Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Jose A. Amador]

I did some measurements for a few days in november on ionospheric 
doppler using whatever "constant" signals have been available, like WWV, 
CHU, several broadcasters on 49 meters, including Radio Habana Cuba, 
whose transmitters are some 20 km away from my QTH and become a mix of 
NVIS and ground wave. I used Spectran to obtain the carriers spectrum, 
and I mean plural, because you get several "threads" dancing on the 
screen in frequency and amplitude. I shifted the carriers to 1 kHz, 
offseting the tuning by that amount.

The results have been interesting and a bit surprising. You may see 
several threads on the screen, spread around some 5 Hz. The frequency 
moves on the average at a rate of about 0.1 Hz per second (more or less, 
I was looking for absolute shift more than rate of shift, but both do 
matter). At times, some of the threads dissapear, and reappear shifted 
about 1 Hz per thread, sometimes jumping from one extreme of the 
carriers bunch to the other. The analysis bandwidth was between 20 and 
50 Hz wide. I was also playing with Spectran and learning how to use it.

That kind of behavior is a killer for many modulation schemes.

As Patrick says, PSK10 suffers much more than higher speeds because the 
bit duration is an important fraction of the doppler shift rate, and you 
never get anything as stable phase. But also, when relative amplitude 
among the several threads varies, the carrier regenerator may jump from
one to another. I did not look either for amplitude calibration during 
those first attempts. It may require periodic screenshots of the 
Spectran spectrum in the upper window. Reanalyzing some of those 
screenshots you may see amplitude differences as large as 20 dB at times 
and as small as 1 dB on some ocassions. But I was looking at the 
waterfall, and did not pay too much attention to amplitudes, and the 
screenshots timing was random between those patterns I found interesting
in the waterfall. I don't know so far if Spectran might be able to 
produce a printed log of the amplitude vs. time distribution of the 
threads amplitude (possibly not...).

Multicarrier modulations must also suffer, because if you use OFDM the 
jump from one of the "outer" threads to the other extreme, 5 Hz away, 
may be a cause for MT63 to refuse to decode at all sometimes.

That is on the lower boundary of usable speeds. But you are bound also 
by ISI (inter symbol interference) at the higher usable speeds.

One of the strategies of Pactor III is supressing some of the carriers 
at the lower data rates, and it sort of protects the signal by spacing 
the frequency bins a bit farther away, which may become more inmune of 
doppler causing the carriers to fall in the adjacent (wrong) bins.

I did not measure delay spread, and would appreciate suggestions on 
doing so. And I only see the time standards (CHU, WWV) as suitable using 
the second ticks as time markers. I am open to suggestions.

I cannot be conclusive about doppler spread now. It does not seem any 
worse on the higher frequencies, but then again, paths are different, 
and it does have an effect on what you get on the screen with Spectran.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> 
> Hello to all,
>  
> There are also some basic axioms (I suppose so) as:
>  
> 1) "Doppler iosnospheric modulation" acts on PSK modes (the phase is 
> "dancing" randomly, the Costas loop cannot stabilize and the PSK 
> decoding is quite impossible). The more the modulation speed is, the 
> less this Doppler acts on the phase difference (which determines the 
> bit). Hence, PSK10 is very sensitive to Doppler, PSK31 is less sensitive 
> and the effect is very weak on PSK125.
>  
> 2) "Doppler ionospheric modulation" effect is linear with the HF 
> frequency (smaller in 3.5 MHz that in 7 MHz). It seems logical but I'm 
> not so sure of it...
>  
> 73
> Patrick



__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[ve3fwf]

My experience indicates that Olivia 16-500 and MFSK are very solid modes for 
the conditions that we presently are experiencing during the current phase of 
the sunspot cycle.

I, like Bill, am amazed at Olivia's ability to copy signals that you can barely 
see on the waterfal and not even hear via audio. 30 meter propagation is 
sometimes not very good and Olivia really shines on this band.

