Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
expeditionradio wrote: A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. Some time ago I wrote to ARRL asking for donating free copies of QST and their promotive materials I could use to promote ham radio during various technical conferences in Europe. They refused with an explanation they preferred other ham radio societies to promote the hobby, rather than individual hams doing that. Recently I wrote to the QRZ editors for the same reason. They did not bother to reply at all. So far about 'efficient' promoting of ham radio ... 73 Misko YT7MPB PS: Btw, does anybody know whom to contact about copies of old articles of Greg Jones WD5IVD: 'Packet Radio Prospects for Educational Data Communications' (1992) and 'An Educator's Alternative to Costly Telecommunications'(1992). (I would need copies of them for reviewing and referencing in my planned book chapter.)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
That's the ARRL for ya. Individual hams aren't hams because they don't have that corporate body effect. The way i see it, although I love amateur radio is that alot of people want it to die so that they can make a buck with it like some of the GMRS repeater owners do, and then the PS agencies / military will get what is left of the freqs, then the businesses, etc. Echolink and Winlink never had much of a chance in reality anyway. It's good for it's intended uses, but with the number of people against it...it's an impossible situation. --- On Sat, 7/5/08, Miroslav Skoric (YT7MPB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Miroslav Skoric (YT7MPB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 11:16 AM expeditionradio wrote: A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. Some time ago I wrote to ARRL asking for donating free copies of QST and their promotive materials I could use to promote ham radio during various technical conferences in Europe. They refused with an explanation they preferred other ham radio societies to promote the hobby, rather than individual hams doing that. Recently I wrote to the QRZ editors for the same reason. They did not bother to reply at all. So far about 'efficient' promoting of ham radio ... 73 Misko YT7MPB PS: Btw, does anybody know whom to contact about copies of old articles of Greg Jones WD5IVD: 'Packet Radio Prospects for Educational Data Communications' (1992) and 'An Educator's Alternative to Costly Telecommunications' (1992). (I would need copies of them for reviewing and referencing in my planned book chapter.)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Miroslav, Try going to: http://www.tapr.org/pr_whypacketradio.html to see if it meets your needs. Rick W3BI --- On Sat, 7/5/08, Miroslav Skoric (YT7MPB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Miroslav Skoric (YT7MPB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 2:16 PM expeditionradio wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Hello Dick, Mixw has a Contestia+RTTYM DLL. The second mode (RTTYM) is not very interesting has you have the same sort of problem as with RTTY (you can switch from one set to another of characters and lose part of the text). I don't know why these modes are not definively integered in Mixw. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: kc4cop996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:12 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Patrick: Please advise the version of MixW that has Contestia as one of its modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
You have must go to the MixW web site and download the DLL files for those two modes. Very easy installation. Rick - KH2DF _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:49 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Hello Dick, Mixw has a Contestia+RTTYM DLL. The second mode (RTTYM) is not very interesting has you have the same sort of problem as with RTTY (you can switch from one set to another of characters and lose part of the text). I don't know why these modes are not definively integered in Mixw. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: kc4cop996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:dickzs%40comcast.net net To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:12 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Patrick: Please advise the version of MixW that has Contestia as one of its modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/sked eb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensw http://www.obriensweb.com/sked eb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Contestia is available in MixW, just download it from the main MixW web site, it's an add on which I believe includes Olivia and RTTYM. 73 de Ron W4LDE kc4cop996 wrote: Patrick: Please advise the version of MixW that has Contestia as one of its modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Contestia RTTYM are implemented in PocketDigi also. 73, Vojtech OK1IAK, AB2ZA
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Darn if I can find on the MixW Download page. Learning Contest is in beta helped but the link that Peter (K1PGV) posted helped a lot more. Thanks to all for your help. During the several years that I have used MixW (admittedly sporadicly)I have yet to find a central download website. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w4lde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contestia is available in MixW, just download it from the main MixW web site, it's an add on which I believe includes Olivia and RTTYM. 73 de Ron W4LDE kc4cop996 wrote: Patrick: Please advise the version of MixW that has Contestia as one of its modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker f6cte@ wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson btw@ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
