subject:"RE\: \[digitalradio\] ROS"


Jose,

I have already had some experience in dealing with the FCC on mode 
matters and even submitted my own petition, so I am trying to use that 
experience with them to give you good advice on how to get ROS allowed 
over here. I want to use ROS myself on 2M EME also, but rith now I can 
only use it on 70cm EME unless the FCC will allow it on 2M, so I have a 
strong reason myself to see the regulations changed to allow ROS to be used.


My best advice to you is that a petition to the FCC to allow ROS (with 
the necessary limitations they think are necessary to protect other 
users of the bands), stands the best chance of success.


If you think this is stupid advice, then just ignore it, and hope that 
your approach will win, but I doubt that it will, given the fact that 
the FCC has already believed you in the first case and because spectral 
analysis shows ROS is not the same as FMFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000, both 
FSK modes where the data determines the frequency spread.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you 
are not trying help.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue 
saying stupid things in this group.


Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS 
really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.


This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ 
SPECTRUM. JPG


Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF.

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will 
be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you 
wish.


73, Skip KH6TY SK

  



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.
 
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, 
instead of criticism ROS.
 
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue 
saying stupid things in this group.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


 If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL 
met (from the ROS documentation) :


1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum 
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often 
called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is 
accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a 
synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the 
information.


Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code 
modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but 
they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not 
satisfy all the conditions outlined above.


Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. 
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 
is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is.


Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that 
ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband 
data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, 
because ROS is so wide.


BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth 
debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted 
to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the 
argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that 
they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when 
you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together 
they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31.


The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users 
of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the 
same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW 
used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well 
in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home 
relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC 
must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has 
already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, 
and the strongest try to take over the frequencies.


upper

73 - Skip KH6TY

  



Alan Barrow

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?

If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be 
used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC 
member, then we know what you are.




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it 
in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle 
and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle 
part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum 
analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral 
analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 
had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the 
frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic 
of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY



Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the 
widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM


  
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you 
when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS 
as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is 
for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the 
USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of 
a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is 
illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as 
PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. 
JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you 
can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it 
is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the 
same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, 
obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is 
requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS 
is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC 
to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

  

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not 
trying help. 





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
 things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really 
is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an 
honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.


73, Skip KH6TY SK

  

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.

If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead 
of criticism ROS.

I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
things in this group.





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
 If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met 
(from the ROS documentation) :

1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth 
necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a 
code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is 
accomplished by the correlation

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Howard Brown

This is rude.  Where is the moderator when you need him?

From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 8:59:00 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?

If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be 
used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC 
member, then we know what you are.

 De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it 
in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle 
and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle 
part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum 
analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral 
analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 
had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the 
frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic 
of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

Warren Moxley wrote: 

Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the 
widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM

--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:

From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you 
when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS 
as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is 
for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the 
USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of 
a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is 
illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as 
PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. 
JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you 
can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it 
is not
 FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same 
 thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, 
 obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is 
 requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies 
 ROS is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC 
to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 

If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not 
trying help. 

 De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
 things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really 
is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an 
honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.

73, Skip KH6TY SK

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 

My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.

If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead 
of criticism ROS.

I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
things in this group.

 De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met 
(from the ROS documentation) :

1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle


Jose,

I am a ham radio member in good standing and have been for over 55 
years. I believe I also have some degree of respect and appreciation in 
the ham community for my development of DigiPan, introduction of PSK63, 
and my speech-to-text software for the blind ham so they can use PSK31.


Recently, I have been trying to use my experience in dealing with the 
FCC to help get you over this problem you have created, but you do not 
understand that, and I really do not appreciate your snide inferences as 
to my motives. You have made your own bed, so you can now lie in it, Jose.


I will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the 
USA. Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks.


Goodbye and good luck.

73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?
 
If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes 
would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you 
are not a FCC member, then we know what you are.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and 
posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed 
frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is 
sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one 
uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily 
compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. 
I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same 
signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency 
Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that 
is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to 
everything I could find.


Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

  



Warren Moxley wrote:
 

Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time 
add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.


Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

 


Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC
believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any
attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not
believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to
describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long
as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of
a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands
(data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where
narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the
entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by
MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies
are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS.
But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the
same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being
transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of
the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for
FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition
to the FCC to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

  




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you

are not trying help.


*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis
suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/
SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on
UHF.

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It
will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go
ahead

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle


Warren,

Patrick, F6CTE, has an excellent spectral display of almost every mode 
at this link: http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en.htm


Those displays are just like the one I made with ROS and MFSK16, but not 
over such a wide bandwidth and not with data input - only idling, and 
without the comparison to ROS.



73 - Skip KH6TY




Warren Moxley wrote:
 

Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time 
add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.


Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

 


Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC
believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any
attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe
you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe
ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can
be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB
phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data
is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow
modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire
PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by
MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are
being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in
the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing,
and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted,
obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data,
which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This
definitely implies ROS is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition
to the FCC to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

  




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you

are not trying help.


*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests
ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/
SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on
UHF.

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It
will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go
ahead as you wish.

73, Skip KH6TY SK

  



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is

what ROS is.
 
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham

Radio, instead of criticism ROS.
 
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue

saying stupid things in this group.


*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 


 If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become
spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions
are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) :

1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal,
often called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data)
is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal
with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to
spread the information.

Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse
code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information
signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since
they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above.

Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that
MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS

Re: [digitalradio] ROS is a dead issue for me at this time.

2010-02-26 Thread Russell Blair

Thanks Skip for all your help and input into this matter, and until I see 
something from the FCC it's dead for me. Let Jose take it from here. You have 
done more than a lot others would have. Tnx 

Russell NC5O
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


 IN GOD WE TRUST  


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 





From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:48:45 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Jose,

I am a ham radio member in good standing and have been for over 55 years. I 
believe I also have some degree of respect and appreciation in the ham 
community for my development of DigiPan, introduction of PSK63, and my 
speech-to-text software for the blind ham so they can use PSK31.

Recently, I have been trying to use my experience in dealing with the FCC to 
help get you over this problem you have created, but you do not understand 
that, and I really do not appreciate your snide inferences as to my motives. 
You have made your own bed, so you can now lie in it, Jose. 

I will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the USA. 
Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks.

Goodbye and good luck.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?

If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be 
used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC 
member, then we know what you are.




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted 
it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at 
idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared 
middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS 
spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS 
spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 
32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from 
the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as 
the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique 
characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could 
find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

  

Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the 
widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM


  
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you 
when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS 
as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is 
for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the 
USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide 
of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is 
illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as 
PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ 
SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), 
and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which 
means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am 
doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being 
transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, 
which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely 
implies ROS is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC 
to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

  

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not 
trying help. 





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
 things in this group.

Moderated

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Dave Ackrill

jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?
 
 If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be 
 used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC 
 member, then we know what you are.

Jose,

I should give up on this discussion if I were you.  The genie is out of 
the bottle and you wont be able to get it back in on this forum, 
whatever the technical arguments are.

My advice would be to forget the debate, let those in the USA sort out 
their own administration problems by *them* petitioning the ARRL and/or 
the FCC (not sure which way round it has to go) if they want to use the 
mode.

If I were you I'd just concentrate efforts on developing the program and 
let those of us that are fortunate that we don't live in the USA use and 
develop the mode.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Wes Linscott

Sounds like a bunch of crap to me . . .

From: Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:44:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

Lol    really sorry, must have clicked the wrong message to reply too. 

You guys didn't need to know that lol

---Original Message- --

From: Toby Burnett
Date: 26/02/2010 14:41:16
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

It's a voting ballot sheet. 

Trying to fix the 2m yagi beam.   God it's old but it was given to me and it 
may still work. 
Xxx
Picked up ALL the dog poop 5 bags worth, some not so easy.  

xx 

---Original Message- --

From: KH6TY
Date: 26/02/2010 13:39:44
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
 things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is 
FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an 
honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.

73, Skip KH6TY SK

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 

My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.

If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of 
criticism ROS.

I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things 
in this group.

De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.

The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from 
the ROS documentation) :

1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth 
necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a 
code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished 
by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of 
the spreading signal used to spread the information.

Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation 
also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as 
spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined 
above.

Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ 
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS 
definitely is.

Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be 
used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, 
that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide.

BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when 
the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, 
short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a 
short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy 
to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the 
same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like 
PSK31. 

The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one 
mode b e able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so 
QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would 
make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with 
wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This 
is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not 
create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does 
not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies.

upper

73 - Skip KH6TY

Alan Barrow wrote: 

If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread José A. Amador



Astonishing... astonishing language barrier and also an astonishing lack 
of clues...


What a pity. He is not a ham and it seems that understanding the facts 
is harder for him than applying the proper equations.