I have had a dozen or so QSOs with MT63 and that mode seems to give a binary 
result. There is a lot of FEC going on in this mode so it should work very well 
under poor conditions. If you can copy, the copy is excellent -- near 100%;  
otherwise, no copy whatsover. Not too many people seem to use this mode so I 
believe I need more experience before having a good appreciation of this mode 
under various conditions.

73, Bernie


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bill McLaughlin 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:44 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc


  Well can only relate my impressions; hope others chime in

  I think even though DominoEX halves the speed when FEC in engaged, it 
  is well worth the speed trade-off. 160/80 seems to vary night to 
  night in this regard; probably due to qrn and multipath. It also 
  depends on one's ability/willingness to read between the lines as 
  there are a few hits at the higher speeds and one needs to brain-
  error correct as there is no ARQ. 
  As for Throb; I find it very sensitive, but at times it does not seem 
  to decode signals that are audiblenever figured out why.
  As for MFSK modes, yes they are very frequency sensitive although I 
  have had little trouble tuning most, aside from a few that took a 
  long time to sync. Multipsk's AFC seems to lock quite well on MFSK 
  signals, not sure how other software doescertainly DominoEX is 
  superior in that sense.
  I have not worked enought MT63 to comment. I have had better luck 
  with CHIP64 although both seem to not be qrp modes and require a high 
  signal to noise ratio...
  It is odd (but probably not so if studied correctly), on some nights 
  (condx) certain modes just seem to work better under various 
  conditionsat times I am amazed that Olivia can decode signals in 
  the mudother times I swear at it...one night on a VHF path only 
  PSKAM10 or JT65B would get through; guess that what makes it all fun.

  73 

  Bill N9DSJ

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >
  > Hi Bill,
  > 
  > Yes, busy night tonight on 160:)
  > 
  > The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found 
  on 
  > the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is 
  better 
  > when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it 
  > better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?
  > 
  > Tentatively, I almost want to say that it may be better at the 
  higher 
  > speed with FEC. If true, and I am not sure it is, it could be 
  because 
  > the higher speed still has a fairly low baud rate, even for some 
  serious 
  > multipath on the lower bands. The 77 wpm speed with DEX22/FEC is 
  faster 
  > than is comfortable for keyboarding so a slower speed is not bad. 
  The 
  > DEX11/FEC does seem quite robust, even with static crashes and who 
  knows 
  > how much multipath. Of course you can never get 100% copy under 
  certain 
  > conditions when too much of the data is damaged and the Viterbi 
  decoder 
  > can not reconstruct the character. Then an ARQ mode would be needed.
  > 
  > I wonder how well this type of mode would work with a PSKmail type 
  of 
  > program? I know that I had a very difficult time reading a PSK31 
  signal 
  > that was up the band from me. The earlier station that I was 
  talking 
  > with for our weekly sked for experimenting with these modes at 
  a "short" 
  > distance of about 35 miles or so indicated that he had good luck 
  with 
  > MT-63 in the past but the faster (wider) mode seemed to work better 
  due 
  > to having the data spread out so far. Has anyone else found this on 
  the 
  > lower bands with MT-63?
  > 
  > The ability to only approximately tune in DEX signals is extremely 
  > helpful for me as I find that I have a difficult time locking in on 
  > MFSK16. Earlier tonight WA9HCZ and I started our experiments with 
  ThrobX 
  > and although he could copy me solid, I could never decode his 
  signal. So 
  > I must have been doing something wrong. Ideally, these modes that 
  need 
  > extremely accurate tuning, should have some kind of display to help 
  you 
  > determine if you are far from locking in to the signal or not. 
  Something 
  > like we had with the early PSK programs.
  > 
  > 73,
  > 
  > Rick, KV9U



   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello to all,

There are also some basic axioms (I suppose so) as:

1) "Doppler iosnospheric modulation" acts on PSK modes (the phase is "dancing" 
randomly, the Costas loop cannot stabilize and the PSK decoding is quite 
impossible). The more the modulation speed is, the less this Doppler acts on 
the phase difference (which determines the bit). Hence, PSK10 is very sensitive 
to Doppler, PSK31 is less sensitive and the effect is very weak on PSK125. 