MFSK16 is available as freeware on both MMVARI and Stream. It's a little finicky to tune on Stream (the orignial software for the mode), but easy using MMVARI. As for its usefulness under poor conditions, a station in Reno and I used it to extend the useful like of a sked the other evening by a good half hour after PSK became useless. 73, Bill, K7JBQ
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Patrick: Please advise the version of MixW that has Contestia as one of its modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia. Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Patrick: I just learned of your MultiPSK program this afternoon. I am overwhelmed with it at the moment. I have a little idea of what I am doing on MixW - which makes it a good place to start with Contestia Dick Z., kc4cop --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa6yq@ wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
HI John, I was in the USAF from 1968-1972, and we used the old oilers with punched tape, I think it was a model 15? Nothing like the smell and noise of the old clunkers. 73 Buddy WB4M Interesting statement. Not to long ago I was at a meeting of a big group of hams. The subject came up about RTTY of who was using what program. I was listening to all when I was ask what I use. My answer opened many eyes whey I said that I was computer free for RTTY. Ask how I do that I answered - the same way I have been doing it the last 35 years with a RTTY machine. Since many was younger then my machines one said I would like to see one of them working. 5 miles away was my QTH. With a shack full of people I yell to the XYL - could you run out and get some more beer? LOTS of it. 02:14 CSDT say good night to the last of them and turn out lights - head for bed. Q how many hams can you fit into a shack 30 X 20 feet? A 24 with room for more. John, W0JAB Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
I was in the USAF from 1968 to 1972 but did not work in communications (more along the lines of security, HI). It was not until a few years after I was relicensed in 1980 that I got involved with digital modes buying a Model 15 and making a simple TU promoted by the ARRL as a state of the art TU even though knowledgeable digital ops knew it certainly was not anything of the sort. But I did not realize it until I started using it. It did work acceptably when its primary use was on our local RTTY 2 meter regenerative repeater system, but on HF it was close to unacceptable in performance. I built my own homebrew loop supply and even borrowed a tube TU loosely based on the ST-6 design. No one was happier than me to get away from the noise and smell and mess of TTY hardware when the computer became affordable with the Commodore 64 and interfacing. The main modes were RTTY and Amtor, the first digital amateur ARQ mode. Other modes followed and we saw improvements in error free transmissions with Pactor and Clover II. After selling everything digital to come up with enough money at the time to buy the HAL P-38 ISA board for my IBM 286, I was forced to completely quite HF digital modes when I returned (at a loss) the pathetic P-38 which never was able to properly operate Pactor. In fact HAL would not even call it Pactor and referred to it as P mode. The main digital mode became packet on VHF, but then the invention of PSK31 changed everything. Hardware modems were no longer necessary, not even the alternative separate DVM 5600x series outboard units. You could do it with just the sound card. The sea change was quite large and hardware modems became mostly obsolete except for the high end SCS units which are still sold to a few who mostly use it for e-mail. The new modes that were developed after PSK31 have not been so much better that there is a wide spread movement to them. Some are better than PSK31 for some purposes, but when you factor in all the parameters for the average casual operator, PSK31 does well. No other mode is as narrow for the speed. It may not be very resistant to doppler or interference but when conditions get bad, the majority of hams turn off the radio and do something else rather than attempt to get through with modes that can handle those kinds of conditions. The way that the modes stack up for me for practical use: PSK31 - the most commonly used mode where you can almost always make a contact 24/7 on some HF band at any given time. If you actually used a digital mode to make an emergency communication contact, this would be the first choice over all other digital modes assuming you would actually use digital modes over tactical voice which is preferred for this purpose. MFSK16 - moderately narrow mode, critical tuning, thus requires accurate sound card calibration, works much better into the noise than PSK31 and is one of my preferred modes. Olivia - more robust with interference and sometimes with weak signals but requires a combination of very slow throughput and/or very wide bandwidth to maintain the robustness. Also, there are so many combinations that it can be difficult to quickly match the baud rate and number of tones from the other station and you may miss them. FAE400 - currently the best ARQ sound card mode by far. No other SC ARQ mode can come close to the convenience, weak signal ability, relatively narrow bandwidth, and speed along with quasi duplex operation (no need to have an over command). If I could only have one SC mode, this would be the one. However, it is rarely used since it is only available on Multipsk and most hams don't have a need for error free contacts. I try not to use modes wider than 500 Hz in the narrow RTTY/Data portions of the bands as I consider it to be very poor operating. The one exception is wide band ALE which is 2000 Hz and it probably should only be used in the phone/image portions of the bands and then for initial contact. The speed is very slow for the wide bandwidth and it is not very robust. I realize that the thinking is to include hardware backward compatibility, but this is an older legacy mode (developed in the 1970's for voice channelized commercial/government use) and newer modes such as FAE400 would be far better for amateur use as a more appropriate ham friendly technology that uses a similar waveform. The other criteria for me is that the mode must at least work at 30 wpm or better. Anything slower is too slow to interest me. Some digital operators may have modest or even very slow keyboarding skills and would find slower modes acceptable to them. 73, Rick, KV9U
