his email a couple of times asking about his current
operating frequencies for PACTOR I but never received a reply to
either.  This was a while ago.  I also tried to raise his mailbox to no
avail.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

- Original Message - 
From: "obrienaj" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:49 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] W0JAB 


> Anyone heard from John W0JAB lately?  It has been several months since he 
> posted here and he , along with Lynn KB3FN, is a co-moderator of this 
> group.  I know he had some health issues.  I'm hoping he has just found 
> other interests rather than being too sick to post.
>
> Andy K3UK
> Owner
>
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
> Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F

[W6IDS]

PSK63F is within the STREAM download?  I saw references to it in
the reference documentation, but it's unclear to me if it is actually in
the application you download.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

- Original Message - 
From: "Tony" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:48 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] IZ8BLY's PSK63F


> All,
>
> Recent path simulation tests indicate that Nino Porcino's PSK63F offers
> better performance over PSK31 and PSK63 in a couple of areas. The most
> significant improvement is it's ability to endure Doppler spread found on
> paths that cross the polar ionosphere. Both PSK31 and PSK63 fail miserably
> in this area; see high-lat test samples below.
>
> Path Simulation: High Latitude (Moderate) Path Delay: 3ms, Doppler spread
> 10Hz
> Pangram Text: Quick Brown Fox
>
> PSK63F  --  the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
> PSK63--  mev roe tt#dtorl|f- bn ô mp e o ihe Fzy dg
> PSK31--   nls oSer Òe naAeta qlipM h nV o T rn agâ o
> RTTY --  TH QACKH492, FOJUMP OR THTLAZY G
>

Re: [digitalradio] What's new in SSTV ?

[W6IDS]

Me thinks I've been inadvertently tending my mushrooms in the basement (and 
I don't have one!)

"Flurry of activity around NARROW SSTV"???  I had seen bits 'n pieces 
regarding it but I did
not know there was a flurry of activity.  It died off?  Is there any 
interest in pursuing it?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79

- Original Message - 
From: "obrienaj" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:00 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] What's new in SSTV ?


> So, it has been a while since I have seen anything NEW in SSTV.  The 
> flurry of activity around narrow SSTV was fun.  So was the Easypal stuff. 
> What is the latest?
>
> Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail to/from Haiti (or neighbouring countries) ?

[W6IDS]

Andy, is this the time when we see how effective or useful ALE and, since 
you
mentioned it, PSKmail are?  WL2K?  Haitian stations actually up and able to
operate not withstanding.  Are there any ALEs, WL2K, etc etc there operating
in the past, involving Haiti or have had access to?  Just wondering.

We're all waiting for the important OUTBOUND H&W traffic (not inbound)
and it will be of great interest to see how this initially plays out for 
ultimate
study.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  Em79

- Original Message - 
From: "Andy obrien" 
To: "digitalradio" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] PSKmail to/from Haiti (or neighbouring countries) ?


> Any use of Pskmail related to the emergency in Haiti ?  Seems that is
> is tailor made for such a situation.  Short hops from Haiti to servers
> on HF
>
> Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions

[W6IDS]

Hey Dave!

Would it then be a fair assumption that you would not care for the likes of
ALE, DRM, PACTOR, Digi SSTV, Analog SSTV, the new sparky offering
called WINMOR, ALE400 - they're pretty much a "Closed Club", or
"Private Channel" affair, wouldn't you say? I think there's some others,
but suffice it to say.. OH!  I just remembered one candidate - DSTAR!
The 145.350 Repeater in Cincinnati went DSTAR and poof!  Now many
ops are "odd man out."

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79NV


- Original Message - 
From: "kb3fxi" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:40 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor 
ionospheric conditions


I'm pretty darn happy with the performance of Olivia without the added 
complexity of ARQ and the one on one aspect of the ARQ protocals.

I'm not sure about pskmail arq chat mode, but some of the other ARQ 
protocals I've played with look like a mess when you're a station on the 
outside looking in... that's something I really never liked about any of the 
ARQ/handshaking modes.  It's like you're turning your little channel into a 
private line.

FLDIGI has the WRAP checksum feature which allows an unlimited number of 
receiving stations to confirm 100% from a single uninterrupted transmission. 
And stations that don't have WRAP get to see the message too.

-Dave, KB3FXI

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

[W6IDS]

Thanks Andy.  Good readfinally.

The whole issue goes away with the removal of a couple of words and a
resubmit by the Author.   No one sees "SS" and unless it's checked
BY CHANCE, we can all run ROS contests and shut down RTTY for the 
weekends now, secure in the knowledge we are clean 'cause nowhere are
the words Spread Spectrum mentioned.

