Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
At 03:58 PM 5/31/2007, you (Rodney) wrote: >I have an HF rig, but rarely get on HF because of my wife and >neighbors. But after reading the past few threads, I'm GLAD that I >DON'T get on HF! Sounds as if it's gotten to be nothing more than a >low frequency CB band!! > >Whatever happened to common courtesy? Or better yet, COMMON SENSE?? > S N I P-- Probably the same thing that happened to good operating practices. If you stay off HF because of your Wife, etc, the implication I draw is that your HF operation interferes in some way. To me, this says that you need to clean something up. I operate HF and up to 6M frequently, and my wife and neighbors do not notice. Granted, I do not use an amplifier, and rarely go below 40M, but that is from choice, not to avoid interference. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but if that is the case, try cleaning the rig up; you might like HF. Bill-W4BSG We batter this Planet as if we had someplace else to go.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
--- Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than > anyone else. Some PSK operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. Danny . I have lived in Florida for more that 35 years. Could you tell me where " Podunk city Fl " is ? This question comes up on a regular bases and we here have seen SEMINOLE Fl described as a PODUNK or worse yet as god's new waiting room a title St. Petersburg had for decades. Hu I wonder if PODUNK Fl has its own grid square ? Bruce SEMINOLE Fl. Grid square EL-87 Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Wow, Brian, there's a lot of very good information in your post, my problem is that there is so much good fact, that it would be easy, too easy, to accept it all at face value. In my mind, I have a few issues, and I'll address them in line, though I really do think that parts your post should be the basis for a faq entry or a wiki or something. Comments below: 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Brian Kassel wrote: > Guys: > > I have found that *MANY*, but not all, so-called Wide signals on PSK > modes are caused by several things being overlooked at the *RECEIVE* end > of the QSO. If adjusted properly, most newer radios should handle > 50-100W signals providing of course that the transmitted signal is > indeed clean to start with. Agreed, if you're saying well adjusted and operated modern receivers should handle being in reasonably close proximity to adjacent stations running 50 - 100 watts. That is not the issue, though, the issue is the need to run 50 - 100 watts (actually the issue I had was someone running 400 watts, but lets not let that interrupt the discourse) to maintain reliable communications. > > There are indeed plenty of "bad signals on the air, but just running > higher powers, or big antennas is not the cause by itself. > Absolutely agree here, I know I can put out a terrible signal with my IC-703 at 2 watts into an MP-1, I can also put out a perfect signal with the same setup, and work stations 1,000's of miles away. > Try to: > > Turn of AGC if possible, use RF gain to adjust signals. This will allow > your receiver to have greater dynamic range. > Use a Notch filter if available. > Turn off the preamp, switch in the attenuator, especially on bands > below about 30M. Absolutely agree, this is the part that really should be in a faq or wiki. I'm not real keen on the attenuator bit, but then that could just be my experience with the attenuators in my rigs, I find that I get better printing if I let the computer audio software handle this, but then it could be my rigs. > If the above doesn't work, try a better sound card. When strong > signals are encountered, this is where the more inexpensive models start > to "fold up". > Why is that folks will spend many thousands on a fine rig, only to use a > $15 sound card? > In Digital modes, the sound card is an integral part of the RX chain. > Sorry, this is where I really have to take issue. I can see why you think so reading a little ahead into your post. About the only amateur radio application that the generic modern sound card is not up to the task of handling is SDR. This is especially true when working with modern up to date software. About the only deficiency inherent in the common hardware is the problem of receive and transmit audio not being precisely aligned with each other. I honestly can't think of a modern version of any digital mode software that doesn't have an alignment or sound card setup functionality that either manually or automatically takes care of this deficiency for the operator. It is however very important that you go through the alignment process if your software of choice doesn't do it for you. If your software can't adjust for this, upgrade your software. The base software requirement for digital mode operation is a nominal sample rate of 11025 samples per sec. It's all the current software can take advantage of, and unless you are using a sound card as part of a sdr receiver, any fancier or more advanced features are just not taken advantage of by any of the software we use. That said, there are always some exceptions, certain old laptops and motherboard built-ins do have problems, strictly speaking, these issues are a matter of integration into the motherboard and the OS, not an issue with the base audio hardware's capabilities. The bottom line, is that unless you are planning to run an sdr receiver, any modern < $20.00 add-on sound card that is supported by your operating system of choice will do a fine job. > Please realize that distortion can occur in either the TX or the *RX* of > any signal. Many hams don't realize that this basic fact about analog > signals. Typically, in many cases, the cause of a wide appearing signal > is in the transmitter. I get wide reports frequently. However, I > monitor my output with a spectrum analyzer, and have done on the air > tests to confirm that my signal is not running worse than -20 IMD, > often much better than that. In fact it usually runs better than -25 > DB. I run the SDR-1000 software defined radio at 5W (well below the > 100W rating), a D-44 professional sound card, and an Ameritron > ALS-500M amplifier (rated at 600W out) to get 50 -100W
