Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Nah, just the money, hihi. On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 5:50 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote: > Leigh is referring to the fact that the founders of Purify went on to > create Netflix. > > I don't think Reed and Neal used much of what they learned with Purify > to build Netflix, other than to make sure that it doesn't leak memory. > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > But Purify gave us Netflix! > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 2:05 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote: >> > C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no >> > need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. >> > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
But Purify gave us Netflix! On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 2:05 pm, Dave Bernstein wrote: > C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no > need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Mark, Back in 1986-1988 a military civil engineering unit ran packet using an AEA PK-232. They started out using 300 baud and it didn't do too well. Then they dropped it to 110 baud and it worked much better. Finally they dropped it to 50 baud and got 100% throughput...even more throughput than at 300 baud and 110 baud under their usual bad conditions. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal >To be honest, using a high speed baud rate modem on HF and then encoding >it to > >slow down the effective bps, seems the exact opposite of what is > normally done > >with slower baud rate and higher order modulation to get the higher > throughput. Rick, The actual BPS rate for 188-110B is 7200, for 188-141B it is 375. Higher order modulation is being used to get higher throughput. In the case of 188-110B you have in some cases much heavier use of FEC, redundancy and training. The question remains about the symbol times. We know that 300 baud packet is not useless on HF, although it is not optimized. I would like to re-conduct the experiments that were run in 2002 where the baud rate of HF packet was reduced. This time perhaps leaving the shift at 200 Hz and reducing the Baud rate to 100. I think however the long QSB will still be the major contributing factor to failure of packets. Since you have to decode the entire frame and get a good CRC, you are better off with short frame times. So far this has been the case with my QSO's using 188-141A. The shorter the message, the better the chance of success. Anyone for some 100 Baud packet? 73, Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hello Rick, >Yes, I was afraid of the long frames. Yes, at 100 bauds, no more than 50 bytes... >And when you get done, it seems it would be better to use an existing >mode or new mode for an ARQ mode for sound card digital. With the same frames, in APRS for example (on in Unproto), compare the 100 bauds Packet with Pax/Pax2. I think in Pax APRS will be very much better (I hope so!) because Pax is an Olivia clone (so much more robust than Packet). >What do you think about all this talk about very high baud rate digital sound >card >programs? I think all this is very confused...It needs precise specifications for programmers on a precise mode. In the principle, why not very high baud rate, but remember that more or less, when you double the baud rate, you double the bandwidth (or and if you keep the same bandwidth you divise by 2 the euclidian distance between symbols), and, so, you increase the minimum S/N of 3 dB... The way to win dB on the minimum S/N is: *on the correction coding, which can give a gain according to the coding (Convolutional coding and Reed Solomon were the best but now "turbo-codes" approach the Shannon limit). * to decrease the number of bits by character (about 5 bits/character in PSK63F (Nino IZ8BLY) which is the best auto-synchronized coding but 4 bits/character would be ideal...). If you multiply the number of carriers, you decrease drastically the average power/peak power ratio. Note: under Windows only an asynchronosous ARQ mode is possible (as Pax) not a synchronous ARQ mode (as Pactor), unfortunatly... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal Hi Patrick, Yes, I was afraid of the long frames. They would have to be modified. And when you get done, it seems it would be better to use an existing mode or new mode for an ARQ mode for sound card digital. What do you think about all this talk about very high baud rate digital sound card programs? 73, Rick, KV9U Patrick Lindecker wrote: >Hello Rick, > > > >>I don't think Multipsk adjusts for baud rate below the 300 baud speed. >> >> >No Rick, it does not. However, some time ago I added a 110 bauds Packet to Multipsk and test it, for fun. It was not better that the 300 bauds (and normally it's easy to be better than the 300 bauds...). It was not very good because the frames were 3 times longer that in 300 bauds with so 3 more risk of errors. It missed a correction mean. > >73 >Patrick > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Patrick, Yes, I was afraid of the long frames. They would have to be modified. And when you get done, it seems it would be better to use an existing mode or new mode for an ARQ mode for sound card digital. What do you think about all this talk about very high baud rate digital sound card programs? 73, Rick, KV9U Patrick Lindecker wrote: >Hello Rick, > > > >>I don't think Multipsk adjusts for baud rate below the 300 baud speed. >> >> >No Rick, it does not. However, some time ago I added a 110 bauds Packet to >Multipsk and test it, for fun. It was not better that the 300 bauds (and >normally it's easy to be better than the 300 bauds...). It was not very good >because the frames were 3 times longer that in 300 bauds with so 3 more risk >of errors. It missed a correction mean. > >73 >Patrick > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hello Rick, >I don't think Multipsk adjusts for baud rate below the 300 baud speed. No Rick, it does not. However, some time ago I added a 110 bauds Packet to Multipsk and test it, for fun. It was not better that the 300 bauds (and normally it's easy to be better than the 300 bauds...). It was not very good because the frames were 3 times longer that in 300 bauds with so 3 more risk of errors. It missed a correction mean. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal Perhaps with a little FEC and the slower speed and a shorter frame, Packet might have worked better on HF. I remember reading that packet requires a rather high S/N ratio to work. The only redeeming value is that it is an ARQ mode and it can run on a sound card such as with Patrick's Multipsk program. But when I have monitored traffic, sad to say it is mostly retries:( I don't think Multipsk adjusts for baud rate below the 300 baud speed. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: > > >Rick, > >The actual BPS rate for 188-110B is 7200, for 188-141B it is 375. Higher >order modulation is being used to get higher throughput. In the case of >188-110B you have in some cases much heavier use of FEC, redundancy and >training. The question remains about the symbol times. We know that 300 >baud packet is not useless on HF, although it is not optimized. I would >like to re-conduct the experiments that were run in 2002 where the baud >rate of HF packet was reduced. This time perhaps leaving the shift at 200 >Hz and reducing the Baud rate to 100. I think however the long QSB will >still be the major contributing factor to failure of packets. Since you >have to decode the entire frame and get a good CRC, you are better off with >short frame times. So far this has been the case with my QSO's using >188-141A. The shorter the message, the better the chance of success. > >Anyone for some 100 Baud packet? > >73, > >Mark N5RFX > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Perhaps with a little FEC and the slower speed and a shorter frame, Packet might have worked better on HF. I remember reading that packet requires a rather high S/N ratio to work. The only redeeming value is that it is an ARQ mode and it can run on a sound card such as with Patrick's Multipsk program. But when I have monitored traffic, sad to say it is mostly retries:( I don't think Multipsk adjusts for baud rate below the 300 baud speed. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: > > >Rick, > >The actual BPS rate for 188-110B is 7200, for 188-141B it is 375. Higher >order modulation is being used to get higher throughput. In the case of >188-110B you have in some cases much heavier use of FEC, redundancy and >training. The question remains about the symbol times. We know that 300 >baud packet is not useless on HF, although it is not optimized. I would >like to re-conduct the experiments that were run in 2002 where the baud >rate of HF packet was reduced. This time perhaps leaving the shift at 200 >Hz and reducing the Baud rate to 100. I think however the long QSB will >still be the major contributing factor to failure of packets. Since you >have to decode the entire frame and get a good CRC, you are better off with >short frame times. So far this has been the case with my QSO's using >188-141A. The shorter the message, the better the chance of success. > >Anyone for some 100 Baud packet? > >73, > >Mark N5RFX > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>To be honest, using a high speed baud rate modem on HF and then encoding >it to > >slow down the effective bps, seems the exact opposite of what is > normally done > >with slower baud rate and higher order modulation to get the higher > throughput. Rick, The actual BPS rate for 188-110B is 7200, for 188-141B it is 375. Higher order modulation is being used to get higher throughput. In the case of 188-110B you have in some cases much heavier use of FEC, redundancy and training. The question remains about the symbol times. We know that 300 baud packet is not useless on HF, although it is not optimized. I would like to re-conduct the experiments that were run in 2002 where the baud rate of HF packet was reduced. This time perhaps leaving the shift at 200 Hz and reducing the Baud rate to 100. I think however the long QSB will still be the major contributing factor to failure of packets. Since you have to decode the entire frame and get a good CRC, you are better off with short frame times. So far this has been the case with my QSO's using 188-141A. The shorter the message, the better the chance of success. Anyone for some 100 Baud packet? 73, Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Bob, >Didn't you do the software development for this modem to run under Linux back >in 1999 or so? > >Whatever happened to it and how would something like this perform on say, 6 >meters where I would expect you could use it? > >If amateur radio did get permission to use high baud rate modems on HF >digital, >would you recommend going this route instead of the approach that SCS took >with >Pactor? > >To be honest, using a high speed baud rate modem on HF and then encoding it to >slow down the effective bps, seems the exact opposite of what is normally done >with slower baud rate and higher order modulation to get the higher throughput. > >If you were to determine baud rate from a given modulation, wouldn't you just >determine the symbol length in milliseconds and then divide 1000 by that >symbol >length? Ergo, the Mil Std 188-110-A1 must have symbols that are well under 0.5 >ms? > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > > > > >Robert McGwier wrote: > >>What? That was basically unintelligible. >> >> >>Mil Std 188-110-A1 2400 baud serial modem combines several features to >>mitigate the channel. >> >>Furthermore TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED BAUD DOES NOT MEAN 2400 bps. It >>almost never does. What happens in the modem is multiple 2400 baud >>symbols are put together to encode the data at a slower rate. This can >>be as low as 75 bps.The channel symbols are sent at 2400 baud. >> >>There is forward error correction done on the data and the encoded data >>is permuted in time in a block form. The type of forward error >>correction works best when the channel induces errors in isolation. On >>a typical HF channel, the errors come in bunches. So the permutation >>mentioned above, spreads these errors out in time to isolate them. >>CLEVER DEVILS. This was the ingenuous trick that made it all work. >> >>To slow down the data rate, the data is repeated from zero to several >>times. The encoded redundant data provides more energy per bit since it >>involves now N more bauds (where N is the number of repeats). >> >>I have << NEVER >> in many years of working with this scheme, seen the >>high DATA rates work well over multiple hop channels. I have seen 1200 >>bps be quite robust and 600 bps very robust indeed. I have seen 75 bps >>work when you cannot detect the modem is on the channel. >> >>73's >>Bob >>N4HY >> >> > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
What? That was basically unintelligible. Mil Std 188-110-A1 2400 baud serial modem combines several features to mitigate the channel. Furthermore TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED BAUD DOES NOT MEAN 2400 bps. It almost never does. What happens in the modem is multiple 2400 baud symbols are put together to encode the data at a slower rate. This can be as low as 75 bps.The channel symbols are sent at 2400 baud. There is forward error correction done on the data and the encoded data is permuted in time in a block form. The type of forward error correction works best when the channel induces errors in isolation. On a typical HF channel, the errors come in bunches. So the permutation mentioned above, spreads these errors out in time to isolate them. CLEVER DEVILS. This was the ingenuous trick that made it all work. To slow down the data rate, the data is repeated from zero to several times. The encoded redundant data provides more energy per bit since it involves now N more bauds (where N is the number of repeats). I have << NEVER >> in many years of working with this scheme, seen the high DATA rates work well over multiple hop channels. I have seen 1200 bps be quite robust and 600 bps very robust indeed. I have seen 75 bps work when you cannot detect the modem is on the channel. 73's Bob N4HY DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: > The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT the > discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. > > Walt/K5YFW > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:07 AM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > Can you explain how it is that you can run a symbol rate of 2400 (baud) > with 188-110A and it works very well running at this extremely high > speed for HF? And yet other modes, such as Packet, don't work very well > at 300 baud, and Walt has pointed out that government studies had show > that under 50 baud was about the optimum for the types of conditions we > often find on HF? > > Why would we not just increase the baud rate of MT-63 or MFSK16 to get a > similar speed boost if it can work that well? > > How tight do you need the frequency tolerance to be to enhance weak > signal modes? The ICOM Pro rigs run at around 0.5 ppm, which seems > several orders of magnitude better than what some of the digital mode > programs require. I wonder how much better a weak signal/difficult > condition mode we could come up with if there was a tighter frequency > tolerance. > > You might recall the early developement of Clover I, by Ray, W7GHM. If I > remember right, the signal was phaselocked to WWV or other time standard > frequency. Later this was abandoned with DSP developed as a bus card and > the computer mostly being used as a dumb terminal, but it will never be > as tight a frequency tolerance as 10 e -6 or so:) > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > -- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Mark, When I visualize the MT-63 waveform, it seems like many little tones turning off and on, but all running at a very low baud rate. Thus the low baud rate for the mode even though it is a huge width of spectrum. All these years we were told that low baud rates worked better under poor conditions and on HF (which often has poor conditions). And that ISI issues would cripple modes much over 100 to 200 baud. Kantronics proprietary G-TOR mode can switch between several baud rates but I bet it is rare that it gets up to the maximum 300 baud rate. I can think of some very amazing things that can be done with these higher speed modes that appear to be nearly magical compared to the science that we were basing everything on. The odd thing is that I am not hearing much from anyone else on this except for the ALE buffs. Can others comment on this too. If it is only the U.S. hams that are limited to 300 baud on HF, why is it that the NZ, and EU, and SA hams have not developed much faster sound card modes? The reason that Pactor 1 had a low baud rate of 100 and a high one of 200, was that their experiments (SCS) proved that 100 was about as high as you could get away with with significant ionospheric disturbances. During pristine times, you could move it up to 200. As Dr. Tom Rink said in 1995 in discussing how they came up with Pactor 2: "... signals with higher baud rates suffer from a significant loss of immunity a- gainst time smearing ... For these reasons, 200 baud is commonly con- sidered to be the maximum useful symbol rate of 2-tone FSK systems, operating over short wave links." also "DQPSK with 100 baud has proven to be a very good compromise between robustness against AWGN and time dispersion, especially if it is combined with powerful error control coding." Pactor 2 can switch between DBPSK (its most robust mode) to DQPSK for more speed and 8DPSK and even 16DPSK under excellent conditions. With Pactor 3, they basically added more tones, 18 of them compared with the 2 carriers in Pactor 2, and uses DBPSK and DQPSK but still running at 100 baud for each of the carriers. Thus the claim that it is 100 baud. This seems to mesh with what Walt was talking about earlier. If you added up the carriers and multiplied it times the baud rate, you would have 1800 baud. I am hoping other developers and experts here on this group will help us understand how the MIL modems can work at the much higher baud rates. As far as joining MARS again, I will pass. I was a NavyMARS member in college when I was around age 18 and my call was N0YUI which is now a reissued ham call. Many years later I joined AFMARS and was AFA3QH, and realized this organization was not for me even though I am an USAF veteran. This was a few decades ago and their structure and mission have changed quite a bit. But that doesn't mean that MARS and amateur radio can not share and collaborate when it is feasible to do so. And I strongly support that. 