What?  Don't Ask, Don't Tell??  Well, much of this country isn't very
transparent in its dealings, no reason why something mundane like Ham Radio
needs to be in this country either.  Not with some "Diplomats Without Portfolio"
expressing words of pity for the U.S. Ham.  We'll just apply a li'l White Out, 
adapt
and overcome and nobody would be the wiser.   

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`




  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


  On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd  wrote:

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "ocypret"  wrote:
>
> So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
>



it seems to be whatever you want !

david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon

[W6IDS]

Hello Ed!

How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  Em79NV

- Original Message - 
From: "ed_hekman" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- 
reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon


>
>
> Andy,
>
> Some great ideas there.  I had also suggested a couple months ago the idea 
> of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID that 
> Patrick has developed.  The software should include S/N measurement that 
> can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
>
> In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the 
> minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact.  PSK31 is the 
> best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs.  It would be nice to be 
> able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions.  I 
> would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for 
> situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
>
> I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal 
> operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, images, 
> documents).  Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple 
> access features for frequency sharing.
>
> I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to 
> develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the QSO. 
> A dual receiver would make that much easier.
>
> Ed
> WB6YTE
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon

[W6IDS]

I hope no one is deleting this thread.  It's something to chew on slowly.

Thanks, Guys.  Interesting reads, both.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79NV
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band 
plans-reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon


  Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the  
standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ.   I'd be fine with it,  but it is 
quite wide and would start a debate all over again.  I'm also not suggesting we 
use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general 
concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to 
establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO  (or "link" ) .  
The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it 
is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is 
such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments.  
The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a 
niche within a band for these modes.  The result is competing debates about 
which mode should park where.  PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant 
modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes.  That leaves Olivia, 
Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR,  Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 
and PSK variants, as the remainder.  .  While I would love to change the habits 
of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it.  I think there is enough room 
to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good 
segment of each band for the rest.  The plan would be that "the rest" all agree 
to use one mode for a CQ/

  Andy K3UK


  On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman  wrote:

Howard,

With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band 
that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that segment 
there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be tuning 
there, hear the CQ and respond.

I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common 
mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received the 
two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the QSO. This 
is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link.

I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being 
able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - 
48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of operation. 
If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ anywhere in that 
bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency so the software 
would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls.

Ed
WB6YTE

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "W6IDS"  wrote:
>
> 
> Hello Ed!
> 
> How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode?
> 
> Howard W6IDS
> Richmond, IN Em79NV
> 
> - Original Message - 

> From: "ed_hekman" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- 
> reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon
> 
> > Andy,
> >
> > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the 
idea 
> > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID 
that 
> > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that 
> > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO.
> >
> > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the 
> > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is 
the 
> > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be 
> > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I 
> > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for 
> > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy.
> >
> > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal 
> > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, 
images, 
> > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple 
> > access features for frequency sharing.
> >
> > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to 
> > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the 
QSO. 
> > A dual receiver would make that much easier.
> >
> > Ed
> > WB6YTE
> >
>






  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

[W6IDS]

Pst!  Marc!  Uh, 'scuse me but the only one uttering such thoughts thus far 
is
YOU.  No one else, just YOU.  You might want to cool down the dramatics and
take a breath, less you attract others with the same flair and end up creating 
a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.  

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79NV

OH, and BTW, let me add that, in the spirit of fairness,  I have absolutely ZERO
desire to BETA test ROS nor any other software suite the author creates for
submission to the Amateur Community.  That's MY own public declaration,
as a group of ONE.  AND NO, you can't join.  C'mon, Marc.  How can you 
possibly have enough interested parties, in something like ROS, to create GROUPS
of haters and lovers?  PULEEZE!

- Original Message - 
From: "pd4u_dares" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:45 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK 
Sked Pages)
>

> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Toby Burnett"  <..> But to 
> be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much 
> grief happening from this.  
>> Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than  <..>
>> It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector
>> group. For a change. 
>> 
> 
> Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked 
> page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the 
> good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of 
> course!! 
> 
> :-O
> 
> Marc, PD4U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS

[W6IDS]

Nico,

Does the American Radio Relay League and U.S. Federal Communications Commission
have representation and/or jurisdiction over you and your license to operate 
your Ham station 
within your country and whether or not you are authorized to use an emission 
determined
to be spread spectrum communications on those frequencies below 222 MHz?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  EM79NV

- Original Message - 
From: "iv3nwv" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS


> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright  wrote:
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
> 
> Quoted:
> 
> The ARRL supports -- as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio -- the 
> experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators. The 
> development and use of any new mode is exciting to many amateurs, and the 
> League encourage amateurs to experiment within the parameters of the rules; 
> however, the ARRL also reminds US licensees that according to Section 97.307, 
> spread spectrum communications are only permissible in the US on frequencies 
> above 222 MHz.
> 
> Uhm, it looks like the same declaration Pontius Pilate (see i.e. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_pilate) released to the community 2010 
> years ago.
> Similar things occurred to Giordano Bruno, a phylosopher which has been 
> evaporated in a public pyre some centuries ago by our local institutions.
> 
> Of course we need to regulate the access to our bands.
> But should we need to comply with rules that has been written tens years ago?
> What forbid us to take on our shoulder the weight of experimenting something 
> more modern than a RTTY technology which is based on what has been 
> experimented almost one century ago?
> 
> Are we cows? Should we not exploit the knowledges which matured in these last 
> years? Should we be constrained to collect vacuum tube receivers and show 
> them proudly to our retired friends?
> Should we ignore that a HF channel is a smart object with its delay and 
> doppler spread.
> What kind of experiments could we do if we are allowed to make experiments 
> which pretend we are still in the '60s?
> How could we claim that the amateur radio service could bring innovation in 
> communications if we are not allowed to test our ideas?
> 
> Questions. I'm just asking myself these simple questions.
> I'd be sad if they hurt someone sensitivity. That's not my scope.
> I'm just trying to imagine our future.
> 
> 73s
> Nico / IV3NWV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

[W6IDS]

WHO/WHAT is claiming 14.103 - 14.115?  The author?  The Hams who seem to be
intrigued with ROS?  If there's an apparent acceptance of the claimed freq 
spread,
then it's not the author only who's in need of a good trouncing.

UH OH.now I've done it.  Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less 
be able
to use ROS any time soon   I'm down in the dingy cellar now with 
the
likes of John W0JAB!

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV

- Original Message - 
From: "pd4u_dares" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:08 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters


>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" 
>  wrote:
>>
>> If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in
>> the software
>>
>
> Three (3!!!) calling frequencies on 20m for a 2250Hz wide mode... and if 
> you ask why, you get excluded from their Yahoo group and accused of 
> claiming a frequency of one's own. While ROS effectively claims 14.103 
> upto 14.115. Mentioning that a few dozen Remote Message Servers reside 
> there meets deaf ears (and deaf antennas)
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FHSS signals on 17 meters?

[w6ids]

Hi Bonnie..
 
What exactly does the "bubbler" do besides 
conjur the immediate  vision 
of a Lawrence Welk intro?
 
Howard W6IDSRichmond, IN

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  expeditionradio 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:42 
  PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: FHSS signals 
  on 17 meters?
  It is the well known Cuban 
  bubbler.Bonnie 
KQ6XA





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] Recommendations on FAX

[w6ids]

Are you able to put your hands on the info by chance?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "RussellHltn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Recommendations on FAX


>I have heard and even seen a diagram to allow this to be done.  Apparently
> the basic fax mode is only half duplex.  The circuit I saw was a basic
> hybrid to separate the two wire telephone line into send/receive and to
> sense when the local fax was sending to trigger the radio (VOX)



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] VOLUME SETTINGS

[w6ids]

Fire away, Gridley!  Would be nice to inspect both, if you please, Sir.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: "David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "DIGITALRADIO" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] VOLUME SETTINGS


> FOR THOSE OF YOU USING MANY PROGRAMS THRU YOUR SOUND CARD..THIS PROGRAM 
> SAVES YOUR SETTINGS BETWEEN PROGRAMS.
> 
> VOLSET AND QUICKMIX.
> 
> I CAN SEND YOU EITHER ONE IF NEEDED.
> 



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] A bit off-topic, but could use a bit of advice

[w6ids]

I guess I'm sort of missing something in the translation here.  I'm using an 
IC-746 here
and using the computer's Sound Blaster w/stereo speakers to listen with. 
Audio level
controlled by the speakers volume control.  Works slick and sounds great.

You apparently have some reason locally why you're not doing that?  For me 
it
provides super audio and easy to listen to compared to the ICOM internal 
speaker.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Corio
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A bit off-topic, but could use a bit of advice

I'm trying to avoid the headphones. I have a real good pair, but like to 
sit with the radio on at length in case something interesting shows up. 
Usually have the TV on in the background, thus the need to adjust the radio 
downward.

>SNIP< >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[w6ids]

Well, you're right IMHO, however, there's something more.  Generally, in 
this
country we've sacrificed personal freedoms by virtue of the DHS and the
Patriot Act, yet no one has complained yet.