You can fool all a part of the time, fool a few all the time but not 
everybody all the time.


Jose, CO2JA

El 26/02/2010 09:59 a.m., jose alberto nieto ros escribió:



KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member?
If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes 
would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you 
are not a FCC member, then we know what you are.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and 
posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed 
frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is 
sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one 
uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily 
compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. 
I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same 
signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency 
Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that 
is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to 
everything I could find.


Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

   



Warren Moxley wrote:


Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time 
add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.


Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC
believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any
attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not
believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to
describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long
as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of
a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands
(data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where
narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the
entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by
MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies
are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS.
But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the
same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being
transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of
the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for
FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS.

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition
to the FCC to allow it.

73 - Skip KH6TY

   




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:

If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you
are not trying help.


*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.

Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!

Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis
suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.

This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/
SPECTRUM. JPG

Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on
UHF.

I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It
will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go
ahead as you wish.

73, Skip KH6TY SK

   



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:

My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is
what ROS is.
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham
Radio, instead of criticism ROS.
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Warren Moxley

Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I 
am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, 
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere 
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS 
that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote:

From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM







 



  



  
  
  



Hi Warren,



I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and
posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed
frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is
sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one
uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily
compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16.
I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same
signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping,
as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique
characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I
could find.



Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY






Warren Moxley wrote:
 

  
  
  

  
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison
examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide
modes.



Thanks in advance,



Warren - K5WGM





--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
wrote:



From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net

Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

  

   
  
  Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the
FCC believed
you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to
reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will
probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let
the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the
bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not
used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the
band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is
as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.

  

Look at the spectral comparison
  http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am
sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the
frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not
FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the
same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being
transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the
data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This
definitely implies ROS is FHSS.

  

If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the
FCC to allow it.

  
  73 - Skip KH6TY

  
  

  

jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
   


If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i
think you
are not trying help. 





De:
KH6TY
kh...@comcast. net

Para:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

Enviado:
vie,26
febrero, 2010 14:36

Asunto: Re:
[digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle



 

 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:

 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.



Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!



Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS
really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.



This picture does not lie: http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG



Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 



I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be
an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.




73, Skip KH6TY SK

  




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
  
  
  My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other
different is
what ROS is.
   
  If recommend you waste your time in doing something
by Ham
Radio, instead of criticism ROS.
   
  I propose to moderator you

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle


Hi Warren,

I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations 
with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS 
stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't 
know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for 
this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first 
will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on 
the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like 
Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops 
decoding.


Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are 
much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide.


Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but 
narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but 
ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced 
and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal 
comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a 
popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both 
from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III.


I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency 
interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as 
SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter 
and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think 
the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. 
Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible 
yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Warren Moxley wrote:
 


Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the 
Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have 
experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each 
other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I 
was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each 
other, does it work better than say, Olivia?


Warren - K5WGM


--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM

 


Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32)
and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the
fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when
data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined
that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you
can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral
analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and
Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is
far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS
is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function
of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency
hopping, at least according to everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

  




Warren Moxley wrote:
 


Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This
time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM

 


Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC
believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in
any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will
not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to
continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in
the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does
not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used
in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or
in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are
used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/
~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by
MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the
frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it
is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display,
I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the
frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the
frequencies are independent

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Stelios Bounanos

 On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:29:23 -0500, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net said:

[snip]

 It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated 
 independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly 
 generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK 
 modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK 
 (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS.

 “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, 
 it must be a /duck/”.

It sounds like US hams would run afowl of the law if they used ROS on
HF, Skip.  And then the FCC might waddle in and slap them all with a
hefty bill.

 It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum 
 analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie.

I guess ROS has taken a tern for the worse.  And it doesn't help that
it's author is now ducking the issue...

:-P

-- 

73, Stelios, M0GLD.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new 
station until a first station has finished.

Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have 
doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is 
the only that know how it work.

Thanks




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Warren,

I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS 
is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding 
the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter 
of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second 
station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will 
not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other 
fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the 
ROS signal also stops decoding. 

Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much 
greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide.

Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband 
signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a 
wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and 
you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by 
another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is 
particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III.

I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency 
interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB 
phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 
70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may 
be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only 
use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some 
day it will be.

73 - Skip KH6TY



Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? 
I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, 
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere 
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS 
that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM


  
Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted 
it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at 
idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared 
middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS 
spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS 
spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and 
Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far 
different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using 
Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and 
that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to 
everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY

  

Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the 
widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM


  
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you 
when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify 
ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably 
succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC 
permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not 
exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the 
phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where 
narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire 
PSK31 activity area.

Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ 
SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters 
N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Warren Moxley

Hi Jose,

in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station 
until a first station has finished.Please, use latest version. Old version has 
thats problem
 You may be directing you statement to Skip.

I have not downloaded ROS yet. I was waiting for your mode to mature a bit. I 
am very interested in new modes and am an always interested in experimented 
with them.

you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the 
mode. He is the only that know how it work.

I have no doubts, I was not really asking how ROS works, but am asking those 
who have played with the mode to date their real world experience.

Jose,

When you designed this mode, what were the major benefits you were going for 
over other modes like Olivia for example. I assumed that it was better 
resistance to QRM, is this correct?

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM






--- On Fri, 2/26/10, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es wrote:

From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 1:41 PM







 



  



  
  
  Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode 
new station until a first station has finished.
 
Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have 
doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is 
the only that know how it work.
 
Thanks




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle


  

Hi Warren,

I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS 
is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding 
the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter 
of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second 
station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will 
not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other 
fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the 
ROS signal also stops decoding. 

Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much 
greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide.

Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband 
signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a 
wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a
 lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency 
used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 
is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and 
Pactor-III.

I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency 
interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB 
phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 
70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may 
be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only 
use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some 
day it will be.
73 - Skip KH6TY



Warren Moxley wrote: 
  





Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I 
am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, 
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere 
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS 
that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM


  

Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it 
in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle 
and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle 
part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum 
analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral 
analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 
had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the 
frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic 
of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/
 OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG
73 - Skip KH6TY

  

Warren Moxley wrote: 
  





Skip, can you show some

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

It is correct, especially in multipath channels (HF). And remember that ROS 16 
is two times more fast than OLIVIA 32/1000. Despite that, it is more robust.




De: Warren Moxley k5...@yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 21:37
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Jose,

in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station 
until a first station has finished.Please, use latest version. Old version has 
thats problem
 You may be directing you statement to Skip.

I have not downloaded ROS yet. I was waiting for your mode to mature a bit. I 
am very interested in new modes and am an always interested in experimented 
with them.

you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the 
mode. He is the only that know how it work.

I have no doubts, I was not really asking how ROS works, but am asking those 
who have played with the mode to date their real world experience.

Jose,

When you designed this mode, what were the major benefits you were going for 
over other modes like Olivia for example. I assumed that it was better 
resistance to QRM, is this correct?

Thanks in advance,

Warren - K5WGM






--- On Fri, 2/26/10, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es wrote:


From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 1:41 PM


  
Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new 
station until a first station has finished.

Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have 
doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He 
is the only that know how it work.

Thanks




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Warren,

I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS 
is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding 
the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter 
of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second 
station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will 
not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other 
fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the 
ROS signal also stops decoding. 

Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much 
greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide.

Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband 
signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a 
wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, 
and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used 
by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is 
particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III.

I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency 
interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB 
phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 
70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may 
be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only 
use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some 
day it will be.

73 - Skip KH6TY



Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? 
I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, 
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere 
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using 
ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?

Warren - K5WGM


--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote:


From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM


  
Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted 
it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at 
idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared 
middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS 
spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the 
ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and 
Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far 
different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread José A. Amador


Warren,

Please allow me put my two cents. I would not expect so if the spreading 
code is the same.


The adventage of CDMA is code orthogonality, each user has a different 
chipping code that has little correlation with other user's codes., and 
so, there is little mutual QRM.


As far as I have seen, ROS uses a 3 kHz fixed bandwidth, irrespective of 
signalling speed. ROS 16 is affected by packet, pactor 2 and other ROS 
users QRM,

printing only garbage in such cases.

ROS 16 looks good on a clear channel, but crumbles under QRM. Not to be 
surprising when confined to just 3 kHz. Anyone can figure out just by 
listening on 14101.


Perhaps ROS 1 fares better, but so far I can't tell.

To me, so far, Olivia is the toughest chat mode, and includes a lot 
(perhaps, too much!) flexibility. Likewise, JT65A if you want to 
squeeze QSO's out of thin air, but is hardly conversational at all. 
You can, in very short sentences (believe it is 13 characters), but you 
lose the adventage of some special hard coded short hand sentences (RRR, 
RO, 73 and such). Not a big penalty, but nevertheless, a penalty.