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
I had an ASR-33 in my dorm room at college (~37 years ago) for access to a remote timesharing system. It was quite a conversation piece back then too... 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of F.R. Ashley Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:34 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology HI John, I was in the USAF from 1968-1972, and we used the old oilers with punched tape, I think it was a model 15? Nothing like the smell and noise of the old clunkers. 73 Buddy WB4M Interesting statement. Not to long ago I was at a meeting of a big group of hams. The subject came up about RTTY of who was using what program. I was listening to all when I was ask what I use. My answer opened many eyes whey I said that I was computer free for RTTY. Ask how I do that I answered - the same way I have been doing it the last 35 years with a RTTY machine. Since many was younger then my machines one said I would like to see one of them working. 5 miles away was my QTH. With a shack full of people I yell to the XYL - could you run out and get some more beer? LOTS of it. 02:14 CSDT say good night to the last of them and turn out lights - head for bed. Q how many hams can you fit into a shack 30 X 20 feet? A 24 with room for more. John, W0JAB Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Yes indeed. And that noise and smell lives on in this shack... You should be here sometime when I have all 3 running at once. What a wonderful sound ! At 07:34 AM 7/3/2008, you wrote: HI John, I was in the USAF from 1968-1972, and we used the old oilers with punched tape, I think it was a model 15? Nothing like the smell and noise of the old clunkers. 73 Buddy WB4M
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
The claim was made that Olivia and MFSK16 are better than PSK for ragchewing. The point of my response was not that these modes are bad -- it was that these modes have characteristics that make them less appealing than PSK for most ops. Panoramic reception makes it easy to quickly find an available QSO partner; its helpful when DXing, or ragchewing -- not just when contesting. I also use MultiPSK when operating digital modes other than PSK or RTTY. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Benson Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:35 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
John, You should have been in a comm center with anywhere from 3 to 40 running at the same time! Turn on the AC!! 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Yes indeed. And that noise and smell lives on in this shack... You should be here sometime when I have all 3 running at once. What a wonderful sound ! At 07:34 AM 7/3/2008, you wrote: HI John, I was in the USAF from 1968-1972, and we used the old oilers with punched tape, I think it was a model 15? Nothing like the smell and noise of the old clunkers. 73 Buddy WB4M Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
One way to increase exposure to the less popular digital modes would be to setup a web site where users about to call CQ in a particular mode could post their frequency. So when I want to give Contestia a try, I could search this site for active Contestia ops and know where to QSY and point my antenna. The DX Cluster network could be used for this purpose, but some users dislike self-spotting. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Great idea. Dave k0cop Dave AA6YQ wrote: One way to increase exposure to the less popular digital modes would be to setup a web site where users about to call CQ in a particular mode could post their frequency. So when I want to give Contestia a try, I could search this site for active Contestia ops and know where to QSY and point my antenna. The DX Cluster network could be used for this purpose, but some users dislike self-spotting. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Patrick Lindecker *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:06 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Hello all, Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is Contestia, which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is built on the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a reduced set of characters. It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:btw%40fastmail.us To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
--- On Thu, 7/3/08, tailfeathers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: tailfeathers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, July 3, 2008, 4:03 PM PSK software is simple to use and free everywhere...Is the same software available free for these other modes? Gary n8gsj There are many free programs for most modes. Here is a place that list many of the sound card programs, many for free. http://www.muenster.de/~welp/sb.htm
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Benson wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. I could care less about mode envy but I will say that I enjoy both Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band conditions than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to tune at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a lack of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about contesting. I too have not had any problems in tuning MFSK16 and particularly since the better programmers have added a short pulse of carrier at the beginning of each transmission. One only has to place the marker over that pulse and tunning is done. If one uses a really top digital program such as Multipsk with RSID then not only is the mode recognized and the software automatically changed to that mode, but it also accurately tunes to the signal. It is obvious that there are a lot of vocal hams out there who are ignorant of the present state of the digital art Kevin VK5OA