Any interest by EMCOMM folks or anyone else who would entertain the
notion of giving away something else to the DHS for any reason such as
you addressed worries me greatly.  We're not a commercial service nor
should we even try to act like one.

Digital Radio and all other forms of technology we help develop should
remain within the real scope of this HOBBY.  If we help EMCOMM in
some fashion, super.  If volunteering our services to the extent we have
available, kudos to us.  But leave it at that and don't sacrifice anything
more of our valuable resources.  We're already out of sync with the
rest of the world, again IMHO for whatever that's worth.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

Your argument isn't logical.

If the NGO's don't have the resources to use the frequencies they
currently have assigned, where would the resources come from to allow
them to use amateur service frequencies reassigned to the land
fixed/mobile service?

>SNIP< >SNIP<

Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[w6ids]

Generally, WE ALL are familiar with the ease in which we can work the world 
on the
Internet.  We're all pretty familiar, more or less, with text messaging on 
cell phones
and IM with YAHOO, AOL and the like.  Teens and young adults are fairly 
well-versed
with the new technologies and "wants 'n gimmies" available today, that's for 
sure, and
they expect nothing less today.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather use the faster PSK or 100 wpm RTTY, etc 
when
typing 'cause I do type around 78 wpm.  I can fill up a type-ahead buffer 
fairly easily
and it becomes a game with me to do so.  The only thing that "multi-gigibit 
bandwidth"
would provide us is the ability to transfer data in some form.

I'm not sure how that would fit into daily Ham ops that do not involve data 
other than
SSTV or DRM or one or two of the other modes.  I consider SSTV and DRM 
simply
data despite the technical definitions and hair-splitting.  I know we could 
start a hard
discussion on this involving definition of terms and I suppose anything not 
voice could
be called "data."  I differentiate between PSK, etc keyboard-to-keyboard as 
not being
data as such; it involves slow speed with intermittant, manual information 
transfer.

I'm just saying that high speed would be useful with large blocks of "data" 
or information
that is not typed manually during transmission.  High speed would allow it 
to be sent
between two or more points rapidly.  ARRL broadcasts could be sent high 
speed for
example, telemetry blocks from ISS, EMCOMM information and status reports, 
support
requests, etc.

Most operators would not have a need for high speed comms in my opinion. 
That said,
the lack of need and maybe the assumed lack of interest would not help to 
promote the
advancement of our hobby technically speaking.  Experimentation leads to 
innovation
and subsequent use/need development.  I didn't have any use for the Internet 
and any of
its tools for Ham Radio until I started to use/experiment with it. 
Restrictive and
ill-conceived FCC rulings or equally ill-conceived band plans serve mostly 
to stifle ground-
breaking technological growth and development.  They can also stifle the 
technology now
in use.

I'm rambling here but from my perspective, the notion of the lack of high 
speed isn't the
issude for newbies.  Your comment about the magic of doing it without wires 
is quite
accurate.  I experience it frequently with the neighbors while talking to 
someone abroad,
DIRECT, without Internet connection.  They're simply fascinated and quite 
interested,
both YOUNG and old..even while holding their IPOD and cell cam phone. 
The younger
ones aren't spoiled with the technology today; they simply have it available 
and we as
olders did not when young.

It doesn't make me proud to have had to "walk 20 miles through the snow to 
deliver a
message" as it were.  Sometimes, there's things about the "good ol' days" 
that just
aren't so nifty.  I'm 62 and I wish I could have been born just a little 
later when I think
about the advances that'll be happening to the hobby and the world's 
technology in
general.  Keeping a "snail's-paced approach" overall just doesn't cut it any 
more.

IMHO of course

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

I still dont understand why everyone seems to think we need multi gigibit 
bandwidth to allow people to talk to each other.   I would almost bet there 
are less than a handfull of folk on here that type over 70 words per minute. 
Why do we need anything faster than that, to interested kids?

>SNIP<  >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

[w6ids]

Good read but drop the phrase "Who's going to lug around a transceiver and
antenna when a simple cell phone can do it faster and better?"  No one is,
any more than you and I lugging around a KWM-2A, power supply, etc. as
normal course today.

You've got some good statements there.  We're a society now that's deep
into what I call "convenient mediocrity."  We're more more inclined to buy
and use rather than make and we don't care about quality so long as it's
available NOW and works NOW we'll worry about later.later.  Then, 
we throw it away without much of a thought.  We used to replace the red
lens in a tailight but not today.  We replace the whole damned assembly at
an incredible cost.  We, in this country, don't seem all that interested in
the WHY of something - owner's manuals aren't that detailed any longer it
seems.