2) "Doppler ionospheric modulation" effect is linear with the HF frequency 
(smaller in 3.5 MHz that in 7 MHz). It seems logical but I'm not so sure of 
it...

73
Patrick


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jose A. Amador 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc



  I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data 
  gathered with ionospheric data archives.

  I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it 
  will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the 
  tunnel to get to see the light at the end...

  A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, 
  which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some "noise"
  will creep into it.

  With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive 
  statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY.

  It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if 
  research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY.

  A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to 
  weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder 
  crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the 
  amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments 
  has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of 
  the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short.

  With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which 
  are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies.

  On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned 
  effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be 
  quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more 
  prevalent variables on a given situation.

  I am very interested on this experiment.

  Jose, CO2JA

  jhaynesatalumni wrote:

  > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
  > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > >
  > > Rick,
  > >
  > > I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best
  > on each band and in varying conditions
  > 
  > This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was
  > getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when
  > the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's
  > going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know
  > all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B
  > under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under
  > apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator
  > software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions
  > are.

  __

  V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y 
Educación Energética.
  22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
  Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
  http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier


   

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Hummm, let me dig up the book or go back online and download it.

We can work in concert and try not to tell fish stories about our QSOs.  Hi Hi.

Walt

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:58 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc



I have not used Moe's simulator yet. It takes my second PC that is not
working now.

Could you tell people like me which are those variables available on 
Moe's simulator besides gaussian noise ?

So far I have only seen reports on gaussian noise using Moe's simulator.

And agreed. Working in concert is a MUST. Flaming each other is the 
least we need.

Jose, CO2JA

DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:

> STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim.
> It may not be the best in the world but is does have some variables
> and Moe has made it freely available.
> 
> Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator
> will allow and then chack you on-the-air reports against the
> standard.
> 
> We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of
> new digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but
> we MUST work in concert.
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us.


__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier



Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

You can establsih a base line for each mode with a simulator.

And while the propagation conditions vary a great deal, if you gather enough 
data, then you begin to get an average or norm.  This is much like keeping 
medical records on diseases treated with a specific drug...while no one case is 
alike, after a while you can see a norm on what each medicine can do.

Or in another way, we can keep tabs on the life span of Cuban Cigar smokers vs. 
those who smoke inferior cigars and see who lives the longest.  But you may 
need to keep track of 10,000 smokers.

In out case, perhaps we can get several thousand QSOs for each mode on each 
band.

Walt/K5YFW

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:47 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc



I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data 
gathered with ionospheric data archives.

I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it 
will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the 
tunnel to get to see the light at the end...

A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, 
which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some "noise"
will creep into it.

With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive 
statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY.

It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if 
research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY.

A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to 
weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder 
crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the 
amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments 
has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of 
the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short.

With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which 
are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies.

On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned 
effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be 
quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more 
prevalent variables on a given situation.

I am very interested on this experiment.

Jose, CO2JA

jhaynesatalumni wrote:

> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Rick,
>  >
>  > I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best
> on each band and in varying conditions
> 
> This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was
> getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when
> the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's
> going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know
> all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B
> under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under
> apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator
> software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions
> are.



__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier



Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Jose A. Amador]

I am afraid that you can only reach a determination on SOME of the data 
gathered with ionospheric data archives.

I think that Walt's proposal is a very good idea, but only part of it 
will have verifiable path conditions. Nevertheless, you have to walk the 
tunnel to get to see the light at the end...

A deterministic study will be more complex than building the database, 
which is not a trivial effort, even taking into acount that some "noise"
will creep into it.