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
If most PSK operators are interested in rag chewing -they need to move on to a better digital mode. PSK and RTTY are the two worst modes available. And that's the problem. Too many people, groups, and leaders in the Ham Community promoting OLD and less than effective modes of communication. I came into the digital soundcard ham world in about 2003 and it has ONLY been in the last year or so that the A.R.R.L. finally started putting decent articles in their mag. And still PSK and RTTY reign as the popular soundcard modes. Geeesh! ATTENTION PSKers : Try something else - CALL CQ in other modes - don't just listen. And don't listen to what everybody else tells you about a mode because misinformation reigns! Test it yourself and kick the tires. Olivia, DominoEX, MFSK, ALE400, and many others all worth trying. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most PSK operators are interested in rag-chewing rather than DXing, which does make it difficult for a DX station to achieve a reasonable rate in PSK. When operating from a DX location, I operate PSK to take a break between CW and RTTY pileups. The ability to decode many independent transmissions within one's transceiver passband makes PSK in theory more effective for DXing than any other mode we now have; its more effective than split frequency operation because decoding multiple callers simultaneously assures that you always have a station to call -- so your rate is continuous. But its rare for there to be enough DXers QRV to sustain this rate for any significant length of time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Lovell arsk7jbq@ wrote: I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
garylinnrobinson wrote: If most PSK operators are interested in rag chewing -they need to move on to a better digital mode. PSK and RTTY are the two worst modes available. And that's the problem. Too many people, groups, and leaders in the Ham Community promoting OLD and less than effective modes of communication. I came into the digital soundcard ham world in about 2003 and it has ONLY been in the last year or so that the A.R.R.L. finally started putting decent articles in their mag. And still PSK and RTTY reign as the popular soundcard modes. Geeesh! ATTENTION PSKers : Try something else - CALL CQ in other modes - don't just listen. And don't listen to what everybody else tells you about a mode because misinformation reigns! Test it yourself and kick the tires. Olivia, DominoEX, MFSK, ALE400, and many others all worth trying. - Hear Hear PSK31WAS a great breakthrough as compared with RTTY AT THE TIME of its introduction. There are many Digital modes available to the Ham now, that are a great break through compared to PSK. I think that we have here a case of the dog chasing its tail in that it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to make a qso in one of the newer modes, so to make a contact, one tends to go back to the psk area, thus compounding the problem. Perhaps more vigorous advertising of the frequencies used by other modes might help. Kevin VK5OA
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to long ago I was at a meeting of a big group of hams. The subject came up about RTTY of who was using what program. I was listening to all when I was ask what I use. My answer opened many eyes whey I said that I was computer free for RTTY. Ask how I do that I answered - the same way I have been doing it the last 35 years with a RTTY machine. John, W0JAB Hi John, What model TTY do you have? In my earlier days in The Army, I did some TTY repair - I don't think I could even lift the Cast Iron cover of one of those Dinosaurs today. Most of them were built in the 1930's, and they were a lot simpler to work on than the later, lighter, and more compact models. Hank - KI4UMX
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are better than PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to tune. By design, DominoEX addresses both of these issues, but at the expense of increased bandwidth -- which makes panoramic reception less attractive. You provide no rationale for why you consider these modes to be better, nor do you provide any substantiation of your claim that PSK and RTTY are the two worst modes available. If RTTY is a less than effective mode of of communication, how do explain the fact that ops have achieved RTTY DXCC Honor Roll? How many DXCC entities have you confirmed using Olivia, DominoEX, MFSK, or ALE400? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of garylinnrobinson Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology If most PSK operators are interested in rag chewing -they need to move on to a better digital mode. PSK and RTTY are the two worst modes available. And that's the problem. Too many people, groups, and leaders in the Ham Community promoting OLD and less than effective modes of communication. I came into the digital soundcard ham world in about 2003 and it has ONLY been in the last year or so that the A.R.R.L. finally started putting decent articles in their mag. And still PSK and RTTY reign as the popular soundcard modes. Geeesh! ATTENTION PSKers : Try something else - CALL CQ in other modes - don't just listen. And don't listen to what everybody else tells you about a mode because misinformation reigns! Test it yourself and kick the tires. Olivia, DominoEX, MFSK, ALE400, and many others all worth trying. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most PSK operators are interested in rag-chewing rather than DXing, which does make it difficult for a DX station to achieve a reasonable rate in PSK. When operating from a DX location, I operate PSK to take a break between CW and RTTY pileups. The ability to decode many independent transmissions within one's transceiver passband makes PSK in theory more effective for DXing than any other mode we now have; its more effective than split frequency operation because decoding multiple callers simultaneously assures that you always have a station to call -- so your rate is continuous. But its rare for there to be enough DXers QRV to sustain this rate for any significant length of time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Lovell arsk7jbq@ wrote: I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Its difficult to make a QSO in the newer modes because they aren't better enough than PSK or RTTY to motivate a broad-scale transition, so their use remains limited to a small number of afficianados. When someone develops and deploys a mode with significant improvements over PSK and no retrenchment, it will be broadly adopted -- and without need of postings berating PSK users to give it a try. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin O'Rorke Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology garylinnrobinson wrote: If most PSK operators are interested in rag chewing -they need to move on to a better digital mode. PSK and RTTY are the two worst modes available. And that's the problem. Too many people, groups, and leaders in the Ham Community promoting OLD and less than effective modes of communication. I came into the digital soundcard ham world in about 2003 and it has ONLY been in the last year or so that the A.R.R.L. finally started putting decent articles in their mag. And still PSK and RTTY reign as the popular soundcard modes. Geeesh! ATTENTION PSKers : Try something else - CALL CQ in other modes - don't just listen. And don't listen to what everybody else tells you about a mode because misinformation reigns! Test it yourself and kick the tires. Olivia, DominoEX, MFSK, ALE400, and many others all worth trying. - Hear Hear PSK31WAS a great breakthrough as compared with RTTY AT THE TIME of its introduction. There are many Digital modes available to the Ham now, that are a great break through compared to PSK. I think that we have here a case of the dog chasing its tail in that it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to make a qso in one of the newer modes, so to make a contact, one tends to go back to the psk area, thus compounding the problem. Perhaps more vigorous advertising of the frequencies used by other modes might help. Kevin VK5OA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Bill Lovell wrote: I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill I have never tried PSK31. I have no equipment yet but I am very interested in learning. What is the reason for split operation and how wide is the split? Alan -- W8OAJ - Chaplain (CPT) O. Alan Jones, USAR - Fort Bliss, TX http://exwn8jef.googlepages.com/home http://w8oaj.blogspot.com
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Most PSK operators are interested in rag-chewing rather than DXing, which does make it difficult for a DX station to achieve a reasonable rate in PSK. When operating from a DX location, I operate PSK to take a break between CW and RTTY pileups. The ability to decode many independent transmissions within one's transceiver passband makes PSK in theory more effective for DXing than any other mode we now have; its more effective than split frequency operation because decoding multiple callers simultaneously assures that you always have a station to call -- so your rate is continuous. But its rare for there to be enough DXers QRV to sustain this rate for any significant length of time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
One use of split frequency operation is to spread a DX station's callers out over a range of frequencies that does not include the DX station's frequency. This enables the DX station to more rapidly work callers (because they don't overlap each other as much, and because the DX station's transmissions are clearly heard by all callers). The width of the split depends on the bandwidth of the mode and the size of the pileup. A typical CW split might be up 1 to 2 (KHz); whereas a typical RTTY split might be up 3 to 6. Some DX stations allow their pileups to become too wide, risking QRM to ongoing QSOs; this is poor operating practic. I have only participated in a few intentionally split PSK QSOs; as I recall, the split was a few hundred Hz. Some PSK QSOs are unintentionally split, meaning that the two stations are transmitting and receiving on frequencies offset by a few hertz. This can be caused by soundcard problems, or by incorrect use of AFC and Net when establishing the QSO; most PSK applications enable you to compensate for the former. For a good introduction to PSK, Google introduction to PSK This will provide hyperlinks to several tutorials, including some here's how videos on You Tube. You'll find that PSK operators will warmly welcome you to their ranks; while in QSO, don't hesitate to ask questions. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Lovell wrote: I think the basic problem is that fewer than 10% of PSK31 operators have ever bothered to learn how to set up split operation. One more reason that the mode is great for casual DXing, but next to useless for serious DX work. 73, Bill I have never tried PSK31. I have no equipment yet but I am very interested in learning. What is the reason for split operation and how wide is the split? Alan -- W8OAJ - Chaplain (CPT) O. Alan Jones, USAR - Fort Bliss, TX http://exwn8jef.googlepages.com/home http://w8oaj.blogspot.com