- Original Message - 
From: jgorman01 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms

Even if we could do multimedia at a decent speed on HF kids wouldn't
be interested in doing it over ham radio. Who's going to lug around a
transceiver and antenna when a simple cell phone can do it faster and
better? Kids aren't stupid, they will use the device best suited for
the purpose.

>SNIP<  >SNIP<

Re: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!

[w6ids]

When I click reply to your message and I'm in the reply
message window, I first click on "Format" at the top, then
scroll down to "plain text" and click on that.  That will
eliminate all the garbage and creates a clean, plain text
message.  I did that for yours here as well;  your message
is in Rich Text format, with all sorts of "garbage info"
on the right hand side in my reply to you before I removed
it.

Then, I deleted EVERYTHING below only the most important
comment of your message that I wanted to have remain and
showed that with >SNIP<

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin O'Rorke 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Linux versis Windows: Let the debate begin!!

Totally Off subject, but every time I try to do a "reply", because of 
all the @[EMAIL PROTECTED]&* add's on the right hand side of the message, it is 
impossible to get my text in the right place.
is there any way of getting rid of those adds'??

>SNIP<  >SNIP<

Re: [digitalradio] Re: OT: Why we lost 11 meters

[w6ids]

Hey Bonnie..

Well, perhaps his statement was "clueless" per se, but you have to
admit that everything here (generalization) is being negatively affected.
There's an incredible trade deficit between the two countries with the
U.S. being on the losing end.  Imports are indeed much cheaper
due to China's lower production costs and subsidies.

Of course, in my view, it goes without saying  there is also an incredible
"dumbing down" of our government employees (elected or otherwise)
that is allowing this to continue and even grow.  And the American
citizens seem to yawn, shrug it off and go about their business quite
oblivious that we're not the strong nation we used to be in many ways.
This dumbing down, in my view, filtered down to the FCC and how it has
situated  and affected U.S. Ham operations compared to the rest of the
world.  I think people in government are simply becoming "stupider" and
I would never be able to begin to understand why.

Just my opinion here.didn't barge in to be rude, sort of just venting.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:57 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: OT: Why we lost 11 meters

Hi Danny,
If you really think that is what is happening with the electronics
industry now in China, you don't have a clue.
Bonnie BY/KQ6XA

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

[w6ids]

Yeh, and let's not forget the "air heads" who also think that CW was
what they continually describe as a "LID filter."  I've been licensed
50-Plus years and I can assure you the CW requirement did nothing
to keep out the current flock of resident sociopaths and tree climbers
that can be found here and there across the landscape of Ham Radio.

I can still copy 25 wpm with a stick or a "mil" and still send CW with
a speed key I've had since 'Nam.  Never have used a computer for
CW and still think it's great that CW has now been put to rest.

Now perhaps we can get some fresh, new faces in the hobby and 
some fresh new interest.  Just MHO but I doubt I'll escape the few
pointed jabs or two before the dust settles.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: John Champa 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

Bob,

Oh, don't be such a pessimist and a cynic!

My daughter is a genius who is studying for her Tech.
She calls me once a week for help with a study question.

Just because you think this radio stuff is simple, doesn't mean
all semi-tractor trailer drives will think it is a snap, too (HI).

>SNIP<  >SNIP<

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

[w6ids]

Not to worry.  You've shown far more clarity in your thinking
than you may realize.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code

>From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/12/16 Sat AM 09:34:57 CST
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code
>
>> Ten Four, Good Buddy!
>> 73, Bob AA8X
>
>It has been "Ten Four, Good Buddy" on the part of
>13WPM and 20WPM Hams on 75M for 40 years.
>
>So much for CW as a LID filter.
>

Gentlemen,

This might get me flamed/burnt to a crisp but I have my asbestos underwear 
firmly in place. 

Re: [digitalradio] GRUMBLE

[w6ids]

H. I just think it's just a habit carried over from RTTY,
since PSK is keyboard-based like RTTY.   I've read some of the
replies on this to you; still looks like keeping it looking like RTTY.

BTW, your DM780 program is causing quite a stir amongst the
EPC membership.  Looks like MixW is going to fade off into the
sunset, Sir.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Simon Brown
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] GRUMBLE

Pah!

Watching 20m PSK at the moment, why do so many users send in uppercase! PSK 
uses varicode, lowercase is *so* much faster. PSK63 + Uppercase seems to 
defeat the aims of the game.