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: >>If I gave you some parameters of a waveform, what would you use to base >>your measurement of baud rate? >> >> > >I would look at the data, and see how it is modulated into an analog >waveform. For FSK we know that a 1 produces one symbol, and a 0 another >symbol. MFSK16 the symbols represent > > >0001 >0010 >0011 >0100 >0101 >0110 >0111 >1000 >1001 >1010 >1011 >1100 >1101 >1110 > > >4 bits per symbol. For MT63 there are 64 bits per symbol. All 64 PSK >signals combine to produce 1 waveform, just like a two tone, 3, tone or 4 >tone test produce a waveform. The complex voice signal produces a >waveform. PACTOR III uses the same logic...Up to 18 tones are used, spaced >at 120 HZ. I can take a picture of the MT63 waveform and put it on the >Internet if you like. > > > > >>Are you saying that the reason that packet performs so poorly is due the >>fact that it has no convolutional coding or interleaving? >> >> > >Yes, I would say that it is not as well suited for HF operation as other modes. > > > >>All along what Walt and I have pointed out was that ISI becomes >>intolerable with difficult propagation conditions (e.g., doppler, polar >>flutter, etc.) with short symbol lengths. The longest symbol length >>possible for 300 baud is 1000/baud or 1000/300 = 3.33 ms. That is a very >>short pulse for HF. That is why Pactor chose 100 baud = 10 ms minimum >>pulse length (assuming they are continuous with no gaps). That 10 ms >>length is about the right amount, particularly with some DSP enhancements. >> >> > >You can overcome those issues by interleaving, convolutional encoding, >redundancy, and spreading the signal. I would say the real reason why 100 >baud may be the limiting for PACTOR III is not only the RF medium, but the >radios that are using it. Amateur gear I am sure is not designed for low >group delay distortion. > > > > >>If the baud rate of a waveform was 2400 as Steve has often
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>If I gave you some parameters of a waveform, what would you use to base >your measurement of baud rate? I would look at the data, and see how it is modulated into an analog waveform. For FSK we know that a 1 produces one symbol, and a 0 another symbol. MFSK16 the symbols represent 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 4 bits per symbol. For MT63 there are 64 bits per symbol. All 64 PSK signals combine to produce 1 waveform, just like a two tone, 3, tone or 4 tone test produce a waveform. The complex voice signal produces a waveform. PACTOR III uses the same logic...Up to 18 tones are used, spaced at 120 HZ. I can take a picture of the MT63 waveform and put it on the Internet if you like. >Are you saying that the reason that packet performs so poorly is due the >fact that it has no convolutional coding or interleaving? Yes, I would say that it is not as well suited for HF operation as other modes. >All along what Walt and I have pointed out was that ISI becomes >intolerable with difficult propagation conditions (e.g., doppler, polar >flutter, etc.) with short symbol lengths. The longest symbol length >possible for 300 baud is 1000/baud or 1000/300 = 3.33 ms. That is a very >short pulse for HF. That is why Pactor chose 100 baud = 10 ms minimum >pulse length (assuming they are continuous with no gaps). That 10 ms >length is about the right amount, particularly with some DSP enhancements. You can overcome those issues by interleaving, convolutional encoding, redundancy, and spreading the signal. I would say the real reason why 100 baud may be the limiting for PACTOR III is not only the RF medium, but the radios that are using it. Amateur gear I am sure is not designed for low group delay distortion. >If the baud rate of a waveform was 2400 as Steve has often mentioned, >wouldn't the longest possible symbol length be about 0.42 ms? If this >really can work on HF, it is completely contrary to what I have learned >over the past few decades, particularly when Pactor was first on the >scene. Even with extensive DSP, can you overcome that large of an ISI >issue? Apparently you can, however we will never know unless we join MARS, or get the arcane 300 baud limit lifted. 73, Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Mark, I think I understood you to say earlier that the baud rate is based upon the total waveform. I am having difficulty grasping what that really means. I have spent a LOT of time researching this on the internet and not really finding something that I can picture in my mind like I can with rtty and Clover, etc. which I think I sorta understand. If I gave you some parameters of a waveform, what would you use to base your measurement of baud rate? Are you saying that the reason that packet performs so poorly is due the fact that it has no convolutional coding or interleaving? All along what Walt and I have pointed out was that ISI becomes intolerable with difficult propagation conditions (e.g., doppler, polar flutter, etc.) with short symbol lengths. The longest symbol length possible for 300 baud is 1000/baud or 1000/300 = 3.33 ms. That is a very short pulse for HF. That is why Pactor chose 100 baud = 10 ms minimum pulse length (assuming they are continuous with no gaps). That 10 ms length is about the right amount, particularly with some DSP enhancements. If the baud rate of a waveform was 2400 as Steve has often mentioned, wouldn't the longest possible symbol length be about 0.42 ms? If this really can work on HF, it is completely contrary to what I have learned over the past few decades, particularly when Pactor was first on the scene. Even with extensive DSP, can you overcome that large of an ISI issue? 73, Rick, KV9U Mark Miller wrote: >After further reading I understand now how it works. The symbol rate is >2400 Baud. The coded (rate 1/2 convolutional ) data rates have differing >interleaving depths. 75 has the highest interleaving depth, and 2400 has >the lowest interleaving depth. 4800 is not coded nor interleaved. Olivia >does something very similar. It has multiple Baud rates, and interleaving >depths. Packet has no convolutional coding, and does not interleave data. > >73, > >Mark N5RFX > >At 11:51 AM 9/1/2006, Mark Miller wrote: > > >>>The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT >>>the discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. >>> >>> >>Can you explain further? I saw that: >> >>"MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier >>frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant >>2400bps Symbol Rate. >> >>The symbol rate is 2400 Baud, so what makes this perform better than >>Packet at 300 Baud? >> >>73, >> >>Mark N5RFX >> >> >> >> > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, Regarding the Sounding aspect of life, not all stations need to be Sounding and not all stations need to be Sounding once per hour. Sounding can be adjusted to accommodate the loading of a network. The more stations that are ALE active on the same channel less frequent you sound and longer you set the LQA data base time out. For example you can implement a specific network where you really want to stay on the changes in propagation where you have x number of target stations in each geographic area Sounding each 30 minutes (when not otherwise occupied) over 10 channels where the purpose of that network is for the users to establish a link with one of the Sounding stations to move traffic. So, say all 50 U.S. States had an ALE station at each State EOC (just an example) or say the ARRL sponsored a ham in all 50 states using an ALE station and all these stations in either example connected to each other periodically, then any user Scanning would pick up there Soundings when Scanning and whenever a user (from either of the two example networks) want to send a message via either network, they would just call the target Sounding station in that network, establish a link on the best ALE LQA ranked channel and leave a message. You can build on all this, from their the relay of that may could wait for the station operator to manually relay it or a automated system can be created with routing etc., many uses have a flat model mailbox or BBS configured where you link with ALE and then switch to PACTOR x and leave/pickup your traffic. This is ALE Network Operations where the network is planned, serves an on going 24/7 purpose for known number of stations. However, getting back to Amateur Radio focus where we operate more loosely on a daily basis an application of much less frequent Soundings and longer LQA time outs as mentioned up front would suffice for our casual operations where stations sounded once every 3 hours or 5 hours, the LQA database can be maintained for days, this yields a on going daily trend analysis of LQA data (the systems must be running 24/7 for this approach) to base the automatic linking call on as all data is listed as good since it has not been aged out of existence and if you did not hear your target station on all 10 channels today yet, then yesterdays data would be used, for the same time of day, day to day, propo is usually repetitive. So as you can see there is no reason to get all hung up on the massive proposition of a Million or 100,000 or 10,000 or 1,000 stations Sounding constantly with a solid wall of ALE 8FSK Soundings, its just a matter of adjusting the ALE operations as the growth of ALE usage takes place. I hope this helps everyone understand the flexibility and application of ALE better. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 12:24 PM 9/1/2006, you wrote: >If propagation allows 1000 amateur ALE users to hear each other on >the same pilot channel, and they are all sounding for 10 seconds >every hour, then wouldn't the pilot channel be massively >oversubscribed to the point where no station could decode anything? > >1000 users times 10 seconds is 1 seconds of transmission per >hour, but there are only 3600 seconds per hour. With no collision >avoidance, wouldn't anything more than 1200 seconds of transmission >per hour would be problematic? > > 73, Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, I really could not say for sure based on your criteria, depending on what you mean as asked. However using ALE and an appropriate Global Allcall or Anycall is very powerful. If the propo is there for the given frequency at the given time of the call, if there were 1,000 stations monitoring the channel and I placed a Global call then I could potentially link to all 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 stations, its unlimited, they could be sitting there or scanning past, its just my station transmitting in this case, they don't and then I could send an ALE DBM BRD (FEC) or FS-1052 BRD (FEC) message and potentially all stations (unlimited number) may receive that message. I could then send a all clear and clear the link and those that were Scanning will continue. That is a very powerful capability, QST to anyone basically. You can be more selective with these calls then you can be very selective and use a Net Call, so if there were only 1,000 people monitoring within range of may that had the same Net Call entered and yet there were 10,000 over all, I would potentially just get those 1,000 using the same Net Call and not any of the other 9,000 listeners. I can be even more selective and make a GROUP call were I have to enter each Self Address (Callsign) of the intended stations that I want and only those will potentially be linked to and receive my message. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 12:09 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: > >>>AA6YQ comments below > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Fortunately, that's not the way it works with ALE, John. There is >plenty of room for thousands of ALE operators around the world on >the few ALE HF channels we presently use now. Signals are separated >by time, location, and propagation. > > >>>Simple arithmetic that no one has disputed shows that with one >pilot channel per amateur band, ALE can support between 64 and 128 >simultaneous users. If your statement that "Signals are separated >by time, location, and propagation" means that ALE operates as many >disjoint sub-networks, then your earlier claim that one ALE user can >reliably contact any other ALE user is false -- an ALE user can only >reliably contact one of the 100 or so users on the same sub-network. >This sounds a lot like a VHF repeater. > > >>>However, HF propagation is not nearly that "clean" -- it >constantly shifts over the course of the day, particularly on the >higher bands. Sub-networks will sub-divide; since each station only >sounds once per hour, members of a sub-network may find that stations >supposedly connected do not respond. Disjoint sub-networks will also >merge; if this happens to two sub-networks that each have ~100 active >users, the result will be a sub-network whose pilot channels are >oversubscribed, and users will be dropped as described below. > > >There is some collision prevention within the ALE protocol. As for >soundings, when collisions do occur, it is not a problem, because of >the redundancy of timing and channels. If only two seconds >of a desired sounding gets through, that is enough because it is only >a simple callsign we are looking to decode, not a complete message. > > >>>That's not correct, Bonnie. If only 2 seconds of a 10-second >sounding "get through", then on average 80% of the receiving stations >will miss the sounding because they were scanning other frequencies >during that 2 second interval. These receiving stations will conclude >that the sounding station is not available, a "misunderstanding" that >can not be corrected until the station's next sounding an hour later. >But unless the congestion terminates (users drop out, or propagation >divides the sub-network), then 80% of the receiving stations will >again reach the wrong conclusion at the next sounding. > > >For future expansion, the flexibility of the ALE sytem makes >it possible to make a variety of adjustments, so the timings >and channel lists we use today are not etched in stone. >Right now, we use timings and settings that are optimized for >light load and maximum weak signal decoding. In the future we >may want to optimize for peak loading, at the discretion of the >operator, or as part of the overall amateur ALE strategy. > > >>>Omnidrectional NVIS antennas and tuners set to bypass on receive >seem inconsistent with optimizing for maximum weak signal decoding. > > >>>As currently described, amateur ALE sound like a fine way for >local groups of amateurs to connect, though propagation may >occasionally separate them or unite them with other groups. If >groups are limited to ~30 users, loss of connectivity due to pilot >channel overload when propagation combines multiple sub-networks >should not be a frequent occurrence. > > >>>These limits can be overcome with faster scanning and more >frequencies per band, as military deployments have demonstrated. Both >of these solutions are problematic for amateurs, however: the former >because the min