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Dave, AA6YQ wrote, The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... Dave, A more accurate ham radio dogfood analogy would go like this: I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies were eaten by the wolves. Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid 20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature like your example of panoramic reception software to spice up an old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of operation... still RTTY :) But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or how existing hams are using modes. The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. This situation can only be changed by operators who are not afraid to stand up to those who display such sour attitudes in public. Until this kind of change happens, prospective new hams who are growing up totally connected by RF with WiFi, webfones in their pockets and Bluetooth in their ear, will see ham radio as a dead end or an irrelevant old folks pastime... they WILL go elsewhere to be creative or have fun or learn about RF technology. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Well said Bonnie. I came to ham radio late in life as it were. I was first licensed in 2001 and upgraded last year with end of Morse testing. Frankly I'd like to get the code down to a usable level but a small problem with hear dyslectic make it difficult and frustrating. I well know the feeling generated by the vitriol of the folks who fought the changes, fortunately within the club I belong to it hasn't been real prevalent and new hams are welcomed regardless of their level. Further efforts are made to help all f us along. And as to the digital radio part. Some time ago I was attempting to work Pitcairn Island on 20M BPSK31. John was working split up about 500 kHz on the waterfall and was clearly stating so in his calls. I the fairly new no code general understood this somehow the two guys with the AA6 calls couldn't seem to figure it out and every time I'd start an exchange one of them would call right on top of Pitcairn. New did make a successful 2 way with John as I think it got fed up and shut down as I wasn't able to see him again either evening inspite of a good band opening. So it goes and we go on still looking for the elusive ones. 73's, Curt Curt Givens KC8STE, AAR5VR Army MARS Earthdog and Special Programs Director GCDOC/GCAC Dayton, OH Registering lawful Americans who possess a gun to stop armed criminals, is like registering virgins to stop prostitution. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:12 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology Dave, AA6YQ wrote, The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... Dave, A more accurate ham radio dogfood analogy would go like this: I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies were eaten by the wolves. Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid 20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature like your example of panoramic reception software to spice up an old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of operation... still RTTY :) But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or how existing hams are using modes. The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. This situation can only be changed by operators who are not afraid to stand up to those who display such sour attitudes in public. Until this kind of change happens, prospective new hams who are growing up totally connected by RF with WiFi, webfones in their pockets and Bluetooth in their ear, will see ham radio as a dead end or an irrelevant old folks pastime... they WILL go elsewhere to be creative or have fun or learn about RF technology. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links ___ No viruses found in this incoming message Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5 http://www.iolo.com ___ No viruses found in this outgoing message Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.3.5 http://www.iolo.com
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, AA6YQ wrote, The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... A more accurate ham radio dogfood analogy would go like this: I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies were eaten by the wolves. Most innovative new ideas are vigorously attacked, Bonnie -- unless they are so obviously flawed or irrelevant that they are just ignored. In the domain of engineering, these attacks are an essential part of the process by initial concepts become pragmatic solutions. The successful innovator not only tolerates such criticism, he or she actively solicits it. In today's web 2.0 speak, this is the wisdom of crowds; 50 years ago, it was if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid 20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature like your example of panoramic reception software to spice up an old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of operation... still RTTY :) This paragraph exposes a passel of personal prejudices, Bonnie. It also contains a solid helping of guilt by association, reminiscent of Professor Howard Hill's warning against the game of Pool which starts with P which rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. Just because PSK31 offers real-time keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs doesn't mean that its users are stuck in the 1950s any more than the use of cellphones for real-time voice communication means that most of the world's population is stuck in the 1920s. Your dismisal of panoramic reception as cute misses a critical point. Peter G3PLX's initial PSK31 implementations -- the first of which required special purpose hardware, and the second of which ran on a PC but was difficult to use -- achieved little in the way of adoption. It was the addition of panoramic reception that pushed PSK31 past the tipping point of broadscale adoption. Would the addition of panoramic reception to RTTY have pushed RTTY into broad scale usage? Probably not (we can discuss this on another thread, if there's interest). The non-linear positive results generated from an effective implementation of just the right ideas are sought after in many domains; the Douglas DC3 aircraft is a oft-cited example of the same effect in aeronautics. Anyone interested in the acceptance of innovative new ideas for broad acceptance by the amateur radio community would be well served to understand this effect, rather than write off an essential ingredient as