>SNIP<  >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] GRUMBLE

[w6ids]

Yessir!  I believe that http://groups.google.co.uk/group/eupskclub?hl=en-GB
will work for the overall stuff.  I also belong to EPC.  I have EPC#058 and
have found them to be a nice group of folks from what I've read.

For posting messages, as a member of the mail list, you would use
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Simon Brown
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] GRUMBLE


My own eyesight dropped off a tad 2 or 3 years ago, it's very good indeed
except when reading a book with small print. I'll take all this into
consideration.

Is there a EPC mailing list? I'm a member (1114) but that's as far as it
goes.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "w6ids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> H. I just think it's just a habit carried over from RTTY,
> since PSK is keyboard-based like RTTY. I've read some of the
> replies on this to you; still looks like keeping it looking like RTTY.
>
> BTW, your DM780 program is causing quite a stir amongst the
> EPC membership. Looks like MixW is going to fade off into the
> sunset, Sir.


 

Re: [digitalradio] WinDrm

[w6ids]

Well, I tried the link and brought up a page which sez the account
has been suspended.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: wb4mnk 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] WinDrm

 I have tried this web 
site www.rarewares.org/files/others/melp_dll.zip but for some reason 
the web site will not come up. Any suggestions?

Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

[w6ids]

Hey, Cecil

I went to the link at the end of your message.  The site
seems a bit sparse.  I did learn of Soft Rocks a while
ago, but it memory serves, it seemed like the project
was sort of going into a sleepy mode.

Tell me where to look for specific thingies like pricing
for additional frequency bands,  any goals for power out
like perhaps 10 or 50 watts, development goals,
software/GUI,  typical ops.

I saw the subdirs that incuded articles but I'm looking
for what the info would be NOW.  Is there a specific
window through which orders can be placed, other
than what's shown on the site?

Where are all the units that have been sold?  If they're
on the air, sadly, I've never run across one.  I wonder
if my questions only show me to be a bit of a simple
"digital mushroom" or something?

Now, that said, if I missed something at the site I just
visited, forgive me.  I'm interested

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: KD5NWA
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Biggest disappointments of the year :
> 1. ALE . Has just not taken off in the amateur world.
> 2. Softrock 40. What happened to it ?
>

The AMQRP club is all but dead, so nothing will be coming from that
direction. The creator of the SoftRock40 however has not stopped, the
latest is the SoftRock V6.1. Right now in beta phase is the SoftRock 6.1
RxTx transceiver that will soon go in production, it features 2 bands
80M & 40M and outputs approximately one watt of power. The cost will be
$32 and orders will be taken early next year.

There is a Yahoo group where all things SoftRock is discussed, it the
SoftRock40 group.
-- 

Cecil
KD5NWA
www.qrpradio.com www.hpsdr.com

"Sacred Cows make the best Hamburger!" Don Seglio Batuna

 

Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

[w6ids]

Thanks, Cecil, for the informative reply.  I can't tell you where/how I 
got the impression that the project was sleepy.  It has been quite
some time since my first exposure to it, so the memory is a bit
dull on this aspect.  I must say that your message was well 
received here.  I'll take on the related forum and join in.  It should
be fun to play with such a project, for sure.

Just let me ask this and I'll then move forward.  Is the technical
support/sharing within the group similar to that found with Linux or
is it less robust?  I'm referring to "Elmering" for want of a better
word.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: KD5NWA 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

>SNIP<  >SNIP<
> 
First, that is not an official site of any kind so it does not reflect 
the latest and greatest available information. The official place for 
information is the Yahoo SoftRock40 group, that is the place where the 
designer of the SoftRock series discusses upcoming new items and people 
who use the SoftRock's discuss changes and improvements. 

>SNIP<  >SNIP<

Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

[w6ids]

Well, I'll pass along my thanks again; I joined the softrock40 group
this evening along with the forum for Quicksilver.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: KD5NWA 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Announcing : Annual Digitalradio Awards 2006.

>SNIP<  >SNIP<

I'm not sure what the Linux support groups are like, although I use 
mostly Linux I don't belong to any group.

The group is very friendly, and if you are having problems lots of 
people will assist you, many discuss possible mods and others chime in 
with their experiences.

Personally it's one of the best groups that I belong to.

Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23

[w6ids]

Hello, Chris...

Your message is a great read and does, in many small ways, touch
upon removal of growth restrictions for the digital aspects of our hobby,
the disfunctinal way it was done not withstanding.

I must say that while I find your writing refreshing, it is the first time 
that I
have ever heard anyone publicly make such a pronouncement.  That said,
if you hold to the comments below, I totally agree with the intent.  What I
have NEVER heard, anywhere, is a similar stand voiced by the common
Ham, since the subject reared its ugly head in the sixties.  What I have
heard is the lamenting that without CW testing, the control over quality is
lost.   Never did I hear anyone propose the notion that to operate CW, for
its own merit, would require a demonstration of skill before being allowed
to do so.