73,

Jose, CO2JA


El 26/02/2010 01:42 p.m., Warren Moxley escribió:

Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the 
Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have 
experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each 
other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I 
was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each 
other, does it work better than say, Olivia?


Warren - K5WGM

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

Hi Jose,

When all users are using latest version of ROS then you will see as other ROS 
not interference with ROS.

About packet, pactor 2, etc... it's obvious . They occuped an important part of 
spectrum.

have you tested what happen if Olivia is tx over other Olivia? or over packet?

Some things are of sense common




De: José A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:33
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Warren,

Please allow me put my two cents. I would not expect so if the spreading code 
is the same.

The adventage of CDMA is code orthogonality, each user has a different chipping 
code that has little correlation with other user's codes., and so, there is 
little mutual QRM.

As far as I have seen, ROS uses a 3 kHz fixed bandwidth, irrespective of 
signalling speed. ROS 16 is affected by packet, pactor 2 and other ROS users 
QRM,
printing only garbage in such cases.

ROS 16 looks good on a clear channel, but crumbles under QRM. Not to be 
surprising when confined to just 3 kHz. Anyone can figure out just by listening 
on 14101.

Perhaps ROS 1 fares better, but so far I can't tell. 

To me, so far, Olivia is the toughest chat mode, and includes a lot (perhaps, 
too much!) flexibility. Likewise, JT65A if you want to squeeze QSO's out of 
thin air, but is hardly conversational at all. You can, in very short 
sentences (believe it is 13 characters), but you lose the adventage of some 
special hard coded short hand sentences (RRR, RO, 73 and such). Not a big 
penalty, but nevertheless, a penalty.

73,

Jose, CO2JA


El 26/02/2010 01:42 p.m., Warren Moxley escribió: 
Hi Skip,

Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? 
I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, 
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere 
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS 
that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?

Warren - K5WGM

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

2010-02-26 Thread Jose A. Amador



No, I have not, because Olivia is usually found in different frequencies 
than those where packet activity is found on this side of planet Earth, 
and in general, packet sysops and Olivia users know their way around and 
do not step over others toes. Very seldom I have experienced Olivia to 
Olivia QRM, I have heard the other's tones showing up near to the 
frequency I have been using, it has shown up on the waterfall but it did 
no impairment to reception. I have to add that I only have copied one 
side of the other's QSO, so it is quite likely that he did not hear my 
correspondent either. Nothing to create fuss about.


El 26/02/2010 18:06, jose alberto nieto ros escribió:


have you tested what happen if Olivia is tx over other Olivia? or over 
packet?

Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

2010-02-24 Thread Stelios Bounanos

 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com said:

 In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far...

 ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a
 not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades.

 ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions.

 Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong...  these are on-air
 impressions not lab tests.

I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions
substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the
proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e.,
the fact that ROS is  2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000
and  200 Hz respectively.

Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a
2x-12x larger footprint on the bands?


-- 

73, Stelios, M0GLD.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

2010-02-24 Thread Andy obrien

I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM.  Same
impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other
well known modes.  In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better
than ROS 1.



On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty.net wrote:



  On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj 
  k3uka...@gmail.comk3ukandy%40gmail.com
 said:

  In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far...

  ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a
  not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades.

  ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions.

  Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air
  impressions not lab tests.

 I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions
 substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the
 proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e.,
 the fact that ROS is  2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000
 and  200 Hz respectively.

 Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a
 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands?

 --

 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
  
   Reply 
 tom0...@enotty.net?subject=re:+%5Bdigitalradio%5D+ROS+impressions+so+far

Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

2010-02-24 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

Does not believe that even you, Andy. 
I know you are a special interest ROS dont was used, i dont know why.





De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:58
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

  
I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM.  Same 
impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other 
well known modes.  In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better 
than ROS 1.




On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty. net wrote:

  
 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. com 
 said:

 In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far...

 ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a
 not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades.

 ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions.

 Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air
 impressions not lab tests.

I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions
substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the
proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e.,
the fact that ROS is  2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000
and  200 Hz respectively.

Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a
2x-12x larger footprint on the bands?

-- 

73, Stelios, M0GLD.

Reply to

Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

2010-02-24 Thread Andy obrien

 and strong ssb local
qrm
02/23 02:55 *VE2FXL* nothing also Andy, 80m would be better
02/23 02:54 *KC5NYJ kc5...@gmail.com* i got nothing on 7073
02/23 02:54 *K7TMG k7...@arrl.net* Nothing here yet Andy.
02/23 02:53 *KC5NYJ kc5...@gmail.com* it's SMTP using gmail's SMTP
server and a gmail account
02/23 02:51 *K3UK* Folks, how does the email from ROS work? Some sort of
mail server built in that conencts to Jose's site and then sends Gmail
?[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=852
02/23 02:49 *K3UK* 10
watts[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=851
02/23 02:49 *K3UK* white line in FL-Dgi is on 1000hz
sholto[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=850
02/23 02:49 *K7TMG k7...@arrl.net* OK got it. Can you try again? What
power level are you running?
02/23 02:49 *K3UK*
center[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=848
02/23 02:48 *VE2FXL* no copy
02/23 02:47 *K7TMG k7...@arrl.net* Is that 1000Hz in the center of the
transmission or do you mean from 1000Hz to 1500Hz ?
02/23 02:47 *VE2FXL* Still no email reply on 7040 but someone seems to
call me back
02/23 02:47 *K3UK* 10
watts[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=844
02/23 02:46 *K3UK* 7073 1000 Hz,
500-64[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=843
02/23 02:46 *K7TMG k7...@arrl.net* Sorry Andy, was away form the
keyboard. What offset are u using?
02/23 02:46 *K3UK* Ok
Claudio[x]http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/sked.php?page=digitaldelete=841

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 PM, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es
 wrote:



 Does not believe that even you, Andy.
 I know you are a special interest ROS dont was used, i dont know why.

  --
 *De:* Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
 *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 *Enviado:* jue,25 febrero, 2010 00:58
 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far



 I have had a few more days to test it and watch how it does in QRM.  Same
 impressions, a good mode but not offering substantially more than the other
 well known modes.  In a couple of specific tests, Olivia 500-128 did better
 than ROS 1.



 On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Stelios Bounanos m0...@enotty. 
 netm0...@enotty.net
  wrote:



  On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:05:36 -, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. 
  comk3ukandy%40gmail.com
 said:

  In the few ROS 16 and ROS 1 tests that I have dome so far...

  ROS 16 seems similar to Olivia 8/1000 , good performance but perhaps a
  not quite as good as Olivia under QRM or deep fades.

  ROS 1 , not as good as JT65A in very poor conditions.

  Anyone else have impressions, perhaps I am wrong... these are on-air
  impressions not lab tests.

 I wonder if there are any test results (or even on-air impressions
 substantially different from Andy's) to explain what looks like the
 proverbial elephant in the living room from where I'm standing... i.e.,
 the fact that ROS is  2000 Hz while Olivia nn/1000 and JT65A are 1000
 and  200 Hz respectively.

 Or is it now somehow cool to do the same thing as before but with a
 2x-12x larger footprint on the bands?

 --

 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
  Reply 
 tom0...@enotty.net?subject=re:+%5Bdigitalradio%5D+ROS+impressions+so+far

Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

2010-02-24 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

Andy, as you note we have problems with old versions thats days. Software did 
not start decode. I expect you began to do test with this new version.

Perhaps, you will change of opinion.





De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Para: nietoro...@yahoo.es
CC: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 01:35
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS impressions so far

  
Incorrect Jose.  I have used it, and havw made special efforts to get other to 
use t on my web page http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked/ sked.php? 
page=digitalswitch=1


Example, see below.. all my efforts to help people...