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
I think a lot are RF feedback, not just overdriving...a good test is to try the digimode RX program on CW and see if it has the same problems there. If not, the problem isn't on the RX side. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Thu, 31 May 2007 7:19 pm, Brian Kassel wrote: > Guys: > > I have found that *MANY*, but not all, so-called Wide signals on PSK > modes are caused by several things being overlooked at the *RECEIVE* > end > of the QSO.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
A chain is as strong as the weakest linkone of them mat be the receiver, another is a sub-standard sound card...so I think Brian is right. 73, Jose, CO2JA Brian Kassel wrote: > I don't wish to start any wars, just want you to understand some of > the other possible causes of these stronger signals. > > Sorry guys, I don't see why any operator should apologize for having > a strong, but clean signal. > > Brian K7RE __ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
I work 90% on CW now. I like digital modes too. JT65A is very good. PSK31 is also good. RTTY had been my dream in 1980s and now it's one of my favorite DXing modes, thanks to the DSP technology embedded in software. And I've seen many bad ops in all modes. I think the license class or requirements, however, have nothing to do with the operation quality of the station/operator. I see many JA so-called 1st class operators violating the frequency allocation of 30m/17m/12m digital modes, just for working a so-called rare DX. Yes, I like DXing, but you can't make an excuse if you are getting off-band. I like and love CW, but I also know learning CW does not necessarily mean that the person is also technically sufficiently competent to handle the details of digital modes, SSB modulation control, antenna construction and engineering, propagation theory and skills, or whatever technical which an amateur radio operator can gain an advantage by knowing it. It's all about each individual operator. So stop blaming the others please. 73 // Kenji Rikitake, JJ1BDX(/3), JO3FUO and N6BDX
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Rod KC7CJO said: >> I've found that since the CW requirement has been lifted, the bands, and it sounds like ALL of them, >> have been taken over by RUDE, inconsiderate "human" know-it-alls Interesting. I work digital modes pretty-much exclusively, and I've found quite the opposite. The few no-code Generals I've seen on the bands and worked have been EXCELLENT in every way, from the quality of their signals to understanding how to conduct a digital QSO. So, in my experience, either they've been listening for a long time, or somebody's elmer'ed them right. In my opinion, you can blame lots of folks... but I don't think it's fair or correct to blame the no code Generals. de Peter K1PGV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Oh Rod, and I'd just crawled down off the soapbox. :) First of all, I'm really sorry that you have issues with being able to enjoy HF. Believe me, its nothing like the CB band. Remember in my example, there was one operator running too much power, in the same 3 KHz there were 17 other operators who were being considerate and doing just fine. Given the state of society today, I'd say the amateur radio population is still well ahead of the rest of the world. I've been wondering about the 'new' hams as well. For the past couple of years, I've made it a point to do a qrz.com search on anyone I've heard to be operating 'poorly'. My general research leads me to believe that the worst offenders as a group, are long time general's, advanced's, and extra's. As embarrassing as it may sound, I've found it very rare that a newbie is inconsiderate, the worst offenders I've heard have invariably been the "entrenched old guard". Perhaps its a case of familiarity breeding contempt. I've also casually noticed that some of the best operators have been newly licensed. I wasn't happy that the FCC dropped the code requirement, though I always thought a 5 wpm copy test was more detrimental than good. But I really can't agree that the service is the worse for it. So far, I have heard very few no code licensees on the HF bands. I guess time will tell, but I do remember when and why they dropped the license requirement for CB (ex KCS7306 here), and the amateur bands are nothing like that! Do keep the faith, although the course currently set for us is not one I would have chosen, I think it is still a strong course with a future. And Ron, do try and get creative about getting back onto HF. HF is a lot of fun, and there are still a lot of nice people to meet out on the bands. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Rodney Kraft wrote: > I have an HF rig, but rarely get on HF because of my wife and > neighbors. But after reading the past few threads, I'm GLAD that I > DON'T get on HF! Sounds as if it's gotten to be nothing more than a > low frequency CB band!! > > Whatever happened to common courtesy? Or better yet, COMMON SENSE?? > > I operate primarily on VHF & UHF and I've found that since the CW > requirement has been lifted, the bands, and it sounds like ALL of > them, have been taken over by RUDE, inconsiderate "human" > know-it-alls, who don't give a hang for the regulations that were put > in place to keep the Amateur Airways AND the hobby a FUN place to be! > > > Sorry, but the FCC pulled a BONE HEAD act on this one! Now true hams > are left to clean up, what we can, and police the bands. It's a FACT > that unless someone is purposefully interfering with a public safety > band or some BIG business with MEGA BUCKS, the FCC will just ignore > the complaint! > > Sorry, my soap box! > > Rod KC7CJO >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of > outshooting the other guy. > > > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > - Original Message - > From: "list email filter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought > > >> Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously >> right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall >> before you guys key up must be clueless. >> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > - Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. Loyd C.Headrick K4LCH http://k4lch.info http://www.tagskywarn.org http://www.w4am.org - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Rodney, There have always been boneheads on HF, regardless of the Morse requirement. The 75m phone band has been a great example of this for years and years and years. I'm one of those awful, ignorant, inconsiderate, no-good, don't-give-a-damn-about-regulations-or-operating procedures no-Morse HF ops. And I always take mild offense when I see a message like yours. I always listen for a few minutes and then "QRL?" before I CQ. I don't run unreasonable amounts of power (in fact, the most power I've ever run is 50W). And if I get the impression I'm doubling with someone, I stop and listen. Please don't place blame where it shouldn't be placed. There have been inconsiderate morons on the bands for as long as there have been people on the bands. The lifting of the Morse testing requirement has little to do with it. 73, -chris N2YYZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
I have an HF rig, but rarely get on HF because of my wife and neighbors. But after reading the past few threads, I'm GLAD that I DON'T get on HF! Sounds as if it's gotten to be nothing more than a low frequency CB band!! Whatever happened to common courtesy? Or better yet, COMMON SENSE?? I operate primarily on VHF & UHF and I've found that since the CW requirement has been lifted, the bands, and it sounds like ALL of them, have been taken over by RUDE, inconsiderate "human" know-it-alls, who don't give a hang for the regulations that were put in place to keep the Amateur Airways AND the hobby a FUN place to be! Sorry, but the FCC pulled a BONE HEAD act on this one! Now true hams are left to clean up, what we can, and police the bands. It's a FACT that unless someone is purposefully interfering with a public safety band or some BIG business with MEGA BUCKS, the FCC will just ignore the complaint! Sorry, my soap box! Rod KC7CJO list email filter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well Danny, I've got to say I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, and I'm just a little hopeful that a few of the list members did a little thinking, and that a few newbies 'might' have realized they can 'get by' without a $3k linear and an additional $200 a month on the old electric bill. Even the "it takes a kilowatt to drown out everyone else on the band so that a person half way around the world running a K2 on a battery into a wire can't ignore me" guy hasn't risen to defend the 400 watt rag chewer. In my mind, I'll take that not as a victory, but at least to mean there is hope. In the end, its a hobby. There are people in the world that define who they are by something they are passionate (or perhaps obsessive) about. I long ago learned it is pointless to challenge their beliefs, successfully doing so is tantamount to invalidating their lives. Its much easier to enjoy life, and let them find comfort in their own beliefs. I'll stick around and jump back up on the soapbox every now and then, I don't need a victory, just getting a few people to actually think is more than I should really have hoped for. Who knows, if enough people think about it, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, "friends they may think it's a movement". 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Danny Douglas wrote: > Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than anyone else. Some PSK > operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, > using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. They dont > need it, know they dont, but do it so they CAN be the loudest on the bands. > I have heard them time and again, when someone else trys to come in and say > something. Suddenly there is silence, they they go to talking about the > other guy not having a linear since they cant hear him 40 over s9, like they > can each other. Or better yet, the jerk in Florida who comes on top of a > conversation, calling for someone in California (who he hasnt talked to in > the past 4 hours) and "cant quite hear someone calling him" so goes back to > calling his buddy. He then states this is W4X in podunk city Fl. > calling W6XXX on 'OUR ASSIGNED AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCY", blah blah blah. > There are pigs/ Hogs/ Jerks everywhere. It doesnt matter that he is running > 400 watts on the PSK band. He is allowed to do it by the rules, and hang > the "power necessary for communications". He is going to do it his way, and > ignore every one else. Then of course you have the other guy who hears > this, brings his kw up on the freq, and blows away not only the offending > station, but everyone else - to make his point. > > And to those who say THEY need that 100 or 200 or 300 watts to make the > contact, because of all the other interference --- you wouldnt need it, if > the others were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of > outshooting the other guy. > > > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > - Original Message - > From: "list email