Demonstrating the skill for the sake of compentency in the art is far
removed from demonstrating the skill simply to be allowed to become
licensed, which is the old, time-worn diatribe spit forth in public in any
number of forums; despite international agreement recently as you said.
More's the pity, it was that line of thinking that still prevails today, 
linked
with CB-trash comments and the forecast of death of the Ham hobby in
general.

If your words are true, then perhaps they're a sign that in time, more 
rational
and reasonably thinking people may well prevail.  BTW, I still use CW and
my old Blue Racer as my mood directs, thank you.

- Original Message - 
From: Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] US Hams Codeless Feb 23

Chris, I was never one that said we should make ALL hf ops know CW. I made
a suggestion, in writing, to the ARRL years ago wherin I simply stated that
we should require EVERYONE that wanted to work CW, to take a test in that
mode.

 >SNIP<  >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] ALE CQ and ALE GPRS Re: SDRs Open Possibility for 18kHz Bandwidth HF Data?

[w6ids]

Yikes, Walt!  You could do some really creative CQ pictures for SSTV, not to
mention DRM with that callsign and phonetcs.   Barring any limations in the
imagination, of course.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Walt DuBose
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ALE CQ and ALE GPRS Re: SDRs Open Possibility 
for 18kHz Bandwidth HF Data?
  >SNIP<  >SNIP<

But I like calling CQ...

CQ CQ CQ this is K5YFW Kilo Five Yankee Foxttot Whiskey K5YFW Kiss Five 
Young
Friendly Women calling CQ 40 and standing by for any call. Over

Re: [digitalradio] Re: 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU Beacon Guardband

[w6ids]

Good Morning, Bonnie

It would seem to me that, on the whole, the average Ham in the U.S. is not
actually conversant with the content of information you've provided here.
I'm implying "generally" in my comment.  I wouldn't be surprised to find 
that
it is probably something only very vaguely understood regarding the scope of
the NCDXF/IARU Beacon Project, The ALE standards, and the IARU frequency
coordination. I don't think the average Ham actually understands the basics
of ALE, nor how it is intended for use, despite what you discuss in forums.

I don't know how widely the information is promulgated in reality, 
regardless of
how available the info is.  Again, I know it's put forth by you in forums 
but how
much of it reaches the general U.S. Ham population outside of those arenas
is unknown to me.

It would seem that there's misconceptions; I myself do not think in terms of
"channelization" as you use it, in fact, it seems most U.S. hams resent the 
use
of that term for whatever reason (other than the old saw about the "I'll die 
before
I give up my HF VFO" posturing).  Of course, those are MY words only.

There are some adaptations required for daily ALE ops it "seems" and maybe,
also, a rethink of how Ham Radio is employed and followed today by the
average Ham.  More's the pity, there may be technical and daily adaptations
required to such a degree that the average Ham may resist it because it DOES
involves change and evolution (I remember the advent of SSB vs AM back 
when).

Of course, this is strictly IMOH and YMMV and Burma Shave to boot.  I'm just
commenting off the top and thought I'd post this just for "grins.".

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: expeditionradio
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:39 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 14100.5 kHz USB - ALE Channel Bandwidth, IARU 
Beacon Guardband

> John VE5MU wrote:
>
> The logic of setting this up with an ALE frequency basically
> on top of the beacons is competely without merit,
> and based on the distorted notion that all hams possess the
> very latest in gear to filter out an ALE TX adjacent to
> the beacon frequency.

Dear John,

The ALE channel is not "on top of" the beacon channel as you suggest.

  >SNIP<  >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal TV?`

[w6ids]

Hey Dave

As I understand it, DigiTRX won't run on less than WIN XP.. I tried it 
with
Win98 and failed to be able to transmit.  I WAS able to receive pictures
and I've been told that wasn't quite normal.  Others have not been able to
get Digi going on anything other than at least XP; the programs allegedly
have been written for no less than that OS.

Others have said that you need at least a 1 Ghz machine to make things
go in Digi... I haven't seen that myself - my DigiTRX is working just 
fine.
I only need to acquire a linear amp to get the transmit going.

I run DigiTRX myself on a PIII @650 Mhz..an "oldie."  Personally, I like
DigiTRX over the current offerings but I've never been one to follow the 
pack
as it were.

What do you mean the constellation never stabilizes?
Can you pass along your settings as you have them?