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Rick, At 01:24 PM 9/1/2006, you wrote: >Can you explain how it is that you can run a symbol rate of 2400 (baud) >with 188-110A and it works very well running at this extremely high >speed for HF? And yet other modes, such as Packet, don't work very well >at 300 baud, and Walt has pointed out that government studies had show >that under 50 baud was about the optimum for the types of conditions we >often find on HF? See my reply to Mark. >Why would we not just increase the baud rate of MT-63 or MFSK16 to get a >similar speed boost if it can work that well? There is a lot of differences here, if you focus on the MT-63 part of your query that is more like the FSK aspect of MIL-STD-188-110 that we have not coded but in only BRD and at a fixed data rate. >How tight do you need the frequency tolerance to be to enhance weak >signal modes? The ICOM Pro rigs run at around 0.5 ppm, which seems >several orders of magnitude better than what some of the digital mode >programs require. I wonder how much better a weak signal/difficult >condition mode we could come up with if there was a tighter frequency >tolerance. That more than good in my book, it would be nice if everyone used such a radio, but you have guys using 1980's rigs that were the first to offer RS-232 control. /s/ Steve, N2CKH >You might recall the early developement of Clover I, by Ray, W7GHM. If I >remember right, the signal was phaselocked to WWV or other time standard >frequency. Later this was abandoned with DSP developed as a bus card and >the computer mostly being used as a dumb terminal, but it will never be >as tight a frequency tolerance as 10 e -6 or so:) > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > > >Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >Hi Rick, > > > >ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. > > > >After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be > >utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a > >MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external > >TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any > >third party program. > > > >The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK > >carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a > >constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps > >and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE > >supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and > >a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with > >the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from > >the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps > >symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later > >standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that > >have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster > >and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol > >rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we > >need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more > >consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with > >better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. > > > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > > > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Mark, I just seen this after sending you a reply... You go the idea, you actually put it forth simpler than I did as gave you too much detail, but yet just touched the tip of it ! I may have to save your explanation below for a more simple reply in the future, but I can never seem find my own and end up writing anew again. You can get a real headache reading all those standards and then writing C++ code to implement it. There is an FSK modem aspect of MIL-STD-188-110 as well but its not implemented in PC-ALE or MARS-ALE. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 03:24 PM 9/1/2006, you wrote: >After further reading I understand now how it works. The symbol rate is >2400 Baud. The coded (rate 1/2 convolutional ) data rates have differing >interleaving depths. 75 has the highest interleaving depth, and 2400 has >the lowest interleaving depth. 4800 is not coded nor interleaved. Olivia >does something very similar. It has multiple Baud rates, and interleaving >depths. Packet has no convolutional coding, and does not interleave data. > >73, > >Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Mark, The Mil-Std-188-110B serial (single-tone) mode use M-ary Phase-Shift Keying (PSK) on a single carrier frequency (1800hz standard) as the modulation technique for data transmission. The serial binary information is converted into a single 8-ary PSK-modulated output carrier where the modulation of this output carrier is a constant, standard is a 2400 symbols-per-second waveform regardless of the actual throughput data rate selected (75-2400bps coded). Many small shifts in phase can be created to represent various binary states. The addition of amplitude shifts to the phase shift information can also be used to increase the amount of information contained during any time interval. The data rate is a variable, either user selected or adaptive to at which the data is sent. At present we are using up a 2400bps coded data rate with an additional Data Link Protocol to Federal Standard 1052 (FS-1052). It does not stop at 2400bps though, hardware modems just keep doubling it, 4800, 9600, etc., we just have not gone there yet, and frankly, due to the Amateur grade radios being used and the other system components at this time, 2400bps is pretty much it for the average MARS members system, the same would be true for Ham radio use, if even legal at present which I believe it not the case. The interleaver is a matrix block type that operates upon input bits where the matrix size accommodates block storage of 0.0s, 0.6s, or 4.8s of receiving bits (depending on whether the zero, short, or long interleave setting is chosen) at all required data rates, MT-63 is similar with its Short and Long interleave settings. With MIL-STD-188-110, to maintain the interleave delay at a constant value, the block size is scaled by bit rate with an interleaver matrix dimension of rows and columns allocated for each required bit rate and interleave delay. Any unknown data bits are loaded into the interleaver matrix starting at column zero where the first bit is loaded into row 0, the next bit is loaded into row 9, the third bit is loaded into row 18, and the fourth bit into row 27. Thus, the row location for the bits increases by 9 modulo 40. This process continues until all 40 rows are loaded. The load then advances to column 1 and the process is repeated until the matrix block is filled. This procedure is followed for both long and short interleave settings, all this adds up to the "coded" vs. "uncoded", the later being the case at 4800bps. The above is a simplified explanation, there is much more to it all that can be read about in MIL-STD-188-110B, the current standard and then the DLP stuff in FED-STD-1052 which has been replaced by STANAG 5066 DLP that in PC-ALE and MARS-ALE has not yet been coded. Then, for the details of the Robust 75bps mode, one needs to read STANAG 4415. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 02:29 PM 9/1/2006, you wrote: > >The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT > >the discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. > > >Can you explain further? I saw that: > >"MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier >frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant 2400bps >Symbol Rate. > >The symbol rate is 2400 Baud, so what makes this perform better than Packet >at 300 Baud? > >73, > >Mark N5RFX > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
After further reading I understand now how it works. The symbol rate is 2400 Baud. The coded (rate 1/2 convolutional ) data rates have differing interleaving depths. 75 has the highest interleaving depth, and 2400 has the lowest interleaving depth. 4800 is not coded nor interleaved. Olivia does something very similar. It has multiple Baud rates, and interleaving depths. Packet has no convolutional coding, and does not interleave data. 73, Mark N5RFX At 11:51 AM 9/1/2006, Mark Miller wrote: >>The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT >>the discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. > > >Can you explain further? I saw that: > >"MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier >frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant >2400bps Symbol Rate. > >The symbol rate is 2400 Baud, so what makes this perform better than >Packet at 300 Baud? > >73, > >Mark N5RFX > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
xed (user selected) or variable (adaptive) settings, we recommend adaptive always be used and the tool will go back and forth increasing and decreasing the data rates as needed (interleaver is adaptive by the standard as well) where async in nature, if one side is hearing good enough to receive at 2400bps and the other is only hearing good enough for 600bps then the exchanges are at 1200bps/600bps, often both sides are at the same data rates when within 200 miles of each other, its usually beyond that range that we start to see one or two data rate steps of separation due to the disparity of RX conditions on the channel at the two locations. With BRD all stations be it just the sending and one receiving or sending and 100 receiving a broadcast, all sync the same sending station data rate and interleave which may not be the best for all stations if you are working outside of a 200 mile radius, which means all may not get the message, which is why there is in the standard and the tool "Re-Transmissions" to send the message immediately 1 to x number of times, so when working beyond 100 miles we wend it twice, 300 miles we send it three times, doing so means most stations get the message one or more times, at 2400bps we can afford this practice. >I am looking forward to your answers. > >Thanks and 73, > >Walt/K5YFW How did I do? /s/ Steve, N2CKH >-Original Message- >From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:43 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > >Hi Rick, > >ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. > >After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be >utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a >MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external >TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any >third party program. > >The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK >carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a >constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps >and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE >supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and >a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with >the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from >the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps >symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later >standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that >have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster >and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol >rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we >need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more >consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with >better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > >At 12:15 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: > >Steve, > > > >Ideally, it would be something you would want to share as a > >collaborative effort. Without this type of effort on the part of a few > >hams (Patrick being one, along with Dave's DX Lab software), we would > >not have the incredible synergy that these two programs bring to nearly > >any amateur operator. Right now we just do not have a good solution for > >sound card ARQ. This is not because it technically can not be done, but > >because the hams who have the knowledge to do it just are not interested > >in such a mode or at least it is very low on their priority list. They > >primarily design for keyboard to keyboard modes. > > > >What is the baud rate maximum speed for the MIL-STD-188-141B for a > >single tone? You seem to imply that even slowing it down you still are > >running these tones at 600 baud? I am having great difficulty > >understanding how any tones can be much faster than even 200 baud and > >actually work on HF. I believe that GTOR had the ability to max out at > >300 baud, but it was rare for the software to switch into this speed > >since the ionosphere doesn't really cooperate that much at baud rates > >that high. Which is why 300 baud Packet was such a poor HF mode. It was > >much too fast for the symbol rate and ISI issues made it nearly > >impossible for the receive station to decode the packet correctly. > > > >I am not clear yet as to whether the FCC considers the baud rate of the > >entire combined modulations or the individual baud rate of a given tone. > >Even if only th
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT >the discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. Can you explain further? I saw that: "MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. The symbol rate is 2400 Baud, so what makes this perform better than Packet at 300 Baud? 73, Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
The 2400 and 4800 baud is a composite baud rate for the mode/protocol NOT the discrete baud rate of any individual component of the waveform. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:07 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal Can you explain how it is that you can run a symbol rate of 2400 (baud) with 188-110A and it works very well running at this extremely high speed for HF? And yet other modes, such as Packet, don't work very well at 300 baud, and Walt has pointed out that government studies had show that under 50 baud was about the optimum for the types of conditions we often find on HF? Why would we not just increase the baud rate of MT-63 or MFSK16 to get a similar speed boost if it can work that well? How tight do you need the frequency tolerance to be to enhance weak signal modes? The ICOM Pro rigs run at around 0.5 ppm, which seems several orders of magnitude better than what some of the digital mode programs require. I wonder how much better a weak signal/difficult condition mode we could come up with if there was a tighter frequency tolerance. You might recall the early developement of Clover I, by Ray, W7GHM. If I remember right, the signal was phaselocked to WWV or other time standard frequency. Later this was abandoned with DSP developed as a bus card and the computer mostly being used as a dumb terminal, but it will never be as tight a frequency tolerance as 10 e -6 or so:) 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. > >After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be >utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a >MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external >TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any >third party program. > >The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK >carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a >constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps >and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE >supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and >a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with >the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from >the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps >symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later >standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that >have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster >and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol >rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we >need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more >consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with >better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Can you explain how it is that you can run a symbol rate of 2400 (baud) with 188-110A and it works very well running at this extremely high speed for HF? And yet other modes, such as Packet, don't work very well at 300 baud, and Walt has pointed out that government studies had show that under 50 baud was about the optimum for the types of conditions we often find on HF? Why would we not just increase the baud rate of MT-63 or MFSK16 to get a similar speed boost if it can work that well? How tight do you need the frequency tolerance to be to enhance weak signal modes? The ICOM Pro rigs run at around 0.5 ppm, which seems several orders of magnitude better than what some of the digital mode programs require. I wonder how much better a weak signal/difficult condition mode we could come up with if there was a tighter frequency tolerance. You might recall the early developement of Clover I, by Ray, W7GHM. If I remember right, the signal was phaselocked to WWV or other time standard frequency. Later this was abandoned with DSP developed as a bus card and the computer mostly being used as a dumb terminal, but it will never be as tight a frequency tolerance as 10 e -6 or so:) 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. > >After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be >utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a >MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external >TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any >third party program. > >The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK >carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a >constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps >and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE >supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and >a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with >the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from >the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps >symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later >standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that >have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster >and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol >rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we >need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more >consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with >better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Steve, If you have all the MIL-STD-188-110 features, let me ask four questions. 