With the database, as I see it NOW, you will be able to derive 
statistically which mode works the best most of the time, but not WHY.

It is indeed very complex to achieve a deterministic explanation, but if 
research on it it is not started you'll never know WHY.

A simulator study will fall short, because you have to know how to 
weight the variables, the amount of white noise, the amount of thunder 
crashes and thrashed blocks, the amount of ionospheric doppler, the 
amount of delay spread, etc. Even the amount of QRM on a given moments 
has a weight. A gaussian noise behavior study will only tell a part of 
the story. It is better than nothing, but it certainly falls short.

With the available modes, each one has strenghts and weaknesses, which 
are different among the different modulations and FEC/ARQ strategies.

On the other hand, a simulator that can provide the beforementioned 
effects could be used to derive tables of performance, which might be 
quite prectical. You would have then to sort out which are the more 
prevalent variables on a given situation.

I am very interested on this experiment.

Jose, CO2JA

jhaynesatalumni wrote:

> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Rick,
>  >
>  > I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best
> on each band and in varying conditions
> 
> This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was
> getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when
> the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud. It's
> going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know
> all the conditions. So I would expect to see that A is better than B
> under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under
> apprently the same conditions. This is where the channel simulator
> software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions
> are.



__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Jose A. Amador]

I have not used Moe's simulator yet. It takes my second PC that is not
working now.

Could you tell people like me which are those variables available on 
Moe's simulator besides gaussian noise ?

So far I have only seen reports on gaussian noise using Moe's simulator.

And agreed. Working in concert is a MUST. Flaming each other is the 
least we need.

Jose, CO2JA

DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:

> STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim.
> It may not be the best in the world but is does have some variables
> and Moe has made it freely available.
> 
> Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator
> will allow and then chack you on-the-air reports against the
> standard.
> 
> We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of
> new digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but
> we MUST work in concert.
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 
> Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us.


__

V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación 
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

STOMP STOMP STOPM...for the 10th time...use Moe Wheatley's PathSim.  It may not 
be the best in the world but is does have some variables and Moe has made it 
freely available.

Check out a mode with it under all the variables that his simulator will allow 
and then chack you on-the-air reports against the standard.

We (amateur radio operators) CAN so some serious scientific study of new 
digital modes and help the entire amateur radio communinity...but we MUST work 
in concert.

Walt/K5YFW

Sorry, not picking on you Rick...just us.

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jhaynesatalumni
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick,
> 
> I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best
on each band and in varying conditions

This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was
getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when
the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud.  It's
going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know
all the conditions.  So I would expect to see that A is better than B
under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under
apprently the same conditions.  This is where the channel simulator
software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions 
are.





Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick,
> 
> I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best
on each band and in varying conditions

This harks back to my recent comment on Olivia - how one night I was
getting solid copy on one station and no copy at all on another, when
the two were in QSO and I could hear both of them equally loud.  It's
going to be hard to get sure-fire evaluation because we don't quite know
all the conditions.  So I would expect to see that A is better than B
under certain conditions, but at another time B is better than A under
apprently the same conditions.  This is where the channel simulator
software can help, since with it you at least know what the conditions 
are.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[John Bradley]

domino EX , on multipsk. sorry if I mis-lead you Ozhan

John
  - Original Message - 
  From: ozhan onder 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:15 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc


  Hello John,
  What is DEX John?,a new digi mode to play with?..Tell us a little 
  bit..
  vy tnx.
  73's de Özhan TA3BQ
  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  >
  > With respect to MT63 , I have used it extensively in the past and 
  found it wanting, especially trying to tune a weak signal under less 
  than
  > optimum conditions, as the noise covered the audio up. Under side 
  by side tests it did not copy as well as Olivia (1000/32) . 
  probably half as well on the day tested between 2 stations 1500 
  miles apart on 20M . that day likely a 2 hop.
  > 
  > 
  > MFSK is fussy to tune, and with some folks using older rigs, is 
  subject to drift during a long TX at power. Does get through, 
  however, as well as
  > OLIVIA 500/16 , and much better than PSK31, again trying 
  multiple modes between distant stations.
  > 
  > DEX? I always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
  so have only used DEX locally. Look forward to playing with DEX 
  over a distance
  > Will sit on 14073 center freq in the AM and please let me know 
  if you are playing on 80 or 160 .
  > 
  > Monday night had some good luck with OLIVIA 500/16 over a 
  considerable distance on 160m
  > 
  > tnx
  > 
  > John
  > VE5MU
  >