MM/DD  UTC
02/23 16:03 KQ7W  5r8kh copied me.. nice dx
02/23 16:02 G4ILO  What power are most people using as a matter of interest?
02/23 16:00 KQ7W  n4qlb gotcha.. all good
02/23 15:52 KQ7W  howdy
02/23 15:50 N4QLB  Now on 21.130.20 ROS 16baud
02/23 15:49 K3UK  14101 RX: 15:48 UTC 15.6 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de KQ7W KQ7W KQ7W 
My email is: m...@mats4d. com m...@mats4d. com m...@mats4d. com STOP[x]
02/23 15:48 K3UK  Break time. 73[x]
02/23 15:48 N3TL  Thank Andy. I'll continue to test, and want to work other 
bands, too. Want to work W6SZ on 20 first,
02/23 15:47 K3UK  Nothing on 40M[x]
02/23 15:45 K3UK  checking 7057[x]
02/23 15:45 K3UK  14101 RX: 15:44 UTC -78.1 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN 
YV4GJN pse k STOP[x]
02/23 15:43 N4QLB  CQ ROS 7.057.20
02/23 15:40 K3UK  Yes Michael, very quickly.[x]
02/23 15:40 K3UK  Congrats Tim ! My decode improved after I pressed 'clear 
frame may be coincidence. .. but[x]
02/23 15:39 N4QLB  k3uk Lost you in QSB Andy (ROS)
02/23 15:38 N3TL  Finally ... my frist ROS contact
02/23 15:38 N3TL  Wow ... just worked YV4GJN and decode was perfect.
02/23 15:37 K3UK  2 QSOs same time, about 60Hz apart. RX: 15:36 UTC 23.4 
Hz. CQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6 RX: 15:36 UTC -85.9 Hz. tnx fer QSO, 73. N3TL de 
YV4GJN sk My email is: yv4...@yahoo. com yv4...@yahoo. com[x]
02/23 15:35 K3UK  RX: 15:33 UTC -85.9 Hz. My name is: FRANCESCO My QTH 
is: Valencia Venezuela, Locator: FK50xf STOP[x]
02/23 15:34 K3UK  There u go Tim RX: 15:32 UTC -85.9 Hz. N3TL N3TL de 
YV4GJN YV4GJN YV4GJN kn STOP[x]
02/23 15:32 N3TL  Just decoded a YV4 here!
02/23 15:32 K3UK  2 CQs[x]
02/23 15:32 K3UK  14101 RX: 15:31 UTC -85.9 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de YV4GJN YV4GJN 
YV4GJN pse k STOP RX: 15:31 UTC 23.4 Hz. uQ CQ CQ de W6SZ W6SZ W6SZ pse k 
STOP[x]
02/23 15:32 G6LUG  Timnothing heard on 14112 so far. Path is 4094 miles.
02/23 15:30 N3TL  QSY to 14.101 to listen. Thank you!
02/23 15:28 K3UK  Someone just CQ 14101, 1.7 decoded partial, 1.6 not at 
all.[x]
02/23 15:27 N3TL  CQing 14.112 now
02/23 15:24 K3UK  I have BOTH 1.6.2 and .1.7.0 running at same time now... 
will what happens.[x]
02/23 15:23 N3TL  RRR ... if I can't decode anything in the next hour or so, 
I'll try it again as a test. Thank you!
02/23 15:21 K3UK  1.6.2 , yes[x]
02/23 15:21 N3TL  I must be in some kind of ROS black hole this morning - 
hearing no signals on 20.
02/23 15:21 G6LUG  I'm calling CQ on 14112. I'm using version 1.7.2.
02/23 15:17 N3TL  V 1.6.2? That may be the one that decoded for me, actually.
02/23 15:17 K3UK  2 signals on 14101[x]
02/23 15:16 K3UK  A signal now, ROS16, on 14101[x]
02/23 15:14 K3UK  What version are you using ? I find version 1.2 does betetr 
that latest versions[x]
02/23 15:12 N3TL  Andy - One line over the weekend. That's it, despite really 
strong audible signals here yesterday.
02/23 15:12 K3UK  weak ROS 16 around 14103 now[x]
02/23 15:09 K3UK  Tim, have u decoded ANY ROS signals[x]
02/23 15:04 N3TL  I just CQd @ 14.112 - but really need to find some signals 
because I can't seem to decode here.
02/23 15:01 K3UK  I am listening...[x]
02/23 15:00 N3TL  @ N4QLB - Are you transmitting or monitoring?
02/23 14:59 K3UK  14112 N4QLB ROS 16[x]
02/23 14:56 K3UK  I get the pilot tone strong and centered but no deocde on 
14112[x]
02/23 14:53 G6LUG  Well, It would be a QSO if EA3AQS heard himhe's 
calling QRZ now. WB0KGN was strong with me.
02/23 14:52 G6LUG  EA3AQS in QSO with WB0KGN Olivia 32/1000 on dial qrg 
14.107 + 1500hz
02/23 14:50 K3UK  maybe 14112[x]
02/23 14:49 K3UK  Ok, that explains it. STrong ROS now around 14111, no 
decode...[x]
02/23 14:48 G6LUG  There is Olivia AND ROS16 on 14107
02/23 14:46 K3UK  WEak ROS16 14101[x]

Skeds for digital radio experiments including Winmor, ROS, and more.
Suggested calling frequencies: ROS 14101, 14109. JT65A : 21076, 18102,14076, 
3576. WINMOR: 3587, 7080 14112. Other modes: 1843, 3583,7073,10143, 
14073,14109( wide modes), 18103, 21073,24923, 28123MM/DD  UTC
02/23 14:45 K3UK  No, maybe is Olivia[x]
02/23 14:44 G6LUG  I've QSYd 14111, hrd tailend of ROS tx, but no decode.
02/23 14:38 K3UK  ROS 16 14111[x]
02/23 14:34 K3UK  14074 Feld Hell, weak[x]
02/23 14:32 K3UK  Strong signal now on 14101 but no deode. No pilot tone, so 
maybe not have him tuned in correctly[x]
02/23 14:31 K3UK  Hello Hador, I heard your signals yesterday[x]
02/23 14:31 G6LUG  OK Andy

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

2010-02-23 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

You must configure your receiver so that no filters  are used (other than 
standard SBB ) .  ROS filters the signal better than the transceiver.

Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS.

Jose Alberto Nieto Ros
(edit by K3UK)
 




De: Ugo ugo.dep...@me.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 
Hi All. 
Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this...
I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ?
In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to 
receive/decode ros ? 
Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 
73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE


(sent with iPhone)

Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net ha scritto:


 
Hi Jose,

Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station 
will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes 
garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just 
be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the 
decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals 
are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within 
the bandwidth of a ROS signal).

In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB 
filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also 
stopped decoding until they left.

Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering 
from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS 
stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will 
ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like 
MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can 
coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and 
cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, 
leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there 
is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a 
more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can 
still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is 
how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see.

If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal 
and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding 
definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Hi,

You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith 
in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you 
transceiver.


 




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 
Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest 
often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to 
AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker.

2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the 
AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. 
Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.

3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, 
and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, 
and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to 
do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of 
frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.

4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode 
one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked 
out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded.

5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems 
to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 
signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering 
the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of 
three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.

In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage 
because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within 
the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the 
passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

2010-02-22 Thread Howard Brown

Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get 
it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

   
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations 
issues regarding ROS and SS really well.  It's the best description of the 
US problem I've seen on this reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, 
I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does 
(and none of us has seen the code),  then even though it 1) uses less 
3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal 
and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC 
jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop 
the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is 
SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead 
of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth.  So I 
have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations 
focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment.  
 
   Jim - K6JM
 
- Original Message - 
From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 
  PM
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology 
  Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

  
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping 
  Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio 
  operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use 
 of 
  ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, 
 hams 
  will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 

Sadly, this may 
  lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.

If ROS Modem had simply 
  provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it 
  Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily 
 adopted 
  by Ham Radio operators in USA. 

But, the ROS modem designer is 
  rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound 
 by 
  FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising 
  might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. 

But, as they 
  say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung.

ROS signal can 
  be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK 
  presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal 
  process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
  Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
  (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
  within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
  description as a conventional wideband technique. 

It probably would 
  not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC 
 rules. 
  It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable 
  algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. 
http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html# 307f3 

This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, 
  keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams 
 move 
  forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of 
  the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!

But, 
  for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against 
  Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates 
  to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth.

There is the other issue of 
  bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other 
  forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think 
 that 
  there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text 
  modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or 
 not 
  operate it. 

FACT:
There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on 
  HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band 
  edges.

FACT:
FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on 
  content of the emission, not bandwidth.

New SDR radios have the 
  potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz 
  SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology 
 in 
  the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit 
  innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st 
  century. 

Several years ago, there was a

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?


Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend 
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not 
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the waterfall 
did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS 
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss 
of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband 
tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS 
signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to 
overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will 
decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one 
is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one 
is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal 
seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five 
Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal 
needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, 
would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% 
of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a 
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM 
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering 
can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to 
accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum spread 
might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that also makes 
the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional QRM. The 
advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it hard to copy 
a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM survival, 
but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or 
MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a 
better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to 
more possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width.


The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be 
as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.


Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate 
several ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is 
much easier to find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for 
even two ROS signals.


These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find 
differently.


I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift 
and flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone 
signals. Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we 
have found so far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB 
phone, but for very weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though 
the note is very rough sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can 
still be copied by ear as it modulates the background noise.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Howard Brown wrote:
 
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether 
the limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the 
robustness of the waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, 
maybe we should all work to get it accepted.


Howard K5HB


*From:* J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for 
USA Hams


 

Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS 
and SS really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've 
seen on this reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if 
ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us 
has seen the code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 
 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is 
similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within 
the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS 
used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS 
within the 300 Hz bandwidth.  So I have to agree the FCC regs are not 
well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content 
instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment. 
 