cute. But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or how existing hams are using modes. The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. You mistake criticism of new ideas for bad attitude. The rapid adoption of PSK31 by the amateur community proves that it presents no impenetrable obstacles to the uptake of good ideas and useful technologies when implemented in a useable manner. However, bad ideas and flaws in good ideas will be mercilessly exposed, -- as they must be if the process of innovation is to succeed. A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. Yes, wistfullness can be a problem. Normally this dies off with each generation of users, but licensing requirements can prolong the agony by an extra generation. It means that new innovations must be incrementally more useful and valuable to overcome generational friction. PSK met this challenge, and SDR appears to be well on its way. Hand-wringing over the fact that it isn't as easy as it ought to be is a distraction from the work at hand. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. WinLink was and is attacked on solid technical grounds: its unattended stations transmit on frequencies already in use, interfering with ongoing QSOs. The defense of WinLink has been a perfect example of anti-innovative behavior -- rather than acknowledge the problems and correct them, its advocates
RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
HEAR HEAR! Gil, W0MN http://webpages.charter.net/gbaron N 44.082147 W 92.513085 1050' EN34rb Hierro Candente, Batir de repente -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:48 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, AA6YQ wrote, The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... A more accurate ham radio dogfood analogy would go like this: I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies were eaten by the wolves. Most innovative new ideas are vigorously attacked, Bonnie -- unless they are so obviously flawed or irrelevant that they are just ignored. In the domain of engineering, these attacks are an essential part of the process by initial concepts become pragmatic solutions. The successful innovator not only tolerates such criticism, he or she actively solicits it. In today's web 2.0 speak, this is the wisdom of crowds; 50 years ago, it was if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid 20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature like your example of panoramic reception software to spice up an old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of operation... still RTTY :) This paragraph exposes a passel of personal prejudices, Bonnie. It also contains a solid helping of guilt by association, reminiscent of Professor Howard Hill's warning against the game of Pool which starts with P which rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. Just because PSK31 offers real-time keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs doesn't mean that its users are stuck in the 1950s any more than the use of cellphones for real-time voice communication means that most of the world's population is stuck in the 1920s. Your dismisal of panoramic reception as cute misses a critical point. Peter G3PLX's initial PSK31 implementations -- the first of which required special purpose hardware, and the second of which ran on a PC but was difficult to use -- achieved little in the way of adoption. It was the addition of panoramic reception that pushed PSK31 past the tipping point of broadscale adoption. Would the addition of panoramic reception to RTTY have pushed RTTY into broad scale usage? Probably not (we can discuss this on another thread, if there's interest). The non-linear positive results generated from an effective implementation of just the right ideas are sought after in many domains; the Douglas DC3 aircraft is a oft-cited example of the same effect in aeronautics. Anyone interested in the acceptance of innovative new ideas for broad acceptance by the amateur radio community would be well served to understand this effect, rather than write off an essential ingredient as cute. But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or how existing hams are using modes. The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. You mistake criticism of new ideas for bad attitude. The rapid adoption of PSK31 by the amateur community proves that it presents no impenetrable obstacles to the uptake of good ideas and useful technologies when implemented in a useable manner. However, bad ideas and flaws in good ideas will be mercilessly exposed, -- as they must be if the process of innovation is to succeed. A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. Yes, wistfullness can be a problem. Normally this dies off with each generation of users, but licensing requirements can prolong the agony by an extra generation. It means that new innovations must be incrementally more useful and valuable to overcome generational friction. PSK met this challenge, and SDR appears to be well on its way. Hand-wringing over the fact that it isn't as easy as it ought to be is a distraction from the work
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