1) What is the maximum baud rate or symbol rate of the single PSK carrier? 2) Have you found that the un-coded 4800bps signal works on normal HF SSB transceivers? 3) What is the robustness of the 2400 and 4800 speeds? Are they above, at, or below a 0 dB SNR? 4) As a programmer, can you make the 2400 or 4800 speeds mode robust and/or more error free and stay within the current bandpass of most current HF SSB transceivers? I am looking forward to your answers. Thanks and 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:43 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal Hi Rick, ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any third party program. The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 12:15 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >Steve, > >Ideally, it would be something you would want to share as a >collaborative effort. Without this type of effort on the part of a few >hams (Patrick being one, along with Dave's DX Lab software), we would >not have the incredible synergy that these two programs bring to nearly >any amateur operator. Right now we just do not have a good solution for >sound card ARQ. This is not because it technically can not be done, but >because the hams who have the knowledge to do it just are not interested >in such a mode or at least it is very low on their priority list. They >primarily design for keyboard to keyboard modes. > >What is the baud rate maximum speed for the MIL-STD-188-141B for a >single tone? You seem to imply that even slowing it down you still are >running these tones at 600 baud? I am having great difficulty >understanding how any tones can be much faster than even 200 baud and >actually work on HF. I believe that GTOR had the ability to max out at >300 baud, but it was rare for the software to switch into this speed >since the ionosphere doesn't really cooperate that much at baud rates >that high. Which is why 300 baud Packet was such a poor HF mode. It was >much too fast for the symbol rate and ISI issues made it nearly >impossible for the receive station to decode the packet correctly. > >I am not clear yet as to whether the FCC considers the baud rate of the >entire combined modulations or the individual baud rate of a given tone. >Even if only the "slow" tones you mention below at 125 baud for an 8FSK >signal were available as an ARQ mode, I think that we would have a sea >change in sound card modes. > >Just to clarify, does the 8PSK have each of the 8 running at 125 baud, >or is that the total baud speed and the tones are really 15.625 x 8 >which would give you the 125 baud speed? > > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > > > > >Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >GA Rick, Patrick: > > > >The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x > >modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. > >FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as > >specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do > >not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is > >quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to > >where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a > >1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Thanks for your hard work on all this stuff, Steve. When I have used the PC-ALE program and selected Generic Icom nothing ever happens. So I am not doing something correctly. As of a couple of hours ago, I received my new "used" Ten Tec Argonaut V which I may try interfacing and see if I have any better luck. Seems like I tried to use the Ten Tec Pegasus in the past with no luck either. I will be interested to try a new version that would include CAT control and look forward to it. As far as working with another ham, such as Patrick, it would only be to help with insuring that he or others don't have to reinvent the software all over again. Just to take some basic modules and incorporate them if that is possible. Even if it is not you specficially, I sure hope there is more collaboration than there seems to be. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >At 01:53 PM 8/31/2006, you wrote: > > >>The PC-ALE program gave my some difficult times at first with crashing. >>I think I figured that out. At this time I don't see to be able to get >>the program to interface with my ICOM 756 Pro 2 rig through the CI-V. >> >> > >For that model with the current PC-ALE you need to select the GENERIC >ICOM interface if you have not already done so and provide the needed >details and you want to select SLIT VFO to bypass the BPF relays >during Scanning until needed for TX. Many are using the 756PROII with >the current tool and this approach. CAT PTT is not supported. > > > > >>It may be possible for those who wish to install some kind of PTT >>control running under another COM port or virtual COM with USB, but I >>don't plan on using any software that doesn't key the rig via the CI-V >>which has this already built in. >> >> > >Then you will just have to wait for the next next release of PC-ALE >then. Most but not all manufacturers now have CAT PTT in all their radios. > >However you really can only count on radios using RTS/CTS handshaking >to always exercise all commands being sent to them, something that >ICOM does not support, Kenwood always has, Yaesu has only just added >it to their new FT-2000. > >I remember back in the '80's when I first coded for the FT-980, all >software validation for each command, then Yaesu moved away from >that, they have been so inconsistent to their approach with radio CAT >that they any Ten Tec are tied for the worst, although they were on a >good track at first and so was Ten Tec early on when they were >emulating and adding to the ICOM CSMA system, Ten Tec via that >interface offered CAT PTT before ICOM ever did and then they went >amuck! Kenwood and ICOM have been the most stable and now the >FTdx9000 and FT-2000 are following Kenwoods command structure for the >most part. I love the Kenwood built in radio ID approach, in MARS-ALE >all you need to do is select Kenwood w/o RTS/CTS and baud rate, with >the radio on at program start it reads that radio ID and knows what >can be done with the attached radio. The ICOM addressable CSMA >approach (used by Ten Tec for years as well) has merits too as you >can control more than one radio (up to 6 actually) the bus and you >have built in collision support, Watkins-Johnson used (different >addressable header and other codes) it for years with their receivers >and then enhanced it beyond being compatible with ICOM and older Ten Tec's. > > > > >>What I would like to see is an ARQ sound card mode made available for >>digital use. Practically speaking this means something that drops into >>existing multi-mode sound card programs. Preferably, with the >>unbelievable Multipsk program which has rig control through Dave's DX >>Lab Commander program. There doesn't seem to be any other combination >>like that where two powerful programs become even more powerful through >>the synergy between them. I would like to see other ham developers and >>software experts move in a similar direction to expand the use of new >>modes that really make a difference. >> >> > >I have too many projects going now to help make you happy on that score Rick. > >At some point, now that the power of the CPU and OS has arrived, just >as I want to get back to my Sight It! tool, I want to get back to my >CATCC (http://www.n2ckh.com/download.htm) software as well. I lost >many years of development beginning in May '99 when I suffered an >accident that kept me from sitting at a computer after learning to >walk again etc., I did not start software development again until the >Fall of 2004 on MARS-ALE. When I can focus on the hobby again in a >big way I likely will, but at present my main focus is on the needs of MARS. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > >>73, >> >>Rick, KV9U >> >> > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan poli
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, I put in a number of years of DoD IV&V and I agree 100% that Ada was a huge benefit over all the languages, many of them unique to a particular CPU or embedded platform. I can't begin to tell you how many languages that I was forced to use in DoD related projects before Ada came along and then we went to best commercial practices. I was not knocking the Ada language, just the compilers written in support of the language for Windows development when I last used them. I was very proud that AMDS was created using Ada in the face of the tools we had to use, but I was also very happy to move to C++ for the added enhancements from the more optimizing compiler. In Europe Ada is much more popular outside Military circles than in the states, likely due to Pascal being used to teach programming much more than here. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 01:24 PM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no >need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. >How many billions of dollars have been lost just to = vs ==, much >less to memory leaks. > >Pascal was a teaching language never intended for industrial use. >Both Pascal and Ada are Algol-style languages, which optimize for >human readability. The developers of C optimized instead for "minimal >keystrokes during program entry", and C++ inherited this unfortunate >decision. We type a program once; we read it many times over its life. > >But we digress... > >73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Rick, ALE itself is 8FSK, 125 baud, all protocols on that modem. After an ALE link, any protocol, be it an ALE 8FSK or other can be utilized via other modems. Built into PC-ALE/MARS-ALE is a MIL-STD-188-110 modem, MARS-ALE also actively supports external TNC/Modems. PC-ALE passive provides this support as well using any third party program. The MIL-STD-188-110A serial tone modem is just that, a single PSK carrier frequency that by the standard is locked at 1800hz using a constant 2400bps Symbol Rate. Then coded data rates from 75-2400bps and 4800bps un-coded, this is what is supported by PC-ALE. MARS-ALE supports 1200hz, 1500hz and 1800hz selections for the PSK carrier and a symbol rate as low as 1600bps (the only one that can be used with the 1200hz PSK carrier) to achieved lesser IF BW requirements from the standard 300-3300hz (3Khz). I could not make less than a 1600bps symbol rate work when I last was focused on that modem. Later standards and newer versions of '188-110 and DLP's and waveforms that have developed that are implemented in new hardware are much faster and some modems will auto adjust to different PSK carriers and symbol rates I have learned. At present in MARS we have all the speed we need with the 2400bps coded until faster CPU's come along and more consistent external PCSDM's are used by all stations and radios with better frequency accuracy and stability are being used. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 12:15 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >Steve, > >Ideally, it would be something you would want to share as a >collaborative effort. Without this type of effort on the part of a few >hams (Patrick being one, along with Dave's DX Lab software), we would >not have the incredible synergy that these two programs bring to nearly >any amateur operator. Right now we just do not have a good solution for >sound card ARQ. This is not because it technically can not be done, but >because the hams who have the knowledge to do it just are not interested >in such a mode or at least it is very low on their priority list. They >primarily design for keyboard to keyboard modes. > >What is the baud rate maximum speed for the MIL-STD-188-141B for a >single tone? You seem to imply that even slowing it down you still are >running these tones at 600 baud? I am having great difficulty >understanding how any tones can be much faster than even 200 baud and >actually work on HF. I believe that GTOR had the ability to max out at >300 baud, but it was rare for the software to switch into this speed >since the ionosphere doesn't really cooperate that much at baud rates >that high. Which is why 300 baud Packet was such a poor HF mode. It was >much too fast for the symbol rate and ISI issues made it nearly >impossible for the receive station to decode the packet correctly. > >I am not clear yet as to whether the FCC considers the baud rate of the >entire combined modulations or the individual baud rate of a given tone. >Even if only the "slow" tones you mention below at 125 baud for an 8FSK >signal were available as an ARQ mode, I think that we would have a sea >change in sound card modes. > >Just to clarify, does the 8PSK have each of the 8 running at 125 baud, >or is that the total baud speed and the tones are really 15.625 x 8 >which would give you the 125 baud speed? > > >73, > >Rick, KV9U > > > > >Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >GA Rick, Patrick: > > > >The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x > >modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. > >FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as > >specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do > >not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is > >quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to > >where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a > >1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK > >carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and > >carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the > >legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules > >changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a > >150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake > >algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. > > > >What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device > >Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) > >FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-STD-181-141x which is an 8FSK > >125 baud protocol, it and GTOR are kissing cousins as Kantronics > >developed GTOR with influence by the standards on which DMB is based. > >All of the details are spelled out in the standards for anyone that > >wishes to implement the protocol. > > > >Get a copy of PC-ALE and single channel just establish a link between > >you and another station and then fire off a DBM BRD or ARQ message, > >th