   Jim - K6JM
 


- Original Message -
*From:*

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

2010-02-22 Thread Glenn L. Roeser

I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good 
as using JT65a
With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is a 
very slow throughput though.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)





From: Howard Brown k...@yahoo.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 9:55:11 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get 
it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

  
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS 
really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this 
reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses 
FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the 
code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear 
to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it 
is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 
bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz 
bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz 
bandwidth.  So I have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content instead 
of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment.  
 
   Jim - K6JM

- Original Message - 
From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

  
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread 
Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to 
obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF 
without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need 
an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 

Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.

If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, 
and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to 
be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. 

But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in 
a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no 
knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it 
in USA. 

But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung.

ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of 
n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for 
signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
(using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
description as a conventional wideband technique. 

It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention 
of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according 
to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud 
rule. 
http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html# 307f3 

This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping 
USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward 
with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new 
ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!

But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition 
against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it 
relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth.

There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have 
brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams 
seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in 
the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the 
ham band to operate it or not operate it. 

FACT:
There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA 
ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges.

FACT:
FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, 
not bandwidth.

New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

Hi,

You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in 
your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver.


 




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest 
often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to 
AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker.

2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the 
AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. 
Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.

3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, 
and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and 
it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do 
that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency 
hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.

4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one 
of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out 
until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded.

5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to 
be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 
signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering 
the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of 
three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.

In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage 
because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within 
the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the 
passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider 
expansion or spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding 
disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to 
additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it 
hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM 
survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia 
or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a 
better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to more 
possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width.

The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be as QRM 
resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.

Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate several 
ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is much easier to 
find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for even two ROS signals.

These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find 
differently.

I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift and 
flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone signals. 
Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we have found so 
far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB phone, but for very 
weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though the note is very rough 
sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can still be copied by ear as it 
modulates the background noise.


73 - Skip KH6TY



Howard Brown wrote: 
  
Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to 
get it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

  
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS 
really well.  It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this 
reflector.

After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses 
FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the 
code),  then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear 
to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it 
is not legal in FCC jurisdictions.

As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 
bandwidth, it technically is SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz 
bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

KH6TY wrote:

 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
 the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
 expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
 

As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA

2010-02-22 Thread Alan Barrow

Dave wrote:


 The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
 Definitions, Para C, line 8:

   /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
   modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J
   or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third
   symbol.


I disagree, that's not a definition of Spread Spectrum, it's a
restriction on spread spectrum. And not a very useful one, as in it's
not specific enough to entirely limit the (presumably) bad SS, and yet
it may disallow modes which are not the target. All due to poor wording.

You have to define bandwidth expansion. I'm rusty, but it's normally
when the impacted bandwidth (think footprint) used exceeds the
information bandwidth. Which itself is usually something less than the
Shannon limit.

What they are really saying is bandwidth expansion *factor* greater than
one, and for nearly all traditional spread spectrum (Frequency Hopping 
direct sequence) that is a factor of 20 to 250 or more.

We could argue whether mode X is legal or not, but if you are going to
be legalistic, then modulated CW is illegal as well as it's bandwidth is
greater than the information bandwidth. (bandwidth expansion  1) And
even regular CW, PSK, and others when the gear is not operated
correctly. Bandwidth  information bandwidth is a harsh measure! Even
some SSB voice stations could be at risk! :-)

Realistically, many modems use spread spectrum type approaches to
spread  randomize the energy inside the typical voice/SSB bandwidth.

The FCC cares about bandwidth. We know from the symbol rate rulings
that they are not inclined to deal with overly strict legal
interpretation on wording. The symbol rate restriction is used as a
(bad) analog for bandwidth, as it's what was used when the regs were made.

So the same type arguments surfaced around symbol rate (real vs
theoretical, etc). And we know from all the Pactor 3 on the air how that
ended up!

So at the risk of being an armchair lawyer as well, I do think you have
to apply some rule of reason. What's the intent of the restriction? To
not allow direct or random sequence spread spectrum on the lower bands.
Largely defined by DS-CDMA  FS-CDMA approaches used as the classical
spread spectrum modes. This is what the military uses, what the VHF/UHF
devices use, etc. And they have much larger footprints (bandwidth
expansion of 20 or more), so should not be allowed on HF.

Really what we are talking about is an afsk'ish soundcard mode that
stays in one SSB bandwidth slot or less. Is it classical spread
spectrum? Clearly not. Is it technically spread spectrum? Would depend
on exact semantic definitions.

But since the implied dial/carrier frequency does not move, is
detectable without extreme measures, and is not going to effectively
raise the noise floor of the entire HF band, I would be very surprised
to see the FCC wade in and say it's spread spectrum.

 ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition)
 and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well)
  Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum
 and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative
 interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise.
So using your literal test, modulated CW is not legal, as it's J and has
bandwidth expansion factor  1 in the real world. You could question
several AFSK modes as typically used by hams. (artifacts and all).

Each time we go to the FCC for things like this it's like small children
going to the teacher and asking is this allowed?. There is a certain
amount of impatience, and based on past discussions/interpretations the
FCC will lean toward common sense interpretations. Largely defined by
bandwidth, crypto definitions and not obscure technical definitions.

Ideally, we'd have a reasonable approach to using our spectrum. I think
there is 2-3 options in use in other countries we could adopt that would
simplify this type issue and result in no net loss for current legacy
modes. Yet they always dies with FUD from the broader community without
being debated on their merits. There is no option to rationally discuss,
it's all or nothing. So we get to pay the price with digital definitions
based on 30's (or older) technology.


Just about all the modes which achieve good weak signal performance do
so by trading off effective throughput for bandwidth. Some are more
efficient than others in this regard. Do I think the FCC cares about
another soundcard mode that lives politely in a single SSB width signal?
Nope, as long as it's not encrypted. But that's just my read. I'm sure
we'll have many others! :-)

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?


Hi Jose,

Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor 
station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and 
decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the 
Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect 
either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 
16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor 
signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal).


In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in 
the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of 
those also stopped decoding until they left.


Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. 
covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS 
signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 
Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is 
a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz 
to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless 
the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, 
then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the 
MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less 
chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more 
narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can 
still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question 
posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see.


If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering 
signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but 
decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal 
came on.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Hi,
 
You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all 
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better 
than you transceiver.
 

 



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 


Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following:

1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend 
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not 
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the 
waterfall did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that 
capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of 
decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS 
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause 
loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with 
passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of 
the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is 
insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will 
decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one 
is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one 
is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal 
seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five 
Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal 
needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, 
would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 
60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a 
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM 
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering 
can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to 
accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum 
spread might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that 
also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional 
QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it 
hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, 
than QRM survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive 
mode like Olivia or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can 
be tighter, stands a better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS 
signal which is exposed to more possibilities of QRM due to its 
comparatively greater width.


The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be 
as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations.


Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to 
accommodate several ROS signals at once so

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the 
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the 
gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will 
lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the 
sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid of 
the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed 
filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, but 
it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you are 
going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal.


14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, 
you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of 
the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may 
not be as big on the other side of the big pond.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:

 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture
 the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
 expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched 
off.


Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the AGC is 
disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the gain for strong 
signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will lose the weak station 
because you have reduced the gain and the sensitivity. The only way to still 
copy your weak station and get rid of the strong one is to filter at IF 
frequencies, which is what fixed filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will 
do it also these days, but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio 
frequencies if you are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger 
signal.

14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, you 
will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of the 
automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may not be as 
big on the other side of the big pond.

73 - Skip KH6TY



Dave Ackrill wrote: 
  
KH6TY wrote:

 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture 
 the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as 
 expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.
 

As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

Glenn L. Roeser wrote:
 I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good 
 as using JT65a
 With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is 
 a very slow throughput though.
 Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

You have to be the patient sort, maybe a WSPR QSO fan, to use ROS 1 baud.

It does, however, allow you to nip down, get a pint and get back before 
the other person has finished calling CQ though. :-)

Yet to receive an email confirmation for 1 baud as yet.  Has anyone 
received one from me for 1 baud yet?  I've see full email addresses for 
  at least one station, IW1GJJ, tonight.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?


Jose,

I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US 
hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and 
flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and 
can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is 
going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month.


The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS 
activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are 
infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities. They are also already in the area for 
wide bandwidth signals, I think.


On 20m, those frequencies appear to be 14100.5, 14109.0, and 14.112.0. 
See http://hflink.com/channels/.