As usual, Dave puts the correct perspective to advancing technology. Ask yourself why others would attack what many radio amateurs enjoy doing and even go so far as to use extreme name calling and personal attacks of hams don't happen to support their vision or beliefs of what should be a successful technology. Amateur radio will survive primarily by keeping the older technologies available as well as adding some new ones that prove themselves. Sometimes new things are good enough to attract others, but most of the time they are not (ACSSB). Sometimes they are wildly successful for a time but are preempted by other forces (packet radio). Some of the major mode breakthroughs with radio technology, have been the ability to use CW (rather than damped waves), SSB rather than DSB AM, low cost FM phone technologies which work well with repeaters, etc. They may never become obsolete as long as they fulfill the needs of the users and can do the job better than anything else. There have been advances made with melding computers with radio and although may not always be directly related to amateur radio, are still considered a part of it: IRLP, Echolink, internet e-mail, even discussions such as we are having at this moment in time in this very group. But not very many are interested in such specialty areas, often only a few percent of the radio amateur population. A few may prefer eSSB, digital voice, older AM modulation, but then a much larger group prefers casual VHF FM repeater operation, contesting, DXing, and other of the myriad forms of the hobby. And it is mostly a hobby or else few would be interested or active. Even for those, such as myself, who focus more on how can we improve emergency communications. We are a tiny subset of the whole. Clearly, PSK31 and RTTY are the preferred digital HF modes at this time. Anyone who attacks others for enjoying those activities is acting in a very inappropriate manner and one has to ask if they have some underlying personal problems or behaviors. We all know people who act in this manner and we tend to shun them as they marginalize themselves and paint themselves into a ever narrowing corner of what could have been a wide open space. No matter how much we might want to, we can not force others to see our way of operation or our particular choice of technology. We can only attempt to improve something to the point that others take notice and see the value in what we are doing. Most new concepts are flawed and fall by the wayside. There are only a few that can withstand serious scrutiny and the test of time and prove their worth. If you are involved in something new, ask yourself everyday: Am I behaving in an appropriate manner to my fellow hams? Am I listening attentively to any criticisms, recommendations, requests for help, offered solutions, etc.? And am I trying to build a community, or do I want to control others? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. Given this rapid transition, it seems unlikley that the amateur community then shifted gears en amsse and refused to consider all subsequent advances in digital mode technology. The more likely explanation is that, from the community's perspective, none of the subsequent advances in digital mode technolgy have to this point offered sufficient new appeal/value to motivate a broad transition from PSK31. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. Given this rapid transition, it seems unlikley that the amateur community then shifted gears en amsse and refused to consider all subsequent advances in digital mode technology. The more likely explanation is that, from the community's perspective, none of the subsequent advances in digital mode technolgy have to this point offered sufficient new appeal/value to motivate a broad transition from PSK31. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When was the last time you talked to a teenage ham on HF digital? If you are a ham in a Western country, more than 35 or 40 years old, it is likely that you are last of the generations of active hams in your country. Look around, there are very few new young hams. Right now, I'm seeing a rapid increase in active hams in China... possibly the only country in the world where this is happening... mostly due to the recent relaxing of chinese Amateur Radio regulations and the huge number of people in high tech professions. Because most hams in China are not influenced by the english-speaking world of ham nay-sayers, the new wave of young Chinese hams have a vibrant experimental attitude, a good grasp of new technology, and they are active on the air. If hams in The West are to attract new young ham operators (or even maintain the existing hams younger than 30 years old), we need to start by changing the public attitude a lot of the older hams have toward those who are adopting new digital technologies. Will we graduate beyond PSK31 and keyboarding before this generation dies off? Or will we stagnate, to the point of oblivion, a footnote in history? Will Amateur Radio lose its spectrum simply by default, due to inevitable inactivity after this generation is gone? I'm already seeing it happening... the ham bands are being taken over by non- hams in many parts of the world. The pirates or government stations simply get on and use the band without any concern... there are more and more of them every day. We have broadcasters and jammers on 20 meters now (real high power AM shortwave broadcasters). All of 40 meters (including 7000-7100 kHz) and 80 meters has been taken over in most of Asia, Africa, and South America. They wouldn't be there if hams were actively occupying the frequencies already. Yet, regular activity on the ham bands is on the decrease. I've watched this happening over the 40 years I've been a ham. Sure, we have a few flurries of contest activity on the weekends (when the HF pirates are inactive). But, the sustained activity we once had, even 10 or 15 years ago is gone. And, it is not just due to the solar minimum :) Young people simply do not stick around places where they see the status quo putting down creativity, innovation, and actively discouraging new technology. QRZ.com and eham.net are flagship examples of this bad ham attitude on the web. Many young people get their first impressions of ham radio via the web, yes... even groups such as digitalradio and other yahoogroups... and hams posting videos on youtube. Stop and think for a second: What have you done on the web recently to encourage new operators? Recently, ARRL started an outreach program via a Blog on the web, to encourage young people interested in ham radio. It is called We Do That and it has the right attitude. It enthusiastically covers a lot of new technology and creative innovation. Click here: http://wedothatradio.wordpress.com/page/2/ 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