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Rick, At 01:53 PM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >The PC-ALE program gave my some difficult times at first with crashing. >I think I figured that out. At this time I don't see to be able to get >the program to interface with my ICOM 756 Pro 2 rig through the CI-V. For that model with the current PC-ALE you need to select the GENERIC ICOM interface if you have not already done so and provide the needed details and you want to select SLIT VFO to bypass the BPF relays during Scanning until needed for TX. Many are using the 756PROII with the current tool and this approach. CAT PTT is not supported. >It may be possible for those who wish to install some kind of PTT >control running under another COM port or virtual COM with USB, but I >don't plan on using any software that doesn't key the rig via the CI-V >which has this already built in. Then you will just have to wait for the next next release of PC-ALE then. Most but not all manufacturers now have CAT PTT in all their radios. However you really can only count on radios using RTS/CTS handshaking to always exercise all commands being sent to them, something that ICOM does not support, Kenwood always has, Yaesu has only just added it to their new FT-2000. I remember back in the '80's when I first coded for the FT-980, all software validation for each command, then Yaesu moved away from that, they have been so inconsistent to their approach with radio CAT that they any Ten Tec are tied for the worst, although they were on a good track at first and so was Ten Tec early on when they were emulating and adding to the ICOM CSMA system, Ten Tec via that interface offered CAT PTT before ICOM ever did and then they went amuck! Kenwood and ICOM have been the most stable and now the FTdx9000 and FT-2000 are following Kenwoods command structure for the most part. I love the Kenwood built in radio ID approach, in MARS-ALE all you need to do is select Kenwood w/o RTS/CTS and baud rate, with the radio on at program start it reads that radio ID and knows what can be done with the attached radio. The ICOM addressable CSMA approach (used by Ten Tec for years as well) has merits too as you can control more than one radio (up to 6 actually) the bus and you have built in collision support, Watkins-Johnson used (different addressable header and other codes) it for years with their receivers and then enhanced it beyond being compatible with ICOM and older Ten Tec's. >What I would like to see is an ARQ sound card mode made available for >digital use. Practically speaking this means something that drops into >existing multi-mode sound card programs. Preferably, with the >unbelievable Multipsk program which has rig control through Dave's DX >Lab Commander program. There doesn't seem to be any other combination >like that where two powerful programs become even more powerful through >the synergy between them. I would like to see other ham developers and >software experts move in a similar direction to expand the use of new >modes that really make a difference. I have too many projects going now to help make you happy on that score Rick. At some point, now that the power of the CPU and OS has arrived, just as I want to get back to my Sight It! tool, I want to get back to my CATCC (http://www.n2ckh.com/download.htm) software as well. I lost many years of development beginning in May '99 when I suffered an accident that kept me from sitting at a computer after learning to walk again etc., I did not start software development again until the Fall of 2004 on MARS-ALE. When I can focus on the hobby again in a big way I likely will, but at present my main focus is on the needs of MARS. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY >73, > >Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
That's a good view point...I never thought of it that way...you are opening my eyes. Thanks, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:02 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal C++ was a huge step backward from Ada, IMHO. There'd have been no need for Purify if everyone programmed in Ada instead of C and C++. How many billions of dollars have been lost just to = vs ==, much less to memory leaks. Pascal was a teaching language never intended for industrial use. Both Pascal and Ada are Algol-style languages, which optimize for human readability. The developers of C optimized instead for "minimal keystrokes during program entry", and C++ inherited this unfortunate decision. We type a program once; we read it many times over its life. But we digress... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > Speaking of Ada, I developed the MS-Windows AMDS ( > https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/IEWS_Public/rus/ /AMDS.htm > ) for the I-REMBASS Battlefield Sensor System in Ada for the U.S. > Army due to requirements (Ada is a very good large embedded systems > language, it is very much PASCAL like ) to use Ada, but the > compilers were never great. When I wrote Sight It! LOS ( > http://www.n2ckh.com/SI/sight_it.htm ) for the hobby based on all I > had to learn to do AMDS and showed it off to my employer and Army > bosses, AMDS went from ADA to C++ pretty darn fast, which did not > bother me at all. Years later when I stated working in the ASIC/FPGA > world along comes VHDL which is based on Ada, I was glad that those 5 > years up time January 2005 were just spend selling the ModelSim/FPGA > Advantage and other VHDL CAD tools and not actually doing development > in VHDL (or Verilog) which are both facing stiff C++ competition these days. > > PC-ALE and MARS-ALE are both MS C++/MFC developed tools. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > At 11:50 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: > >Re "Dr. Hopper is also know for her work on "Flow-Matic" business > >language, COBOL and Ada. > > > > >>>I met Grace Hopper when we (Rational Software) validated the first > >Ada compiler in the early 80s. She was inspirational... > > > >73, > > > >Dave, AA6YQ > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, That aspect of PC-ALE in being updated. For a number of years the core users of PC-ALE mostly used a common set of HF SSB transceivers that were well to ALE Scanning use where the PA BPF relays were not an issue or could be bypassed via command and external PTT was mostly used and a few more were added by G4GUO. Now that ALE is much more popular in the hobby via PC-ALE, everyone wants their make/model radio and particular PTT type supported, the same was true in the MARS program. Thus the Radio Control Library that I wrote for MARS-ALE is being integrated into PC-ALE and the next release will provide much more flexibility in this regard. However only make/model radios that allow for the bypassing (all Kenwood's except TS-440, most high end [IC-765, 775, 781] and later model [74x, 75x, 7800] ICOMs, Yaesu FT-990 and FT920, Harris RF-350 family and others) of those BPF relays during RX Scanning should really be used unless repair of replacement of those relays and perhaps PA is not an issue to the user early than would otherwise be the case. Some radios such as the ICOM Marine Grade models are said to have BPF relays that hold up very well for many years of constant scanning as proven in service, but I have not been able to get any info from the manufactures as to the life of the relays used in this application, so I am most users prefer radios that this is not an issue at all (Ten Ten Argunaut V/TT516, FT-650) or ones that can be Bypassed rather than listening to them constantly switch and waiting for them to fail. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 10:52 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >I tried PC-ALE as well, but as its documentation says > >"Two of the handshaking lines from the P.C are also used to control >the radio, the RTS line is used to operate the radios PTT and the DTR >line is used to control muting and unmuting of the radio". > >There is evidently no way to use DTR for TX-RX switching, if that's >how you have things wired, and as Rick pointered out you can't >specify a CAT command either. Making PC_ALE more flexible in this >area would be straightforward, and would make it much easier for >existing soundcard mode users to give it a try. > >Also, keep this in mind: > >"After changing the serial port it is necessary to restart the >program for the new option to take effect. It is also necessary >whilst doing this to select the correct radio interface from the same >menu." > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, Speaking of Ada, I developed the MS-Windows AMDS ( https://peoiewswebinfo.monmouth.army.mil/portal_sites/IEWS_Public/rus//AMDS.htm ) for the I-REMBASS Battlefield Sensor System in Ada for the U.S. Army due to requirements (Ada is a very good large embedded systems language, it is very much PASCAL like ) to use Ada, but the compilers were never great. When I wrote Sight It! LOS ( http://www.n2ckh.com/SI/sight_it.htm ) for the hobby based on all I had to learn to do AMDS and showed it off to my employer and Army bosses, AMDS went from ADA to C++ pretty darn fast, which did not bother me at all. Years later when I stated working in the ASIC/FPGA world along comes VHDL which is based on Ada, I was glad that those 5 years up time January 2005 were just spend selling the ModelSim/FPGA Advantage and other VHDL CAD tools and not actually doing development in VHDL (or Verilog) which are both facing stiff C++ competition these days. PC-ALE and MARS-ALE are both MS C++/MFC developed tools. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 11:50 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote: >Re "Dr. Hopper is also know for her work on "Flow-Matic" business >language, COBOL and Ada. > > >>>I met Grace Hopper when we (Rational Software) validated the first >Ada compiler in the early 80s. She was inspirational... > >73, > >Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>>>Google doesn't reveal the origin of this well-known saying, but if it was indeed an Admiral, one hopes that he led by example, rather than by exhorting others to take all the risk. The actual quote is... "It's always easier to apologize than to ask permission." Another quote is... "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Hopper.html Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper 1906-1992 During her work with Mark II, Hopper was credited with coining the term "bug" in reference to a glitch in the machinery. This story is apparently a bit of computer folk-lore, however, as the term had already been used by Harvard personnel for several years to describe problems with their computers. It is the case that she and her team of programmers did find a moth which flew through an open window and into one of Mark II's relays, temporarily shutting down the system. The moth was removed and pasted into a logbook. At that time the use of the word "bug" referred to problems with the hardware. In the mid 1950's, Hopper extended the meaning of the term "debug" to include removing programming errors. Dr. Hooper is also know for her work on "Flow-Matic" business language, COBOL and Ada. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If I were Hollingsworth and you ask me for an official opinion I would tell you that it applied to the mode. >>>So you already know the answer to the question. Everything else is chaff. If you ask me for a verbal opinion, IF I gave one at all, it would be use what you think is in accordance with good amateur radio practice and the development of better communications techniques, etc...but don't use my name. >>>It seems unlikely that the official charged with enforcing amateur radio regulations would give you carte blanche, but it would be easy enough to find out. If you are the David H who works in NYC, then you understand where I am coming from and should understand my answer. But you probably aren't so you might want to contact that David H. Hi Hi >>>As I've previously said, I'm not a lawyer, and you already know that I don't live in NYC. I like to go with what a great Admiral said..."Its better to ask forgiveness than permissions." >>>Google doesn't reveal the origin of this well-known saying, but if it was indeed an Admiral, one hopes that he led by example, rather than by exhorting others to take all the risk. As you know, opinions are like belly buttons...everyone has one. Hi Hi. >>>An opinion from Hollingsworth on this topic would be significantly more meaningful than one from anyone else. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
The PC-ALE program gave my some difficult times at first with crashing. I think I figured that out. At this time I don't see to be able to get the program to interface with my ICOM 756 Pro 2 rig through the CI-V. It may be possible for those who wish to install some kind of PTT control running under another COM port or virtual COM with USB, but I don't plan on using any software that doesn't key the rig via the CI-V which has this already built in. What I would like to see is an ARQ sound card mode made available for digital use. Practically speaking this means something that drops into existing multi-mode sound card programs. Preferably, with the unbelievable Multipsk program which has rig control through Dave's DX Lab Commander program. There doesn't seem to be any other combination like that where two powerful programs become even more powerful through the synergy between them. I would like to see other ham developers and software experts move in a similar direction to expand the use of new modes that really make a difference. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: >Hi Rick, > >We are currently using the soundcard ARQ with 8FSK 125 baud in PCALE >for keyboarding and file transfer at 375 b/s. >It is built in to PCALE and it is called DTM and DBM. > >Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
>I'm not a lawyer either, Walt, but the 300 baud symbol rate >limitation from §97.305(c)(3) below applies to "a RTTY or data >emission", not the individual components of that emission IMHO. I am not a lawyer either, but since the Walsh FEC code is 64 bits, the character rate is the same as the symbol rate. This means that each character is spread over all 64 tones. The symbol for each character is the entire waveform. The symbol rate is 10 baud for the entire waveform and this meets the requirements of §97.305(c)(3). I don't think the regulators really care however. 73, Mark N5RFX Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Dave, If I were Hollingsworth and you ask me for an official opinion I would tell you that it applied to the mode. If you ask me for a verbal opinion, IF I gave one at all, it would be use what you think is in accordance with good amateur radio practice and the development of better communications techniques, etc...but don't use my name. If you are the David H who works in NYC, then you understand where I am coming from and should understand my answer. But you probably aren't so you might want to contact that David H. Hi Hi I like to go with what a great Admiral said..."Its better to ask forgiveness than permissions." As you know, opinions are like belly buttons...everyone has one. Hi Hi. CYa Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal I'm not a lawyer either, Walt, but the 300 baud symbol rate limitation from §97.305(c)(3) below applies to "a RTTY or data emission", not the individual components of that emission IMHO. You and I have discussed this potential loophole in the past, and my advice was to run it up the flagpole with Hollingsworth at the FCC before mounting any major effort to exploit it. Any progress on that front? 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is this 300 symbol/sec limit? I don't see that in Part 97. > > §97.305(c) of this Part. > (1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the > highest modulation frequency. > (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. > (3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1kHz. > > You will note that the description the maximum frequency shift that it references a single carrier. Thus the reference to the symbol rate is for one carrier. > > In the Frederick/Harris modem, as I recall, no "carrier tone" has a symbol rate of more than 45.5 (baud). Therefore Ok under Part 97. > > In interpreting Federal Administrative Code or Law, unless a prohibition is specifically stated, you should not take it as implied. > > There is no implication that the 300 rate limit is for the total sum of all carriers (tones) in a mode, rather for a single tone or carrier. > > I am not an attorney but have a number of years working with government engineers and DoD and DoJ attorneys in interpretation of Federal Administrative Code or Law. > > If the FCC wants to limit the symbol rate to 300 for the total sum on all data in a mode, then they are obligated to say so. The public must NOT be left to guess what the "agency" is trying to say. Our laws MUST BE CLEAR and understandable. Administrative Law and Code does not, nor was it meant to convey our national feelings, prides or desires. Rather to specifically define limits and give direction in the implementation of Public Law. > > Don't put words in the FCC's code. > > And, don't let MARS interpretation of Part 97 cloud you view of it. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Steve, Ideally, it would be something you would want to share as a collaborative effort. Without this type of effort on the part of a few hams (Patrick being one, along with Dave's DX Lab software), we would not have the incredible synergy that these two programs bring to nearly any amateur operator. Right now we just do not have a good solution for sound card ARQ. This is not because it technically can not be done, but because the hams who have the knowledge to do it just are not interested in such a mode or at least it is very low on their priority list. They primarily design for keyboard to keyboard modes. What is the baud rate maximum speed for the MIL-STD-188-141B for a single tone? You seem to imply that even slowing it down you still are running these tones at 600 baud? I am having great difficulty understanding how any tones can be much faster than even 200 baud and actually work on HF. I believe that GTOR had the ability to max out at 300 baud, but it was rare for the software to switch into this speed since the ionosphere doesn't really cooperate that much at baud rates that high. Which is why 300 baud Packet was such a poor HF mode. It was much too fast for the symbol rate and ISI issues made it nearly impossible for the receive station to decode the packet correctly. I am not clear yet as to whether the FCC considers the baud rate of the entire combined modulations or the individual baud rate of a given tone. Even if only the "slow" tones you mention below at 125 baud for an 8FSK signal were available as an ARQ mode, I think that we would have a sea change in sound card modes. Just to clarify, does the 8PSK have each of the 8 running at 125 baud, or is that the total baud speed and the tones are really 15.625 x 8 which would give you the 125 baud speed? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >GA Rick, Patrick: > >The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x >modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. >FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as >specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do >not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is >quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to >where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a >1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK >carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and >carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the >legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules >changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a >150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake >algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. > >What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device >Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) >FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-STD-181-141x which is an 8FSK >125 baud protocol, it and GTOR are kissing cousins as Kantronics >developed GTOR with influence by the standards on which DMB is based. >All of the details are spelled out in the standards for anyone that >wishes to implement the protocol. > >Get a copy of PC-ALE and single channel just establish a link between >you and another station and then fire off a DBM BRD or ARQ message, >there are settings for number of retries and maximum frame size, with >DBM supporting binary data there is also a DBM FTP selection for >sending files. The speed is always fixed at maximum. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH > > > >At 04:44 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: > > >>Hello Rick, >> >> >> >>>How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in >>>software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? >>> >>> >>It depends, in general, on the precision of the specifications. If >>you must reverse-engineers (is it English?) to extract the necessary >>information, it's long. If all is clear, it cannot be very long >>except if there are a lot of possible configurations and/or a >>protocol to manage. However, for instance, I have a lot of other >>subjects, but in the future who knows... >> >>73 >>Patrick >> >> >> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
> that symbol rate, its to high, it exceeds the 300 symbol/sec limit > per FCC Part 97. Why would the symbol rate be an issue in the regulations? Why would anything like that matter if the data is constrained by bandwidth? Or is the basis of the "our rules are holding you back" statements by the FCC. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
What is this 300 symbol/sec limit? I don't see that in Part 97. §97.305(c) of this Part. (1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency. (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications qualityphone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. (3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a)of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1kHz. You will note that the description the maximum frequency shift that it references a single carrier. Thus the reference to the symbol rate is for one carrier. In the Frederick/Harris modem, as I recall, no "carrier tone" has a symbol rate of more than 45.5 (baud). Therefore Ok under Part 97. In interpreting Federal Administrative Code or Law, unless a prohibition is specifically stated, you should not take it as implied. There is no implication that the 300 rate limit is for the total sum of all carriers (tones) in a mode, rather for a single tone or carrier. I am not an attorney but have a number of years working with government engineers and DoD and DoJ attorneys in interpretation of Federal Administrative Code or Law. If the FCC wants to limit the symbol rate to 300 for the total sum on all data in a mode, then they are obligated to say so. The public must NOT be left to guess what the "agency" is trying to say. Our laws MUST BE CLEAR and understandable. Administrative Law and Code does not, nor was it meant to convey our national feelings, prides or desires. Rather to specifically define limits and give direction in the implementation of Public Law. Don't put words in the FCC's code. And, don't let MARS interpretation of Part 97 cloud you view of it. 73, Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal Hi Walt, I guess you mean the Frederick 1102 made under license from Harris? I have one of those actually. They are strictly to the standard, 1800hz PSK carrier, 2400bps symbol rate, the needed channel BW is 300-3300hz (3Khz) at any supported data rate (75-2400bps coded). Its that symbol rate, its to high, it exceeds the 300 symbol/sec limit per FCC Part 97. In MARS-ALE I added tailoring to get down to a 1200hz PSK carrier and 1600bps symbol rate, it works great at 200-2200hz for a 2Khz BW, but the symbol rate is still to high. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 02:47 PM 8/30/2006, you wrote: >Steve, > >Why wouldn't the MIL-STD-118-110x (FS-1052) and high speed serial >tone modes not be legal under Part 97? > >There used to be a bunch of hams on the East Coast who ran the >Fredericks(sp) version of the Harris Serial Tone Modem on HF and at >least one was an FCC engineer. One of the groups was even selling >the Fredericks modem for under $1000. They didn't have an special >license or permission from the FCC as far as I know. > >Walt/K5YFW > > >-Original Message- >From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:33 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > >GA Rick, Patrick: > >The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x >modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. >FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as >specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do >not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is >quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to >where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a >1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK >carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and >carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the >legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules >changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a >150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake >algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. > >What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device >Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) >FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-ST
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Walt, I guess you mean the Frederick 1102 made under license from Harris? I have one of those actually. They are strictly to the standard, 1800hz PSK carrier, 2400bps symbol rate, the needed channel BW is 300-3300hz (3Khz) at any supported data rate (75-2400bps coded). Its that symbol rate, its to high, it exceeds the 300 symbol/sec limit per FCC Part 97. In MARS-ALE I added tailoring to get down to a 1200hz PSK carrier and 1600bps symbol rate, it works great at 200-2200hz for a 2Khz BW, but the symbol rate is still to high. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 02:47 PM 8/30/2006, you wrote: >Steve, > >Why wouldn't the MIL-STD-118-110x (FS-1052) and high speed serial >tone modes not be legal under Part 97? > >There used to be a bunch of hams on the East Coast who ran the >Fredericks(sp) version of the Harris Serial Tone Modem on HF and at >least one was an FCC engineer. One of the groups was even selling >the Fredericks modem for under $1000. They didn't have an special >license or permission from the FCC as far as I know. > >Walt/K5YFW > > >-Original Message- >From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:33 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > >GA Rick, Patrick: > >The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x >modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. >FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as >specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do >not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is >quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to >where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a >1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK >carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and >carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the >legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules >changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a >150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake >algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. > >What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device >Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) >FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-STD-181-141x which is an 8FSK >125 baud protocol, it and GTOR are kissing cousins as Kantronics >developed GTOR with influence by the standards on which DMB is based. >All of the details are spelled out in the standards for anyone that >wishes to implement the protocol. > >Get a copy of PC-ALE and single channel just establish a link between >you and another station and then fire off a DBM BRD or ARQ message, >there are settings for number of retries and maximum frame size, with >DBM supporting binary data there is also a DBM FTP selection for >sending files. The speed is always fixed at maximum. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH > > > >At 04:44 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: > >Hello Rick, > > > > >How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in > > >software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? > >It depends, in general, on the precision of the specifications. If > >you must reverse-engineers (is it English?) to extract the necessary > >information, it's long. If all is clear, it cannot be very long > >except if there are a lot of possible configurations and/or a > >protocol to manage. However, for instance, I have a lot of other > >subjects, but in the future who knows... > > > >73 > >Patrick > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: KV9U > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > > > > OK Steve, > > > > I got the impression that the various modes mentioned below were a part > > of STANAG 5066 and did not realize that there is a separate DLP part of > > STANAG 5066. The jargon gets to be a bit much, but very common for > > military type descriptors. > > > > For some reason, the data transfer part of this has not been really > > talked about much and the focus has been more on ALE. I find the ARQ > > mode to be the real value in all of this. Assuming it can perform > > reasonably well. > > > > Tell us more about the waveform type, number of tones, and how this > > works compared to your experiences with the typical sound card modes > > that we normally use. > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Steve, Why wouldn't the MIL-STD-118-110x (FS-1052) and high speed serial tone modes not be legal under Part 97? There used to be a bunch of hams on the East Coast who ran the Fredericks(sp) version of the Harris Serial Tone Modem on HF and at least one was an FCC engineer. One of the groups was even selling the Fredericks modem for under $1000. They didn't have an special license or permission from the FCC as far as I know. Walt/K5YFW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:33 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal GA Rick, Patrick: The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a 1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a 150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-STD-181-141x which is an 8FSK 125 baud protocol, it and GTOR are kissing cousins as Kantronics developed GTOR with influence by the standards on which DMB is based. All of the details are spelled out in the standards for anyone that wishes to implement the protocol. Get a copy of PC-ALE and single channel just establish a link between you and another station and then fire off a DBM BRD or ARQ message, there are settings for number of retries and maximum frame size, with DBM supporting binary data there is also a DBM FTP selection for sending files. The speed is always fixed at maximum. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 04:44 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: >Hello Rick, > > >How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in > >software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? >It depends, in general, on the precision of the specifications. If >you must reverse-engineers (is it English?) to extract the necessary >information, it's long. If all is clear, it cannot be very long >except if there are a lot of possible configurations and/or a >protocol to manage. However, for instance, I have a lot of other >subjects, but in the future who knows... > >73 >Patrick > > > - Original Message - > From: KV9U > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > OK Steve, > > I got the impression that the various modes mentioned below were a part > of STANAG 5066 and did not realize that there is a separate DLP part of > STANAG 5066. The jargon gets to be a bit much, but very common for > military type descriptors. > > For some reason, the data transfer part of this has not been really > talked about much and the focus has been more on ALE. I find the ARQ > mode to be the real value in all of this. Assuming it can perform > reasonably well. > > Tell us more about the waveform type, number of tones, and how this > works compared to your experiences with the typical sound card modes > that we normally use. > > Is this going to be available for amateur use eventually? > > How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in > software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >Hi Rick, > > > >Just time for a quick comment. > > > >Don't confuse STANAG 5066 Data Link Protocol (DLP) as covered in > >MIL-STD-188-141B which is a Data Link Protocol at the Physical Layer > >with STANAG 5066 which is a network protocol at the Link Layer. > >Basically and DLP with the need ARQ support and speed can be used at > >the Physical Layer. If an MT-63 Adaptive ARQ protocol with a > >transport layer and enough speed were to develop it could be used. > > > >STANAG 5066 DLP (S5066) replaced FED-STD-1052 DLP (FS-1052) going > >from MIL-STD-188-141A to MIL-STD-188-141B. Both are DLP's