   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 
7:54 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[John Becker]

Is it the band or the mode ? ? ?

It seems to me in my 35 years as a ham that 80 and 160
are at it's best this time of year.

John, W0JAB

At 09:51 PM 2/13/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Bill,
>
>Yes, busy night tonight on 160:)
>
>The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found on 
>the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is better 
>when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it 
>better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA]

Rick,

I hope you or someone is making a list of which modes work the best on each 
band and in varying conditions...s simple spread sheet as this:

ModeBandCondition   CopySoftware
FromTo
PSK31   80  Fair or 2   Fair or 2   Fldigi  KV9U
NK2X

Conditions could be Excellent (5), Good (4), Normal (3), Fair (2), Poor (1)

Copy could be Excellent (5), Good (4), Normal (3), Fair (2), Poor (1)
The From and To could also be the Grid

You ONLY REPORT contacts where you can exchange at least call, name, and Grid. 

This could be kept as a delimited text file, i.e.   PSK31,80,2,2, 
Fldigi,KV9U,NK2X

If two or three individuals would volunteer, then just send you signal reports 
to those individuals and the individuals could then send the group a compiled 
daily and weekly report.

Starting sometime in late April or May, I will volunteer to start doind this.

73,

Walt/K5YFW


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of KV9U
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:51 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc


Hi Bill,

Yes, busy night tonight on 160:)

The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found on 
the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is better 
when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it 
better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?

Tentatively, I almost want to say that it may be better at the higher 
speed with FEC. If true, and I am not sure it is, it could be because 
the higher speed still has a fairly low baud rate, even for some serious 
multipath on the lower bands. The 77 wpm speed with DEX22/FEC is faster 
than is comfortable for keyboarding so a slower speed is not bad. The 
DEX11/FEC does seem quite robust, even with static crashes and who knows 
how much multipath. Of course you can never get 100% copy under certain 
conditions when too much of the data is damaged and the Viterbi decoder 
can not reconstruct the character. Then an ARQ mode would be needed.

I wonder how well this type of mode would work with a PSKmail type of 
program? I know that I had a very difficult time reading a PSK31 signal 
that was up the band from me. The earlier station that I was talking 
with for our weekly sked for experimenting with these modes at a "short" 
distance of about 35 miles or so indicated that he had good luck with 
MT-63 in the past but the faster (wider) mode seemed to work better due 
to having the data spread out so far. Has anyone else found this on the 
lower bands with MT-63?

The ability to only approximately tune in DEX signals is extremely 
helpful for me as I find that I have a difficult time locking in on 
MFSK16. Earlier tonight WA9HCZ and I started our experiments with ThrobX 
and although he could copy me solid, I could never decode his signal. So 
I must have been doing something wrong. Ideally, these modes that need 
extremely accurate tuning, should have some kind of display to help you 
determine if you are far from locking in to the signal or not. Something 
like we had with the early PSK programs.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Bill McLaughlin wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>
>Just FYI; you and Dave (K3GAU) were solid copy on DoiminoEX on 160 
>tonight despite me using my 80 meter antenna. Actually seemed best 
>using 22 baud with FEC...one or two static crash hits, but overall 
>impressive considering my antenna limitations on 160 meters.
>
>73
>
>Bill N9DSJ
>
>
>  
>




Announce your digital  presence via our DX Cluster telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Our other groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[ozhan onder]