I noticed that Andrew sent you a message.  He's pretty good with the
Digi thingies.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: David Kruh
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:53 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal TV?`

I can't use Easy Pal because I'm running Windows Me on on older Dell
Laptop. I run DIGTRX and can see the ID in the waterfall but the
constellation never stabilizes to see the picture. Does anyone use
DIGTRX?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal TV?`

[w6ids]

Thanks for correction.  I was told the my Win98 is the primary reason
why I couldn't transmit disregarding my PIII @650 Mhz.  Well, I finally
put Win XP Home in service and got it to work in my case.

Now to see why the "problem" with WinME, if any.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: cesco12342000
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal TV?`

> As I understand it, DigiTRX won't run on less than WIN XP..

No. Digtrx runs happily on win98. But you need 1ghz or better.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal TV?`

[w6ids]

Understood.  I've sort of heard grumblings over time about it but never
had first hand experience with it.  Your insight into it just might be of
use to.  That said, you'd think that he would be able to at least be
able to receive Digi transmissions butas you're pointing out, there's
more to this ultimately.  Wonder how WinDRM will work for him,
under WinME?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Danny Douglas
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anyone using DigiTRX (Ver 3.11) for ditigal 
TV?`

Howard, you are probably gonna hear it a lot, but ME is one of the worst, if
not the worst pieces of software that MS has ever turned out. Try updating
that computer to something like W2000, which is should handle fine. ME
isnt supported by most software packages.

Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice now

[w6ids]

If you went LSB, wouldn't that keep General Class licensees from straying 
below
the 40 meter cutoff frequency of 7.175?  UH, I think I said that right.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: John Becker
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital voice now

Tony this is to low in the phone band for a lot of us.

At 10:48 PM 3/22/2007, you wrote:
>All:
>
>I'm QRV digtial voice on 7176.0 USB. Any takers?
>It's 0400z.

Re: [digitalradio] multiple posts -

[w6ids]

FUGGITABOUTIT..  not your fault. no reason for anyone
finding their messages being repeated three, four, seven times
to feel obligated to apologize.  Shame on YAHOO

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN  

- Original Message - 
From: Bill McLaughlin 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:03 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] multiple posts -

Posted this once and see mutiple instances of it --- believe the same 
thing is being observed on other Yahoo groups but apologies in any case,

Re: [digitalradio] multiple posts -

[w6ids]

You're absolutely right.  I was being facicious (did I spell that right?),
and considering it appears to be small in impact, not too shabby.
Now then, thankfully it wasn't a virus we were all helping to spread.

Regards,

Howard W6IDS

- Original Message - 
From: Simon Brown 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] multiple posts -

- Original Message - 
From: "w6ids" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Shame on YAHOO

Not a bad service considering how much we pay for it :-)

Simon HB9DRV

Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol

[w6ids]

Hi Andy

Say again what the sound card issues were that you resolved?
Albeit the my answer to this question is in a website, I want to
ask. are we discussing a mode used to simply monitor and
document received signals and strength, etc or is this applicable
to normal comm activity?

For HF application, why the specific calling times and your
reference to regional protocol when calling?

Alan G3VLQ and I very briefly commented on this thread off line
and we both are a bit in the dark, for whatever reason.  What are
your comments on the mode and its use?

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew O'Brien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol

Dave,

JT65A is the submode for HF use.  The same protocol is used since the 
software is the same. One station calls on the "first minute" (00,02,04,06, 
etc) and the other on the second (01, 03, etc).

There is a convention that the most western station calls first when their 
is a scheduled "QSO"  but I do not always see that followed.

  >SNIP<  >SNIP< 

Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol

[w6ids]

Hi Andy,

I just did a Google search and found a plethora of links for the
mode.  I went on the link below and found it to be really a good
info source, very interesting:

http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj/jt44.htm

It still discusses 6M and up but YIKES!  A single beam and
100 - 400 watts, pointed to the horizon for EME?  Times have
indeed changed.

The only HF info/activity is appearing in this forum's threads.
I'm intrigued by the implications for sure.

Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew O'Brien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A Protocol


Dave,

JT65A is the submode for HF use.  The same protocol is used since the 
software is the same. One station calls on the "first minute" (00,02,04,06, 
etc) and the other on the second (01, 03, etc).

There is a convention that the most western station calls first when their 
is a scheduled "QSO"  but I do not always see that followed.

If you listen , and hear a signal CQing, note their sequence (first or 
second minute) and set up the software to respond accordingly.  If they are 
CQing  the first minute, you will be second minute and thus would check the 
auto box and  not have 1st TX box checked.

Andy K3UK