Keep in mind there are NO frequencies completely free of QRM except on 
VHF and UHF, but some can be found on HF that have less opportunity for 
interference than others, so the ALE frequencies might be a good place 
to try. Of course, ALE users MUST, by US law, be sure the frequency is 
clear before transmitting, and the same applies to ROS users. We all 
have to share frequencies, since no frequencies are owned by anyone, 
but are used on a first-come, first-served basis.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the 
AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the 
gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will 
lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the 
sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid 
of the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed 
filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, 
but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you 
are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal.


14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long 
enough, you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, 
most of the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the 
problem may not be as big on the other side of the big pond.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:

 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that 
capture

 the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as
 expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however.


As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC 
switched off.


Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and 
at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes.

The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others 
around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity 
(according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of 
short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to 
ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow 
band modes.
 
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS 
ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings 
are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

KH6TY wrote:
 Jose,
 
 I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US 
 hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and 
 flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and 
 can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is 
 going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month.
 

I'd be interested in those results as I hope to fix a problem on my 
1296MHz antenna soon, and aircraft reflection (Doppler) is definitely a 
problem on many other data modes on 23cm.

Now, if we could crack extreme doppler, like Aurora on VHF or 
rain/hail/snow scatter on 10 and 24GHz, that would be a real step forward...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking

2010-02-22 Thread Andy obrien

It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
nothing that says gee...this is way better .  It is GOOD, and a mode to
add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app.  The software interface is
very nicely done, Jose should be congratulated on this.  I'll place a few
modes in a robustness category for us all.

SUPER WEAK MODES
JT65A (and family)
WSPR
ROS 1
Jason


WEAK MODES
Olivia 1000/32
ALE400
Domino
MFSK16/8
Pactor III
MT63
ROS 16
PSK10
PSKAM10
Contesia 500/12
DominoEX 4
FEC31
THROBx4
THOR 11

AVERAGE
PSK31
PSK63
PACTOR II /I
Hell
RTTYM
Contestia 50016
Chip 64/128
Olvia 8/500


Strong signal required
RTTY
PSK125-500
Standard ALE
Packet 300 baud
WINMOR

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking

Andy obrien wrote:
 It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to
 developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes...
 nothing that says gee...this is way better .  It is GOOD, and a mode to
 add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app.  The software interface is
 very nicely done, Jose should be congratulated on this.  I'll place a few
 modes in a robustness category for us all.

I'm not sure things tend to boil down that way, to be honest Andy,

Otherwise why so much RTTY on the bands? Even AX:25 is getting a bit 
long in the tooth now, but people still struggle on with it...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone is on 
14.111.65

According to that, wich would the best option?




De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
  
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, 
and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes.

The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

  
The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others 
around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity 
(according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of 
short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

Andy, you have used ALE. What center frequency or suppressed carrier 
frequency should be used to be on the ALE channel at 14.109?


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone 
is on 14.111.65
 
According to that, wich would the best option?



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short 
duration. It is worth a try, I think.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference 
to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to 
narrow band modes.
 
The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency.



*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

 

The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for 
others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS 
ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings 
are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal 
interference to ROS activities.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

2010-02-22 Thread Ugo


Hi All.
Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this...
I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its  
bandwidth ?
In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to  
receive/decode ros ?

Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply.
73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE

(sent with iPhone)

Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net ha  
scritto:



Hi Jose,

Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor  
station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and  
decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode,  
the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and  
not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16  
or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away  
from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth  
of a ROS signal).


In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared  
in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and  
some of those also stopped decoding until they left.


Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e.  
covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the  
ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears  
at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens  
and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance,  
covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with  
the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and  
cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the  
MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and  
decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering  
signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that  
there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode  
with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how  
well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see.


If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an  
interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain  
what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage  
when the Pactor signal came on.

73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:



Hi,

You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all  
bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better  
than you transceiver.





De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?


Howard,

After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the  
following:


1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend  
contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not  
desensitization due to AGC capture, as the  ROS signals on the  
waterfall did not appear any weaker.


2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that  
capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of  
decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem  
however.


3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS  
carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause  
loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with  
passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough  
of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is  
insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro.


4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS  
will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the  
weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the  
the weaker one is decoded.


5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS  
signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is  
concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as  
one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS  
signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia  
signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth.


In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a  
disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM  
signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF  
filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been  
narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or  
spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding  
disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more  
susceptible to additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be  
more in favor of making it hard to copy a traditional SS signal  
unless the code is available, than QRM survival, but on crowded ham  
bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or MFSK16,  
because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter

Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug

2010-02-21 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

Interesting.

I go to tester.





De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: dom,21 febrero, 2010 13:23
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS bug

  
It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email
addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the
ending  of the first one, does not get printed. e.g.
emailaddress@ address.comemail addr...@address.com This is happened
at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal.
Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ?

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug

2010-02-21 Thread Dave Ackrill

Andy obrien wrote:
 It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email
 addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the
 ending  of the first one, does not get printed.  e.g.
 emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com  This is happened
 at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal.
 Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ?

Thanks Andy,

Looking at the screen grab I made of what was showing when the error 
occurred, I don't see two emails merged, but the last email address was 
missing the final '' and some garbled letters are showing.  So, maybe 
ROS tripped up over that as a problem?

I'll upload a copy of my screen grab to the pictures area.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA

2010-02-21 Thread Dave

The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
(8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation 
emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 
X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol.

ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it 
uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well)  Thus, taking 
this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal 
below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick 
with until we get a ruling otherwise.



Dave
K3DCW
Real radio bounces off the sky





On 21 Feb, at 2:45 AM, J. Moen wrote:

 
 
 What is the FCC definition of spread spectrum, and where can it be located on 
 the internet?
  
Jim - K6JM
  
 - Original Message -
 From: John B. Stephensen
 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:58 PM
 Subject: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA
 
 
 ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as 
 the bandwidth is expanded. However, the FCC never fined anyone during the 
 period when Hellscreiber was used illegally so I doubt that they would do so 
 with ROS.
  
 What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them 
 petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the 
 emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 
 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide 
 emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. 
  
 73,
  
 John
 KD6OZH

RE: [digitalradio]ROS band plan

2010-02-21 Thread kq6i




I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be 
found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or
14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? 

rgrds 
Craig
kq6i


-Original Message-
From: F.R. Ashley [mailto:gda...@clearwire.net] 
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Rethinking digital mode band plans-developing 
asolution

I totally agree Phil,

I get micro-mangaged enough at work.

73 Buddy WB4M

- Original Message -
From: phil williams ka1...@gmail.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC

2010-02-21 Thread J. Moen

Excellent idea to ask FCC for an opinion.  

Dave K3DCW referred to Part 97, but the section he quoted really only describes 
emission mode designation codes for SS, and does not technically describe how 
FCC defines SS.  It's almost as if Part 97 assumes the definition is so well 
known that it's not necessary to define it.

Problem is, for many years, SS really did operate over a very large bandwidth, 
much wider than 2.5 kHz.  It was thought use of that form of SS had the 
potential of interfering with many narrowband users. That was not necessarly 
true, of course.  But now we are seeing modes that are much narrower band.  

I would be good if FCC responds to your letter with their technical description 
of SS.  It's possible they will say that if you modulate tones within 500 hz 
using frequency hopping SS techniques, then that is SS.  It's also possible 
they would agree that a transmission less than 2.5 kHz wide does not qualify as 
SS, even though the modulation technique use SS methods.

But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what SS is, 
it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or not legal in FCC 
jurisdictions.  Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea.

 Jim - K6JM

This is from Dave K3DCW's comment:
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 
Definitions, Para C, line 8: 

  (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation 
emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 
X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 7:41 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC



  I have compiled a letter to Laura Smith Esq, at the FCC,  with details of 
this mode.  I will let you all know when I receive a reply.

  Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan

2010-02-21 Thread Dave Ackrill

k...@arrl.net wrote:
 
 
 I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be 
 found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or
 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? 
 

I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful 
to have a guide to where they might be.

Obviously, if the frequency is already in use by someone else, or 
there's too much noise on a particular frequency, then people will move 
a way off.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan

2010-02-21 Thread kp4cb

I will be transmiting in 14.101 20M have good propagation from early morning to 
the afternoon,

KP4CB

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote:

 k...@... wrote:
  
  
  I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be 
  found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or
  14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? 
  
 
 I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful 
 to have a guide to where they might be.
 
 Obviously, if the frequency is already in use by someone else, or 
 there's too much noise on a particular frequency, then people will move 
 a way off.
 
 Dave (G0DJA)

RE: [digitalradio]ROS band plan

2010-02-21 Thread Fred VE3FAL

I tried the latest download but it would lock up and freeze..
Removed it from the computer.
Sure are a lot of digital modes hitting the air today, in some ways way too
many

Fred
CIW649/VE3FAL
CFARS Member
SATERN Member
SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer
DEC Amethyst District ARES


I will be transmiting in 14.101 20M have good propagation from early morning
to the afternoon,

KP4CB

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Part 97

2010-02-21 Thread Rik van Riel

On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, athosj wrote:

 This is the way that an argument is conducted with real facts.