Hello John,
What is DEX John?,a new digi mode to play with?..Tell us a little 
bit..
vy tnx.
73's de Özhan TA3BQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> With respect to MT63 , I have used it extensively in the past and 
found it wanting, especially trying to tune a weak signal under less 
than
> optimum conditions, as the noise covered the audio up.  Under side 
by side tests it did not copy as well as Olivia (1000/32) . 
probably half as well on the day tested between 2 stations 1500 
miles apart on 20M . that day likely a 2 hop.
> 
> 
>   MFSK is fussy to tune, and with some folks using older rigs, is 
subject to drift during a long TX at power. Does get through, 
however, as well as
>   OLIVIA 500/16 , and much better than PSK31, again trying 
multiple modes between distant stations.
> 
>   DEX? I always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
so have only used DEX locally. Look forward to playing with DEX  
over a distance
>   Will sit on 14073 center freq in the AM and please let me know 
if you are playing on 80 or 160 .
> 
>   Monday night had some good luck with OLIVIA 500/16 over a 
considerable distance on 160m
> 
>   tnx
> 
>   John
>   VE5MU
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[John Bradley]

With respect to MT63 , I have used it extensively in the past and found it 
wanting, especially trying to tune a weak signal under less than
optimum conditions, as the noise covered the audio up.  Under side by side 
tests it did not copy as well as Olivia (1000/32) . probably half as well 
on the day tested between 2 stations 1500 miles apart on 20M . that day 
likely a 2 hop.


  MFSK is fussy to tune, and with some folks using older rigs, is subject to 
drift during a long TX at power. Does get through, however, as well as
  OLIVIA 500/16 , and much better than PSK31, again trying multiple modes 
between distant stations.

  DEX? I always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so have only 
used DEX locally. Look forward to playing with DEX  over a distance
  Will sit on 14073 center freq in the AM and please let me know if you are 
playing on 80 or 160 .

  Monday night had some good luck with OLIVIA 500/16 over a considerable 
distance on 160m

  tnx

  John
  VE5MU
   
   

[digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Bill McLaughlin]

Well can only relate my impressions; hope others chime in

I think even though DominoEX halves the speed when FEC in engaged, it 
is well worth the speed trade-off. 160/80 seems to vary night to 
night in this regard; probably due to qrn and multipath. It also 
depends on one's ability/willingness to read between the lines as 
there are a few hits at the higher speeds and one needs to brain-
error correct as there is no ARQ. 
As for Throb; I find it very sensitive, but at times it does not seem 
to decode signals that are audiblenever figured out why.
As for MFSK modes, yes they are very frequency sensitive although I 
have had little trouble tuning most, aside from a few that took a 
long time to sync. Multipsk's AFC seems to lock quite well on MFSK 
signals, not sure how other software doescertainly DominoEX is 
superior in that sense.
I have not worked enought MT63 to comment. I have had better luck 
with CHIP64 although both seem to not be qrp modes and require a high 
signal to noise ratio...
It is odd (but probably not so if studied correctly), on some nights 
(condx) certain modes just seem to work better under various 
conditionsat times I am amazed that Olivia can decode signals in 
the mudother times I swear at it...one night on a VHF path only 
PSKAM10 or JT65B would get through; guess that what makes it all fun.