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
GA Rick, Patrick: The stuff from MIL-STD-188-141B that relates the MIL-STD-118-110x modem and Data Link Protocols (DLP) via other standards (e.g. FS-1052 DLP, S5066 DLP etc.) is all high speed serial tone and as specified, not legal under FCC Part 97 at present in the U.S., I do not know all the rules OCONUS. MIL-STD-188-110x with an added DLP is quite doable on the PC Sound Device Modem, I have tailored it down to where it is almost FCC legal, but when trying to go lower than a 1600bps symbol rate to get there it just failed to work, the PSK carrier at 1200hz was as low as it could go, at that symbol rate and carrier combination is a 2Khz BW from 200-2200hz but almost twice the legal symbol rate the last I worked on it. I am hoping FCC rules changes will allow it in the near future as it works great from a 150-2400bps coded data rate. The 75bps data rate uses a rake algorithm which is nearly unstoppable but at a full 3Khz BW. What Patrick and others could easily code on an FSK PC Sound Device Modem that would be legal is the optional Data Block Message (DBM) FEC (BRD) and ARQ protocols from MIL-STD-181-141x which is an 8FSK 125 baud protocol, it and GTOR are kissing cousins as Kantronics developed GTOR with influence by the standards on which DMB is based. All of the details are spelled out in the standards for anyone that wishes to implement the protocol. Get a copy of PC-ALE and single channel just establish a link between you and another station and then fire off a DBM BRD or ARQ message, there are settings for number of retries and maximum frame size, with DBM supporting binary data there is also a DBM FTP selection for sending files. The speed is always fixed at maximum. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 04:44 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: >Hello Rick, > > >How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in > >software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? >It depends, in general, on the precision of the specifications. If >you must reverse-engineers (is it English?) to extract the necessary >information, it's long. If all is clear, it cannot be very long >except if there are a lot of possible configurations and/or a >protocol to manage. However, for instance, I have a lot of other >subjects, but in the future who knows... > >73 >Patrick > > > - Original Message - > From: KV9U > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal > > > OK Steve, > > I got the impression that the various modes mentioned below were a part > of STANAG 5066 and did not realize that there is a separate DLP part of > STANAG 5066. The jargon gets to be a bit much, but very common for > military type descriptors. > > For some reason, the data transfer part of this has not been really > talked about much and the focus has been more on ALE. I find the ARQ > mode to be the real value in all of this. Assuming it can perform > reasonably well. > > Tell us more about the waveform type, number of tones, and how this > works compared to your experiences with the typical sound card modes > that we normally use. > > Is this going to be available for amateur use eventually? > > How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in > software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >Hi Rick, > > > >Just time for a quick comment. > > > >Don't confuse STANAG 5066 Data Link Protocol (DLP) as covered in > >MIL-STD-188-141B which is a Data Link Protocol at the Physical Layer > >with STANAG 5066 which is a network protocol at the Link Layer. > >Basically and DLP with the need ARQ support and speed can be used at > >the Physical Layer. If an MT-63 Adaptive ARQ protocol with a > >transport layer and enough speed were to develop it could be used. > > > >STANAG 5066 DLP (S5066) replaced FED-STD-1052 DLP (FS-1052) going > >from MIL-STD-188-141A to MIL-STD-188-141B. Both are DLP's that make > >use of the MIL-STD-188-110x modems, both provide and ARQ protocol, > >where 5066 DLP is much improved. > > > >We use FS-1052 daily in MARS, we get full 2400bps throughput on a > >good channel with stations that are properly configured. We have not > >yet implemented S5066, its on the "To Do" list. > > > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > >At 11:16 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: > > > > > >>One of the main interests that I have in digital modes is getting a > >>message through the most difficult conditions, completely intact as > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hello Rick, >How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in >software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? It depends, in general, on the precision of the specifications. If you must reverse-engineers (is it English?) to extract the necessary information, it's long. If all is clear, it cannot be very long except if there are a lot of possible configurations and/or a protocol to manage. However, for instance, I have a lot of other subjects, but in the future who knows... 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: KV9U To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal OK Steve, I got the impression that the various modes mentioned below were a part of STANAG 5066 and did not realize that there is a separate DLP part of STANAG 5066. The jargon gets to be a bit much, but very common for military type descriptors. For some reason, the data transfer part of this has not been really talked about much and the focus has been more on ALE. I find the ARQ mode to be the real value in all of this. Assuming it can perform reasonably well. Tell us more about the waveform type, number of tones, and how this works compared to your experiences with the typical sound card modes that we normally use. Is this going to be available for amateur use eventually? How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >Just time for a quick comment. > >Don't confuse STANAG 5066 Data Link Protocol (DLP) as covered in >MIL-STD-188-141B which is a Data Link Protocol at the Physical Layer >with STANAG 5066 which is a network protocol at the Link Layer. >Basically and DLP with the need ARQ support and speed can be used at >the Physical Layer. If an MT-63 Adaptive ARQ protocol with a >transport layer and enough speed were to develop it could be used. > >STANAG 5066 DLP (S5066) replaced FED-STD-1052 DLP (FS-1052) going >from MIL-STD-188-141A to MIL-STD-188-141B. Both are DLP's that make >use of the MIL-STD-188-110x modems, both provide and ARQ protocol, >where 5066 DLP is much improved. > >We use FS-1052 daily in MARS, we get full 2400bps throughput on a >good channel with stations that are properly configured. We have not >yet implemented S5066, its on the "To Do" list. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > >At 11:16 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: > > >>One of the main interests that I have in digital modes is getting a >>message through the most difficult conditions, completely intact as >>sent, and as fast as possible. I was looking at the STANAG 5066 >>specifications and test results, (Steve has some below), and quite >>frankly I am concerned that this standard has what I would normally >>consider to be unacceptable performance (non performance) with weak >>signals. >> >>I am not sure what kind of cps or wpm throughput the bit rates mean but >>it I wonder how it compares to SCAMP running at 10 db S/N? Because >>SCAMP only operated down to about +10 db S/N (maybe slightly better), it >>was rejected as unacceptable for practical messaging. >> >> From the info on Steve's site: >> >>http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/MIL-STD-188-110B.pdf >> >>Here are some claimed performance levels: >> >>Bit rate Multipath SNR BER >> >>4800 2 ms 27 db 1 x e-3 with .5 Hz >>fading BW >>2400 2 ms 30 db 1 x e-3 with 5 Hz >>fading BW >>1200 2 ms 11 db 1 x e-5 with 1 Hz >>fading BW >>300 5 ms 7 db 1 x e-5 with 5 Hz >>fading BW >>75 5 ms 2 db 1 x e-5 with 5 >>Hz fading BW >> >>Even with the slowest 75 bps, and a multipath of 5 ms, it can only work >>down to 2 db ABOVE the noise! This is not good. From personal >>experience, it is not easy to get even 10 db S/N signals with typical >>amateur signals with modest antennas on the lower bands. >> >>They even show some constellations at 64 QAM. From what the SSTV folks >>have said, 64 QAM is not really a useful mode on HF. Perhaps that is >>because they are not using ARQ? >> >>Note also that the multipaths are moderate to low compared to worst case >>HF propagation. I question whether this stuff can work under many >>conditions we routinely operate with sound card modes (but are not 100% >>copy without ARQ). >> >>The BER that this system can handle seems to indicate that the channel >>has to be
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
OK Steve, I got the impression that the various modes mentioned below were a part of STANAG 5066 and did not realize that there is a separate DLP part of STANAG 5066. The jargon gets to be a bit much, but very common for military type descriptors. For some reason, the data transfer part of this has not been really talked about much and the focus has been more on ALE. I find the ARQ mode to be the real value in all of this. Assuming it can perform reasonably well. Tell us more about the waveform type, number of tones, and how this works compared to your experiences with the typical sound card modes that we normally use. Is this going to be available for amateur use eventually? How difficult would this be to implement the MIL-STD-188-141-B DLP in software such as Patrick's Multipsk Program? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >Just time for a quick comment. > >Don't confuse STANAG 5066 Data Link Protocol (DLP) as covered in >MIL-STD-188-141B which is a Data Link Protocol at the Physical Layer >with STANAG 5066 which is a network protocol at the Link Layer. >Basically and DLP with the need ARQ support and speed can be used at >the Physical Layer. If an MT-63 Adaptive ARQ protocol with a >transport layer and enough speed were to develop it could be used. > >STANAG 5066 DLP (S5066) replaced FED-STD-1052 DLP (FS-1052) going >from MIL-STD-188-141A to MIL-STD-188-141B. Both are DLP's that make >use of the MIL-STD-188-110x modems, both provide and ARQ protocol, >where 5066 DLP is much improved. > >We use FS-1052 daily in MARS, we get full 2400bps throughput on a >good channel with stations that are properly configured. We have not >yet implemented S5066, its on the "To Do" list. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > >At 11:16 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: > > >>One of the main interests that I have in digital modes is getting a >>message through the most difficult conditions, completely intact as >>sent, and as fast as possible. I was looking at the STANAG 5066 >>specifications and test results, (Steve has some below), and quite >>frankly I am concerned that this standard has what I would normally >>consider to be unacceptable performance (non performance) with weak >>signals. >> >>I am not sure what kind of cps or wpm throughput the bit rates mean but >>it I wonder how it compares to SCAMP running at 10 db S/N? Because >>SCAMP only operated down to about +10 db S/N (maybe slightly better), it >>was rejected as unacceptable for practical messaging. >> >> From the info on Steve's site: >> >>http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/MIL-STD-188-110B.pdf >> >>Here are some claimed performance levels: >> >>Bit rate Multipath SNR BER >> >>4800 2 ms 27 db 1 x e-3 with .5 Hz >>fading BW >>2400 2 ms 30 db 1 x e-3 with 5 Hz >>fading BW >>1200 2 ms 11 db 1 x e-5 with 1 Hz >>fading BW >>300 5 ms 7 db 1 x e-5 with 5 Hz >>fading BW >>75 5 ms 2 db 1 x e-5 with 5 >>Hz fading BW >> >>Even with the slowest 75 bps, and a multipath of 5 ms, it can only work >>down to 2 db ABOVE the noise! This is not good. From personal >>experience, it is not easy to get even 10 db S/N signals with typical >>amateur signals with modest antennas on the lower bands. >> >>They even show some constellations at 64 QAM. From what the SSTV folks >>have said, 64 QAM is not really a useful mode on HF. Perhaps that is >>because they are not using ARQ? >> >>Note also that the multipaths are moderate to low compared to worst case >>HF propagation. I question whether this stuff can work under many >>conditions we routinely operate with sound card modes (but are not 100% >>copy without ARQ). >> >>The BER that this system can handle seems to indicate that the channel >>has to be rather good. These BER's seem to be more appropriate for what >>we would expect on equipment designed for VHF and up ... aren't they? >> >>For those of you who have used STANAG 5066 waveforms, what kind of >>throughput have you experienced with real world connections? >> >>The deeper I examine this NATO standardized agreeement, the more it is >>beginning to look like another one of those "the emperor has no clothes" >>findings. >> >>Thanks and 73, >> >>Rick, KV9U >> >> >> >> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
I can see the value of ALE in MARS operations, and similar uses, especially with multiband scanning to determine the best useable frequency, etc etc. For general Ham use , for example on 20M, if ALE becomes popular, then the collisions on the sounding channel will be such that very few will get through. Running emergency nets on 80/40M might be a better application since it is difficult to determine the best band, especially late afternoon and into the gray line, since it changes often depending on the distance to be covered. This will give rise to the same problem that faced VHF, and to a lesser extent, HF Packet. Faced with many collisions, a number of operators increased power, and also the number of transmissions to determine path. The resulting QRM basically killed the mode for most people. I have read with interest the arguments back and forth, not being "techie" some were well beyond my comprehension, and look forward to trying ALE with my TS480 this winter. John VE5MU > John VE5MU wrote: > If we have 1000 Ale stations sounding 24/7, how much QRM > will this create? Hi John, It would be far less QRM than the average RTTY contest, such as we had this weekend that took over a large chunk of the ham bands with "soundings". In fact, it is unlikely that you would notice 1000 ALE operators on the air, unless you tune your VFO to the specific frequency the ALE operators are using. In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. The nature of the way ALE works enables many stations to dynamically use the same channel on a time/space shared basis for various purposes, such as messaging, calling, sounding, and geo-position reporting. The global or regional capacity of a single channel for ALE is rather large. One channel is probabably enough to handle a 1000% increase in amateur radio ALE use over the next 5 years, if and when it becomes that popular. It would be wonderful if we had 1000 ALE stations on the air 24/7. Perhaps the ALE On-The-AIR Week event in October will give us some idea of what is possible with a few hundred stations on at the same time. We don't really know yet, since this will be the first such event. Bonnie KQ6XA -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.0.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/428 - Release Date: 8/25/06 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Rick, Just time for a quick comment. Don't confuse STANAG 5066 Data Link Protocol (DLP) as covered in MIL-STD-188-141B which is a Data Link Protocol at the Physical Layer with STANAG 5066 which is a network protocol at the Link Layer. Basically and DLP with the need ARQ support and speed can be used at the Physical Layer. If an MT-63 Adaptive ARQ protocol with a transport layer and enough speed were to develop it could be used. STANAG 5066 DLP (S5066) replaced FED-STD-1052 DLP (FS-1052) going from MIL-STD-188-141A to MIL-STD-188-141B. Both are DLP's that make use of the MIL-STD-188-110x modems, both provide and ARQ protocol, where 5066 DLP is much improved. We use FS-1052 daily in MARS, we get full 2400bps throughput on a good channel with stations that are properly configured. We have not yet implemented S5066, its on the "To Do" list. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY At 11:16 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: >One of the main interests that I have in digital modes is getting a >message through the most difficult conditions, completely intact as >sent, and as fast as possible. I was looking at the STANAG 5066 >specifications and test results, (Steve has some below), and quite >frankly I am concerned that this standard has what I would normally >consider to be unacceptable performance (non performance) with weak >signals. > >I am not sure what kind of cps or wpm throughput the bit rates mean but >it I wonder how it compares to SCAMP running at 10 db S/N? Because >SCAMP only operated down to about +10 db S/N (maybe slightly better), it >was rejected as unacceptable for practical messaging. > > From the info on Steve's site: > >http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/MIL-STD-188-110B.pdf > >Here are some claimed performance levels: > >Bit rate Multipath SNR BER > >4800 2 ms 27 db 1 x e-3 with .5 Hz >fading BW >2400 2 ms 30 db 1 x e-3 with 5 Hz >fading BW >1200 2 ms 11 db 1 x e-5 with 1 Hz >fading BW >300 5 ms 7 db 1 x e-5 with 5 Hz >fading BW >75 5 ms 2 db 1 x e-5 with 5 >Hz fading BW > >Even with the slowest 75 bps, and a multipath of 5 ms, it can only work >down to 2 db ABOVE the noise! This is not good. From personal >experience, it is not easy to get even 10 db S/N signals with typical >amateur signals with modest antennas on the lower bands. > >They even show some constellations at 64 QAM. From what the SSTV folks >have said, 64 QAM is not really a useful mode on HF. Perhaps that is >because they are not using ARQ? > >Note also that the multipaths are moderate to low compared to worst case >HF propagation. I question whether this stuff can work under many >conditions we routinely operate with sound card modes (but are not 100% >copy without ARQ). > >The BER that this system can handle seems to indicate that the channel >has to be rather good. These BER's seem to be more appropriate for what >we would expect on equipment designed for VHF and up ... aren't they? > >For those of you who have used STANAG 5066 waveforms, what kind of >throughput have you experienced with real world connections? > >The deeper I examine this NATO standardized agreeement, the more it is >beginning to look like another one of those "the emperor has no clothes" >findings. > >Thanks and 73, > >Rick, KV9U > > > >Steve Hajducek wrote: > > >I recommend that to answer all of your technical questions on subject > >ALE that you refer the actual Federal, Military and STANAG Standards > >which you can find on the Internet quite easily. You can start with a > >number of them at the following URL: > >http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/tecref.html > > > >Listed below are the "ALE Operational Rules" taken directly from > >"MIL-STD-188-141B APPENDIX A", take the time to read this and do > >additional research WRT the details of the referenced items herein > >and you should be satisfied that ALE is the most courteous digital > >mode with automatic operation you could ever want to see, compared to > >any other system that has ever been used on the Amateur Radio bands. > > > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > > > >A.4.4 ALE operational rules. > >The ALE system shall incorporate the basic operational rules listed > >in table A-V. Some of these > >rules may not be applicable in certain applications. For example, > >"always listening" is not > >possible while transmitting with a transceiver or when using a common > >antenna with a separate > >transmitter and receiver. > > > >TABLE A-V. ALE operational rules. > >1) Independent ALE receive capability (in parallel with other modems > >and simular audio receivers) (critical). > >2) Always listening (for ALE signals) (critical). > >3) Always will respond (unless deliberately inhibited). > >4) Always scanning (if not otherwise in use). > >5) Will not interfere with active channel carrying dete
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hello Bonnie - what is ALE please? - 73 Bruce. 72/73 - Bruce ve5rc/ve5qrp - QRP-C#1, QRP-L#886, A1 Operator Enter QRP-Canada's "RUN with RAC" contest - details - http://www.qrp-canada.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, At 10:46 AM 8/28/2006, you wrote: >I have reviewed enough of the military documentation to understand >that they employ dedicated ALE transceivers capable of much faster >scanning rates. Really? Please enlighten me, I was under the impression that the ALE scan rates of 1, 2 and 5 ch/sec was it at present and that the future goal as stated in MIL-STD-188-141B was 10 ch/sec. The PC-ALE software supports 1, 2 and 5 ch/sec with an HF transceiver that is cable of all selections. > As a result, sounding duration is signficantly >reduced, Sorry, but you will have to explain to me how Sounding duration decreases with an increase in the Scan Rate. > and channel capacity increases in proportion. Well not exactly. A 2 ch/sec scan rate allows you to cover the same number of channels faster than a 1 ch/sec scan rate and thus increase the odds of hearing a Sounding or a Linking call sooner. Running 2 or 5 ch/sec will also permit the station to be part of more than one ALE network at the same time, not an issue per see with Amateur Radio, but if two networks had scan groups of 10 channels each, you could scan both with excellent results. The number of channels you scan does have an effect on your Soundings, you sound longer when you have more channels in the mix. There are variable here as we are now at a stage were you have 3 generations of ALE. The latest ALE technology supports GPS time synchronization of the Scanning/Sounding which in the future will radically reduce BER/SNR data transfer for LQA ranking when all user's can support it. > But one ham >with an amateur transceiver limited to a 2 channel-per-second scan >rate would force all ALE participants to sound for 20 seconds, even >if their equipment could scan more rapidly. Do I have this right? The details are to be found in MIL-STD-188-141B Appendix A. Regardless of the scan rate, if the controller Sounds based on number of channels in the scan group its less than 1 second per channel. The minimum redundant sound length (Trs) is equal to the standard one-word address leading call; that is, Trs = Tlc min = 2 Ta min = 2 Trw = 784 ms. Thus for 12 channels it would be about 9.4 seconds depending on your address length being sent. The address length is based on an ALE Word which is 3 ASCII characters, for Amateur Radio applications we would being using 2 ALE Words as there are no 3 character callsigns, whereas in the Military and Government world there are 3 character ALE Self Addresses being used. So W1AW, N2CKH and WB2XYZ are all 2 ALE Words were automatic padding is used to fill the second word. The least number of ALE Words the more efficient and reliable is the system. One would now want to use WB2XYZ/W6 to indicate they are in California. For AQC-ALE where many things were changed to make things even more efficient, a 2 ALE Word is the maximum allowed, whereas the original ALE allowed a 5 ALE Word (15 character) Address to support the Military Automatic Digital Network (AUTODIN) system to directly link a Phone Patch call. Feel free to double check me with the standards, I am no expert on all this stuff and I am not perfect either, I make calculation errors often. /s/ Steve, N2CKH Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
One of the main interests that I have in digital modes is getting a message through the most difficult conditions, completely intact as sent, and as fast as possible. I was looking at the STANAG 5066 specifications and test results, (Steve has some below), and quite frankly I am concerned that this standard has what I would normally consider to be unacceptable performance (non performance) with weak signals. I am not sure what kind of cps or wpm throughput the bit rates mean but it I wonder how it compares to SCAMP running at 10 db S/N? Because SCAMP only operated down to about +10 db S/N (maybe slightly better), it was rejected as unacceptable for practical messaging. From the info on Steve's site: http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/MIL-STD-188-110B.pdf Here are some claimed performance levels: Bit rate Multipath SNR BER 4800 2 ms 27 db 1 x e-3 with .5 Hz fading BW 2400 2 ms 30 db 1 x e-3 with 5 Hz fading BW 1200 2 ms 11 db 1 x e-5 with 1 Hz fading BW 300 5 ms 7 db 1 x e-5 with 5 Hz fading BW 75 5 ms 2 db 1 x e-5 with 5 Hz fading BW Even with the slowest 75 bps, and a multipath of 5 ms, it can only work down to 2 db ABOVE the noise! This is not good. From personal experience, it is not easy to get even 10 db S/N signals with typical amateur signals with modest antennas on the lower bands. They even show some constellations at 64 QAM. From what the SSTV folks have said, 64 QAM is not really a useful mode on HF. Perhaps that is because they are not using ARQ? Note also that the multipaths are moderate to low compared to worst case HF propagation. I question whether this stuff can work under many conditions we routinely operate with sound card modes (but are not 100% copy without ARQ). The BER that this system can handle seems to indicate that the channel has to be rather good. These BER's seem to be more appropriate for what we would expect on equipment designed for VHF and up ... aren't they? For those of you who have used STANAG 5066 waveforms, what kind of throughput have you experienced with real world connections? The deeper I examine this NATO standardized agreeement, the more it is beginning to look like another one of those "the emperor has no clothes" findings. Thanks and 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >I recommend that to answer all of your technical questions on subject >ALE that you refer the actual Federal, Military and STANAG Standards >which you can find on the Internet quite easily. You can start with a >number of them at the following URL: >http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/tecref.html > >Listed below are the "ALE Operational Rules" taken directly from >"MIL-STD-188-141B APPENDIX A", take the time to read this and do >additional research WRT the details of the referenced items herein >and you should be satisfied that ALE is the most courteous digital >mode with automatic operation you could ever want to see, compared to >any other system that has ever been used on the Amateur Radio bands. > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY > >A.4.4 ALE operational rules. >The ALE system shall incorporate the basic operational rules listed >in table A-V. Some of these >rules may not be applicable in certain applications. For example, >"always listening" is not >possible while transmitting with a transceiver or when using a common >antenna with a separate >transmitter and receiver. > >TABLE A-V. ALE operational rules. >1) Independent ALE receive capability (in parallel with other modems >and simular audio receivers) (critical). >2) Always listening (for ALE signals) (critical). >3) Always will respond (unless deliberately inhibited). >4) Always scanning (if not otherwise in use). >5) Will not interfere with active channel carrying detectable traffic >in accordance with table A-I (unless this >listen call function is overriden by the operator or other controller). >6) Always will exchange LQA with other stations when requested >(unless inhibited), and always measures the >signal quality of others. >7) Will respond in the appropriate time slot to calls requiring >slotted responses. >8) Always seek (unless inhibited) and maintain track of their >connectivities with others. >9) Linking ALE stations employ highest mutual level of capability. >10) Minimize transmit and receive time on channel. >11) Automatically minimize power used (if capable). >NOTE : Listed in order of precedence. > >TABLE A-I. Occupancy detection probability (2G and 3G). > >WaveformSNR (dB in 3 kHz) Dwell Time (s) Detection Prob > >ALE 0 2.0 0.80 > 6 2.0 0.99 > >SSB Voice 6 2.0 0.80 > 9 2.0 0.99 > >MIL-
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Several key points on Bonnie's comments: 1) RTTY contests are human operating events. There is no automatic RTTY that I am aware of. Big difference! It is one thing to find an apparent "hole" to TX into, but are able to back off if it is "busy." ALE would be nearly inoperative during a contest if it is truly monitoring the frequencies. Frequently, you will have wall to wall TX that take up the band. If you ever think that you can make an argument to preempt human operation with machine, you will lose with the great majority of hams. 2) Having many ALE soundings on one frequency is beginning to sound like packet collision issues where nothing gets through. This can work for military, commercial, MARS, use perhaps where you have a fairly small number of stations that would send at any one time. But if you had even two stations sending on top of each other, wouldn't they trash the ALE "packet?" Then imagine having a lot more than 2! And if you only "sound" once an hour, you won't even know that it did not work. Is this really practical for amateur radio use in a band that has long distance capabilities (sometimes world wide)? 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: > >It would be far less QRM than the average RTTY contest, such as we had >this weekend that took over a large chunk of the ham bands with >"soundings". > >In fact, it is unlikely that you would notice 1000 ALE operators on >the air, unless you tune your VFO to the specific frequency the ALE >operators are using. > >In amateur radio ALE, there is only one pilot channel per ham band >where repetitive sounding (station ID) happens on a regular basis. The >nature of the way ALE works enables many stations to dynamically use >the same channel on a time/space shared basis for various purposes, >such as messaging, calling, sounding, and geo-position reporting. The >global or regional capacity of a single channel for ALE is rather >large. One channel is probabably enough to handle a 1000% increase in >amateur radio ALE use over the next 5 years, if and when it becomes >that popular. > >It would be wonderful if we had 1000 ALE stations on the air 24/7. >Perhaps the ALE On-The-AIR Week event in October will give us some >idea of what is possible with a few hundred stations on at the same >time. We don't really know yet, since this will be the first such event. > >Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE QRM is minimal
Hi Dave, >At 10:53 PM 8/27/2006, you wrote: >Does ALE provide some means of reducing contention? I recommend that to answer all of your technical questions on subject ALE that you refer the actual Federal, Military and STANAG Standards which you can find on the Internet quite easily. You can start with a number of them at the following URL: http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/tecref.html Listed below are the "ALE Operational Rules" taken directly from "MIL-STD-188-141B APPENDIX A", take the time to read this and do additional research WRT the details of the referenced items herein and you should be satisfied that ALE is the most courteous digital mode with automatic operation you could ever want to see, compared to any other system that has ever been used on the Amateur Radio bands. /s/ Steve, N2CKH/AAR2EY A.4.4 ALE operational rules. The ALE system shall incorporate the basic operational rules listed in table A-V. Some of these rules may not be applicable in certain applications. For example, "always listening" is not possible while transmitting with a transceiver or when using a common antenna with a separate transmitter and receiver. TABLE A-V. ALE operational rules. 1) Independent ALE receive capability (in parallel with other modems and simular audio receivers) (critical). 2) Always listening (for ALE signals) (critical). 3) Always will respond (unless deliberately inhibited). 4) Always scanning (if not otherwise in use). 5) Will not interfere with active channel carrying detectable traffic in accordance with table A-I (unless this listen call function is overriden by the operator or other controller). 6) Always will exchange LQA with other stations when requested (unless inhibited), and always measures the signal quality of others. 7) Will respond in the appropriate time slot to calls requiring slotted responses. 8) Always seek (unless inhibited) and maintain track of their connectivities with others. 9) Linking ALE stations employ highest mutual level of capability. 10) Minimize transmit and receive time on channel. 11) Automatically minimize power used (if capable). NOTE : Listed in order of precedence. TABLE A-I. Occupancy detection probability (2G and 3G). WaveformSNR (dB in 3 kHz) Dwell Time (s) Detection Prob ALE 0 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 SSB Voice 6 2.0 0.80 9 2.0 0.99 MIL-STD-188-110 0 2.0 0.80 (Serial Tone PSK) 6 2.0 0.99 STANAG 45290 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 STANAG 4285 0 2.0 0.80 6 2.0 0.99 Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