 If ROS is a SS can not be used in HF bands.

Furthermore, if you believe that ROS is spread spectrum,
you should probably also stop using any other modes with
the same technical characteristics.

This could include Olivia, Domino, JT65, MT63 and ALE,
depending on which characteristics you ascribe to ROS :)

-- 
All rights reversed.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC

2010-02-21 Thread Rik van Riel

On 02/21/2010 11:31 AM, J. Moen wrote:

 But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what
 SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or
 not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea.

Of course, there is always the danger that the FCC might
accidentally make currently used modes like Olivia illegal,
depending on how the question was phrased :)

-- 
All rights reversed.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group

2010-02-21 Thread Toby Burnett

I think I have lost the message.  There has been so many, did someone come
up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday.

Please could someone link to it.  

PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page. 
For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?)

Toby mm0tob
 
 

Reply to sender | Reply to group 
Messages in this topic (8) 
Recent Activity: New Members 15 New Files 3 
Visit Your Group Start a New Topic 
Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html

 Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group

2010-02-21 Thread Andy obrien

http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/   click on digital

or... if you are greedy..

http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html



On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net wrote:



   I think I have lost the message.  There has been so many, did someone
 come up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday.

 Please could someone link to it.

 PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page.
 For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?)

 Toby mm0tob

Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group

2010-02-21 Thread Toby Burnett

Cheers Andy.  

---Original Message---

From: Andy obrien
Date: 22/02/2010 00:14:07
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group

http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/   click on digital

or... if you are greedy..

http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net wrote:

I think I have lost the message.  There has been so many, did someone come
up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday.

Please could someone link to it.  

PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page. 
For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?)

Toby mm0tob

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

2010-02-20 Thread Wilfredo Aviles Jr / KP4ARN

Congratulation Jose for take your time for develope a new mode.

 If is Illegal I think is not, because is experimental and that is part of this 
hobby, so for other part the most other new digital mode start in experimental 
mode like ROS.

Jose not stop, go a head.

 
73' Wilfredo Junior Aviles / KP4ARN 

Amateur Radio is the best way to know People and Travel around the World, FREE





From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 3:21:35 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

  
Very impressive Jose, again...congratulat ions.


On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:25 AM, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es 
wrote:

  
I made the experiment over AWGN and ROS is 2 dBs better than OLIVIA 32/1000.

But we are comparing two modes at differents character rate. As you know ROS 
is two times faster than OLIVIA 32/1000.

You should compare ROS 16 with OLIVIA 8/1000.  Then the different is about 5-6 
dBs for the same character rate.





De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail. com
Para: digitalradio digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 00:28
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS experiments


  
My experiments (many receptions and 2 transmissions) today with
ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode.
Congratulations Jose. Of particular interest to me were the several
occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the
waterfall or audible to my ears. It will interesting to see if Tony
K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare
it to Olivia. My guess is that it will be close to that of Olivia
1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB.

I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and
layed out. Over the years we have had many modes come and go. I
suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used.

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] ROS 14.101 MHz

2010-02-20 Thread Trevor .

IARU Region 1 bandplan indicates 14.080 is for modes using less than 500 Hz 
B/W. 

Bandwidths up to 2700 Hz are permitted above 14.101 MHz. 

http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/bandplans/rsgb_band_plan_2010.htm 

73 Trevor M5AKA

Re: [digitalradio] ROS New Mode

2010-02-20 Thread Steinar Aanesland

Hi Jose

Thanks ! I have only been receiving  ROS on 14.101 but it is amazing how
well it is able to decode weak signals.

A question ; I am using the signalink USB with an internal VOX 
function as an external sound card,  therefor the COM port is not in
use.  Is it possible to turn of the com port option completely?

73 de LA5VNA Steinar





On 19.02.2010 02:05, nietorosdj wrote:
 HI,

 As you know i have created a new mode at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

 I wish you tested it and I will answer if you have any questions.

 Jose Alberto

RE: [digitalradio] ros

2010-02-20 Thread Box SisteenHundred


And a bow, rope and stick to create fire ?   HI HI

73 - Bill KA8VIT


 
 I got into RTTY in 1976. Still use a machine for RTTY. 
 

  
_
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/

Re: [digitalradio] ROS M

2010-02-20 Thread Dave Ackrill

DAVID wrote:
 WHEN I USE THE CQ MACRO   THE OUTPUT HAS THE LETTER M IN FRONT OF MY CALL 
 SIGN  I CAN REMOVE IT BEFORE I TRANSMIT  AND IT RUNS 
 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE M

That doesn't happen here.  This is my CQ call

TX 14:44 UTC CQ CQ CQ de G0DJA G0DJA G0DJA pse k

Are you sure that you did not accidentally put an M in when you entered 
your callsign?  If you are anything like me, I can often accidentally 
hit another key that is next to the one I want and The 'M' is just below 
the 'K' of course...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS FREQUENCY

2010-02-20 Thread Andy obrien

Good point, I am so used to narrow modes that I forget such things.
Andy K3UK

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD 
wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote:



 if you are gonna be trying new bands, at the minimum,
 do use frequencies that are good for SSB or wideband digital.
 remember ROS is always around 2.5kc wide regardless of the
 baud rate.

 david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] ROS FREQUENCY

2010-02-20 Thread Toby Burnett

I did mention this yesterday and sugested a frequency above 14.101 but I
only got 2 replies, one from you Andy saying that all digi modes should be
close, and one from Glenn who agreed with me.  I almost think, what's the
point if after about 40 messages that the issue is raised again.  Obviously
no body seems to care that much.  Sorry for being blunt but if everyone
checks their messages and actually replies with some agreement or other
ideas.  
The author of the software was quick enough to respond to my concern
yesterday !

Toby. MM0TOB
 
---Original Message---
 
From: Andy obrien
Date: 20/02/2010 15:18:16
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS FREQUENCY
 
  
Good point, I am so used to narrow modes that I forget such things.
Andy K3UK


On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD
wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote:

  
if you are gonna be trying new bands, at the minimum,
do use frequencies that are good for SSB or wideband digital.
remember ROS is always around 2.5kc wide regardless of the
baud rate.

david/wd4kpd

Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file

2010-02-20 Thread Dave Ackrill

W3NJ wrote:
 Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode.
 
 Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files 
 section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good to 
 know what I'm listening for. Haven't heard anything unique at this point, 
 just the few high-ender CW contesters, Winlink.
 
 tnx es 73
 
 Bruce

I'll fire up Spectrum Labs and see if I can collect a good sample for 
you Bruce.

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file

2010-02-20 Thread Dave Ackrill

Dave Ackrill wrote:
 W3NJ wrote:
 Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode.

 Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files 
 section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good 
 to know what I'm listening for. Haven't heard anything unique at this 
 point, just the few high-ender CW contesters, Winlink.


 
 I'll fire up Spectrum Labs and see if I can collect a good sample for 
 you Bruce.

I've thought of another way.  I will turn up the volume on the monitor 
function of the Navigator and record that, which will avoid all the CW 
and other modes that tend to get captured as well...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ros freq

2010-02-20 Thread Phil Williams

Be right there.

philw de ka1gmn

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM, David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD 
wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote:



 trying 18.110 usb for anyone willing to try.

 david/wd4kpd
  




-- 
Philw de KA1GMN

Re: [digitalradio] ROS v1.6.3 no Rec

2010-02-20 Thread Russell Blair

Tnx I got it fix tnx any way.

Russell NC5O
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


 IN GOD WE TRUST  


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 





From: Russell Blair russell_blai...@yahoo.com
To: Digital Radio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 8:39:04 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] ROS v1.6.3 no Rec

  
I have ROS v1.6.3 but its not showing ant rec audio, I am using the Signalink 
USB interface, it Tx ok but cant Rec any signals, need some help, There are 
some tones on 14.101 at times any other place I can look for tones.

Russell NC5O
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 

 IN GOD WE TRUST  

Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell. Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 


 got it

Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA

2010-02-20 Thread J. Moen

What is the FCC definition of spread spectrum, and where can it be located on 
the internet?

   Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: John B. Stephensen 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:58 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA 

  ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as 
the bandwidth is expanded. However, the FCC never fined anyone during the 
period when Hellscreiber was used illegally so I doubt that they would do so 
with ROS. 

  What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them 
petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission 
designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide 
emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 
0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. 

  73,

  John
  KD6OZH

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

2010-02-19 Thread ivor peters

m5...@blueyonder.co.uk
hello all.
can someone tell me where i go to
download this ros.
many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy obrien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

  The description says it uses spread-spectrun

  On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk 
wrote:

Andy obrien wrote:
 Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ?