73 

Bill N9DSJ





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Yes, busy night tonight on 160:)
> 
> The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found 
on 
> the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is 
better 
> when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it 
> better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?
> 
> Tentatively, I almost want to say that it may be better at the 
higher 
> speed with FEC. If true, and I am not sure it is, it could be 
because 
> the higher speed still has a fairly low baud rate, even for some 
serious 
> multipath on the lower bands. The 77 wpm speed with DEX22/FEC is 
faster 
> than is comfortable for keyboarding so a slower speed is not bad. 
The 
> DEX11/FEC does seem quite robust, even with static crashes and who 
knows 
> how much multipath. Of course you can never get 100% copy under 
certain 
> conditions when too much of the data is damaged and the Viterbi 
decoder 
> can not reconstruct the character. Then an ARQ mode would be needed.
> 
> I wonder how well this type of mode would work with a PSKmail type 
of 
> program? I know that I had a very difficult time reading a PSK31 
signal 
> that was up the band from me. The earlier station that I was 
talking 
> with for our weekly sked for experimenting with these modes at 
a "short" 
> distance of about 35 miles or so indicated that he had good luck 
with 
> MT-63 in the past but the faster (wider) mode seemed to work better 
due 
> to having the data spread out so far. Has anyone else found this on 
the 
> lower bands with MT-63?
> 
> The ability to only approximately tune in DEX signals is extremely 
> helpful for me as I find that I have a difficult time locking in on 
> MFSK16. Earlier tonight WA9HCZ and I started our experiments with 
ThrobX 
> and although he could copy me solid, I could never decode his 
signal. So 
> I must have been doing something wrong. Ideally, these modes that 
need 
> extremely accurate tuning, should have some kind of display to help 
you 
> determine if you are far from locking in to the signal or not. 
Something 
> like we had with the early PSK programs.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[KV9U]

Hi Bill,

Yes, busy night tonight on 160:)

The question I wanted to ask the group was whether they have found on 
the lower bands (especially 80 and 160) that DominoEX (DEX) is better 
when operating at a given speed such as DEX11/without FEC or is it 
better at twice the speed, but with FEC, e.g., DEX 22 with FEC?

Tentatively, I almost want to say that it may be better at the higher 
speed with FEC. If true, and I am not sure it is, it could be because 
the higher speed still has a fairly low baud rate, even for some serious 
multipath on the lower bands. The 77 wpm speed with DEX22/FEC is faster 
than is comfortable for keyboarding so a slower speed is not bad. The 
DEX11/FEC does seem quite robust, even with static crashes and who knows 
how much multipath. Of course you can never get 100% copy under certain 
conditions when too much of the data is damaged and the Viterbi decoder 
can not reconstruct the character. Then an ARQ mode would be needed.

I wonder how well this type of mode would work with a PSKmail type of 
program? I know that I had a very difficult time reading a PSK31 signal 
that was up the band from me. The earlier station that I was talking 
with for our weekly sked for experimenting with these modes at a "short" 
distance of about 35 miles or so indicated that he had good luck with 
MT-63 in the past but the faster (wider) mode seemed to work better due 
to having the data spread out so far. Has anyone else found this on the 
lower bands with MT-63?

The ability to only approximately tune in DEX signals is extremely 
helpful for me as I find that I have a difficult time locking in on 
MFSK16. Earlier tonight WA9HCZ and I started our experiments with ThrobX 
and although he could copy me solid, I could never decode his signal. So 
I must have been doing something wrong. Ideally, these modes that need 
extremely accurate tuning, should have some kind of display to help you 
determine if you are far from locking in to the signal or not. Something 
like we had with the early PSK programs.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Bill McLaughlin wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>
>Just FYI; you and Dave (K3GAU) were solid copy on DoiminoEX on 160 
>tonight despite me using my 80 meter antenna. Actually seemed best 
>using 22 baud with FEC...one or two static crash hits, but overall 
>impressive considering my antenna limitations on 160 meters.
>
>73
>
>Bill N9DSJ
>
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: Domnio, PAX etc

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hi Rick,

Just FYI; you and Dave (K3GAU) were solid copy on DoiminoEX on 160 
tonight despite me using my 80 meter antenna. Actually seemed best 
using 22 baud with FEC...one or two static crash hits, but overall 
impressive considering my antenna limitations on 160 meters.

73

Bill N9DSJ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> W1OER was on 14.073 just now so worked him and chatted a bit. He 
was 
> calling in DEX11/FEC and I was set up for DEX11 w/o FEC. And then 
> realized that I was actually on FEC because I had the RS ID Detect 
> turned on.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U