Why would it not be Andy?

I

RE: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

2010-02-19 Thread Giedrius, LY2CG

can someone tell me where i go to

download this ros.

many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

 

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/   

 

73 - Giedrius, LY2CG

 

 






 

m5...@blueyonder.co.uk

hello all.

can someone tell me where i go to

download this ros.

many thanks 73 ivor/m5ply

- Original Message - 

From: Andy obrien mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com  

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:23 AM

Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

 

  

The description says it uses spread-spectrun

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.
mailto:dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk co.uk wrote:

  

Andy obrien wrote:
 Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ?

Why would it not be Andy?

I

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe,
N8FQ...

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html

Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
part 97 I am missing ?

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

2010-02-19 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an over 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the over 
button. The over button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

2010-02-19 Thread Dave Ackrill

Andy obrien wrote:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe,
 N8FQ...
 
 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
 
 Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
 part 97 I am missing ?
 
 Andy K3UK
 

I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect 
as far as RIO is concerned.  It's actually no more 'spread' than some of 
the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the 
best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than 
RIO does.

Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to 
think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I 
have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is 
something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 
'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of 
the song...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

2010-02-19 Thread Dave Ackrill

Dave Ackrill wrote:

 I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect 
 as far as RIO is concerned.  It's actually no more 'spread' than some of 
 the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

Sorry, I meant ROS of course.

Mark it down as my senior moment for today. ;-)

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

Jose, a button that hands over to the other person in the call

e.g.  k3uk de p5dx kn

K3UK would have P5DX  in the destination box.  I think it would be the
same as the call button though.

Andy K3UK

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM, jose alberto nieto ros 
nietoro...@yahoo.es wrote:



 Hi, Glenn.

 Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please

 Thank you




  --
 *De:* Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com
 *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 *Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
 *Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS



  I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you
 Vicente!!!
 I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an
 over button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the
 over button. The over button would place the other stations call + my
 call K then switch back to receive automatically.
 Just a suggestion.
 Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
 Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

2010-02-19 Thread KH6TY

Unfortunately, the ROS explanation of Spread Spectrum and Frequency
Hopping in the documentation too closely resembles the definition of
Spread Spectrum as written in the Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum. Since ROS claims to be
Frequency Hopping and Spread Spectrum by its own documentation, it is,
no matter what you want to call it.

The FCC recently clarified what a repeater is because a group insisted
that any time delay meant it was not actually repeating, but their
argument lost.

There is good reason to want the FCC to allow ROS to be used in the
automatic subbands, but that will take time and a petition. Looks like a
good mode!

73 - Skip KH6TY

Dave Ackrill wrote:

Andy obrien wrote:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe,

N8FQ...

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html

Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another
part of

part 97 I am missing ?

Andy K3UK

I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect
as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of
the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the
best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than
RIO does.

Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to
think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I
have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is
something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of
'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of
the song...

Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

Thanks Skip, I agree after doing some more reading and I will not use this
mode on HF.  Your UHF idea sounds good.

Andy K3Uk
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:32 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote:



 Unfortunately, the ROS explanation of Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping
 in the documentation too closely resembles the definition of Spread Spectrum
 as written in the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum.
 Since ROS claims to be Frequency Hopping and Spread Spectrum by its own
 documentation, it is, no matter what you want to call it.

 The FCC recently clarified what a repeater is because a group insisted that
 any time delay meant it was not actually repeating, but their argument lost.

 There is good reason to want the FCC to allow ROS to be used in the
 automatic subbands, but that will take time and a petition. Looks like a
 good mode!

 73 - Skip KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

2010-02-19 Thread Glenn L. Roeser

Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station Button 
will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the stations 
equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the text field: his call 
de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the Custom button?  RenameCustom either Over or End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietrace@ yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an over 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the over 
button. The over button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

2010-02-19 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

Ah, OK, thats button exit already:

Is the button:  +BYE

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station Button 
will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the stations 
equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the text field: his call 
de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the Custom button?  RenameCustom either Over or End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  
Hi, Glenn.

Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please

Thank you


 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietrace@ yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  
I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an over 
button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press the over 
button. The over button would place the other stations call + my call K then 
switch back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS

2010-02-19 Thread Mobile Me


Hi All.
I'm trying to install ROS on my pc running windows 7 ultimate (64 bit) 
but I'm not able to install, it seems to be impossible to do it on this 
operativ system.

Could someone help me ?
Best regards and thanks in advance.
73 - Ugo

Il 19/02/2010 20:09, jose alberto nieto ros ha scritto:

Ah, OK, thats button exit already:
Is the button:  +BYE



*De:* Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS

Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station 
Button will fill the text field automatically when clicked with the 
stations equipment.) The over button would place at the end of the 
text field: his call de my call  K . Then it would stop the transmission.

I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the Custom button?  RenameCustom either Over 
or End TX?

Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)



*From:* jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es
*To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Sent:* Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS

Hi, Glenn.
Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, please
Thank you



*De:* Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietrace@ yahoo.com http://yahoo.com/
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
*Asunto:* [digitalradio] ROS

I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you 
Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an 
over button so that after the text is typed I would be able to press 
the over button. The over button would place the other stations 
call + my call K then switch back to receive automatically.

Just a suggestion.
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

RE: [digitalradio] ROS

2010-02-19 Thread kq6i

I had to disable Norton antivirus temporally to install hr. Norton considers 
.exe as evil. But, I use XP pro. Perhaps install
using XP mode es disable antivirus software?

rgrds
Craig
kq6i
 

-Original Message-
From: Mobile Me [mailto:ugo.dep...@me.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:47 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Cc: jose alberto nieto ros
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS



Hi All. 
I'm trying to install ROS on my pc running windows 7 ultimate (64 bit) but I'm 
not able to install, it seems to be impossible
to do it on this operativ system. 
Could someone help me ? 
Best regards and thanks in advance. 
73 - Ugo

Il 19/02/2010 20:09, jose alberto nieto ros ha scritto: 

  
Ah, OK, thats button exit already:
 
Is the button:  +BYE

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietr...@yahoo.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:47
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  



Hello Jose,
It would be similar to one of the other buttons. (Example: The Station 
Button will fill the text field automatically
when clicked with the stations equipment.) The over button would place at the 
end of the text field: his call de my call  K .
Then it would stop the transmission.
I hope that I explained it better.
Could it be used with the Custom button?  RenameCustom either Over or 
End TX?
Thank you Jose for this fine mode.
Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV)

 




From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo. es 
mailto:nietoro...@yahoo.es 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS

  



Hi, Glenn.
 
Could you explain better the over button please. Put an example, 
please
 
Thank you
 

 




De: Glenn L. Roeser hillbillietrace@ yahoo.com http://yahoo.com/ 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 14:41
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS

  



I just had my first QSO using ROS with Vicente (EA1GIH) ...Thank you 
Vicente!!!
I am really impressed with this new mode. My wish is for it to have an 
over button so that after the text is typed
I would be able to press the over button. The over button would place the 
other stations call + my call K then switch
back to receive automatically.
Just a suggestion. 
Very nice mode thank you Jose! Well done.
Very 73 to all in the group, Glenn (WB2LMV)

Re: [digitalradio] ros

2010-02-19 Thread John Becker, WØJAB

At 06:58 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:
 even some of the AFSK/RTTY people use USB.

I have seen this too and at times wonder why.
I think maybe because the other modes are USB.

I got into RTTY in 1976. Still use a machine for RTTY.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

2010-02-19 Thread Tony



 It will interesting to see if Tony K2MO gets a chance to put this through the 
 Pathsim tests and compare it to Olivia. My guess is 
 that it will be close to that of Olivia. Andy K3UK

Andy,

I'd be more than happy to run ROS through the path simulator if I could get the 
program running with Vista :  ) Can't get past the run-time error.  

Tony -K2MO

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

2010-02-19 Thread jose alberto nieto ros

I made the experiment over AWGN and ROS is 2 dBs better than OLIVIA 32/1000.

But we are comparing two modes at differents character rate. As you know ROS is 
two times faster than OLIVIA 32/1000.

You should compare ROS 16 with OLIVIA 8/1000.  Then the different is about 5-6 
dBs for the same character rate.





De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com
Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 00:28
Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS experiments

  
My experiments (many receptions and 2 transmissions) today with
ROS 1 and ROS 16 shows that it is quite an effective mode.
Congratulations Jose. Of particular interest to me were the several
occasions where I decoded a signal that was not visible in the
waterfall or audible to my ears. It will interesting to see if Tony
K2MO gets a chance to put this through the Pathsim tests and compare
it to Olivia. My guess is that it will be close to that of Olivia
1000/32 , perhaps within 2-3 dB.

I should also point out that I think the software is well designed and
layed out. Over the years we have had many modes come and go. I
suspect that in 2-3 years time, ROS will still be used.

Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] ROS experiments