filter" <[EMAI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Well Danny, I've got to say I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, and I'm just a little hopeful that a few of the list members did a little thinking, and that a few newbies 'might' have realized they can 'get by' without a $3k linear and an additional $200 a month on the old electric bill. Even the "it takes a kilowatt to drown out everyone else on the band so that a person half way around the world running a K2 on a battery into a wire can't ignore me" guy hasn't risen to defend the 400 watt rag chewer. In my mind, I'll take that not as a victory, but at least to mean there is hope. In the end, its a hobby. There are people in the world that define who they are by something they are passionate (or perhaps obsessive) about. I long ago learned it is pointless to challenge their beliefs, successfully doing so is tantamount to invalidating their lives. Its much easier to enjoy life, and let them find comfort in their own beliefs. I'll stick around and jump back up on the soapbox every now and then, I don't need a victory, just getting a few people to actually think is more than I should really have hoped for. Who knows, if enough people think about it, in the words of Arlo Guthrie, "friends they may think it's a movement". 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Danny Douglas wrote: > Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than anyone else. Some PSK > operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, > using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. They dont > need it, know they dont, but do it so they CAN be the loudest on the bands. > I have heard them time and again, when someone else trys to come in and say > something. Suddenly there is silence, they they go to talking about the > other guy not having a linear since they cant hear him 40 over s9, like they > can each other. Or better yet, the jerk in Florida who comes on top of a > conversation, calling for someone in California (who he hasnt talked to in > the past 4 hours) and "cant quite hear someone calling him" so goes back to > calling his buddy. He then states this is W4X in podunk city Fl. > calling W6XXX on 'OUR ASSIGNED AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCY", blah blah blah. > There are pigs/ Hogs/ Jerks everywhere. It doesnt matter that he is running > 400 watts on the PSK band. He is allowed to do it by the rules, and hang > the "power necessary for communications". He is going to do it his way, and > ignore every one else. Then of course you have the other guy who hears > this, brings his kw up on the freq, and blows away not only the offending > station, but everyone else - to make his point. > > And to those who say THEY need that 100 or 200 or 300 watts to make the > contact, because of all the other interference --- you wouldnt need it, if > the others were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of > outshooting the other guy. > > > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > - Original Message - > From: "list email filter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought > > >> Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously >> right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall >> before you guys key up must be clueless. >> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought - Just a snippet of the original - about AGC
Howard, The AGC controls in my rig seem next to worthless as well. I usually run a 706MkIIG, and it is notorious for pumping when the front end gets overloaded. It also isn't able to really set the AGC off, there are 2 settings, 'fast' and 'something slower'. Digital modes are the only place where I can actually tell the difference between the 2. Its actually kind of interesting, Running SuperBrowser you can be printing a dozen qso's at once, change the AGC to 'Fast' and all of a sudden you'll have 2 or 3 stations, at about 50%. If it weren't for the ability to watch this cause and effect, I wouldn't honestly know there was a difference in my particular rig. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Howard Brown wrote: > I realize you had a larger topic here but one thing you said is > particularly interesting to me, and may be to others: > >> BTW, I do know enough to set my AGC appropriately, I do have a 300 Hz >> filter, and IF shift capabilities, and I do know how to use them. >> > > The filters in my TS2000 work very well in this regard. The AGC > however does not seem to be of value. Can you describe how you set > the AGC to help with this situation? > > Howard K5HB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Give it up Erik. Money talks, and talks louder than anyone else. Some PSK operators are no different that the guys on 80 meters, talking across town, using linears so they can drown out everyone else on the band. They dont need it, know they dont, but do it so they CAN be the loudest on the bands. I have heard them time and again, when someone else trys to come in and say something. Suddenly there is silence, they they go to talking about the other guy not having a linear since they cant hear him 40 over s9, like they can each other. Or better yet, the jerk in Florida who comes on top of a conversation, calling for someone in California (who he hasnt talked to in the past 4 hours) and "cant quite hear someone calling him" so goes back to calling his buddy. He then states this is W4X in podunk city Fl. calling W6XXX on 'OUR ASSIGNED AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCY", blah blah blah. There are pigs/ Hogs/ Jerks everywhere. It doesnt matter that he is running 400 watts on the PSK band. He is allowed to do it by the rules, and hang the "power necessary for communications". He is going to do it his way, and ignore every one else. Then of course you have the other guy who hears this, brings his kw up on the freq, and blows away not only the offending station, but everyone else - to make his point. And to those who say THEY need that 100 or 200 or 300 watts to make the contact, because of all the other interference --- you wouldnt need it, if the others were running 20 watts too. Its a never ending circle of outshooting the other guy. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "list email filter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought > Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously > right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall > before you guys key up must be clueless. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Like I said, it was a silly thought. You two gentlemen are obviously right, and I and the other 8 stations I'm printing on my waterfall before you guys key up must be clueless. I understand the competitive side, and I understand that there are 3 different mentalities somewhat at odds with each other (awards chasers, contesters, and rag chewers). I don't really have a problem with the dx chasers, they are easy to avoid, all piled up on a couple of specific frequencies. Contests can be exhilarating and fun as well. Though I do think it would be interesting to see the results published with the power output, in my mind I would still do the division in my head and make my own decision who the 'best' operators are (isn't that what competition is really about?). My issue is with the people who run 100's of watts when 20 would do. Back to my last (and only) example, I was talking about a casual rag chew between 2 stations less than 500 miles apart, under reasonable band conditions, yet one (and only one of the stations) felt the need to put 40 watts into his linear, feeding a 4 element beam at over 100 feet. Sorry guys, but thats just silly. Maybe I am clueless, but I'd like to think even the hard core contesters and DX chasers would agree with me on this. BTW, I do know enough to set my AGC appropriately, I do have a 300 Hz filter, and IF shift capabilities, and I do know how to use them. I even expect to 'need' them when I'm operating under the more hostile and combative operating conditions, i.e. in the middle of a contest, or if I decide I just have to park myself next to a dx feeding frenzy. The problem is I think that kind of operating should be the exception to the rule, unfortunately, it seems it is becoming standard operating procedure. I also maintain that the operators running 100's of watts when 20 or less would do, are violating both the FCC rules (for US operators), and the basic spirit of ham radio. 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks. Roger J. Buffington wrote: > Brian A wrote: > >> You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz >> away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3 >> KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only >> seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter >> of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this >> filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and >> use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters >> and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF >> filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so >> called problems disappear. > > Exactly right. Sometimes I call CQ and at first do not see (or hear) > anyone coming back to my call. Then I kick in my cascaded 250hz > filters, and suddenly there is a readable signal that was not readable > without the filter due to some strong adjacent signal or other that had > been de-sensing my receiver's AGC. Narrow filters are a must for > effective PSK operations. Asking everyone to operate QRP so that no > one's signal is strong is simply absurd; it is not the answer. What > about my locals, who run around 50 watts and are still S9+20? Am I > supposed to expect them to operate at 1 watt? Of course not. Those who > operate solely with a 3 Khz passband on PSK are going to experience very > poor operating results and no help for it. > > de Roger W6VZV > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Brian A wrote: > You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz > away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3 > KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only > seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter > of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this > filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and > use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters > and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF > filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so > called problems disappear. Exactly right. Sometimes I call CQ and at first do not see (or hear) anyone coming back to my call. Then I kick in my cascaded 250hz filters, and suddenly there is a readable signal that was not readable without the filter due to some strong adjacent signal or other that had been de-sensing my receiver's AGC. Narrow filters are a must for effective PSK operations. Asking everyone to operate QRP so that no one's signal is strong is simply absurd; it is not the answer. What about my locals, who run around 50 watts and are still S9+20? Am I supposed to expect them to operate at 1 watt? Of course not. Those who operate solely with a 3 Khz passband on PSK are going to experience very poor operating results and no help for it. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Sounds like time to advise the FCC of inteference from a poor signal. Yes - it IS their job. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought. > Last year there was an OM about 6 miles from me who regularly ran 250W > on PSK. In QSO after QSO, he was told he had RF feedback in his signal, > he he pointedly ignored it all, saying he had a clean signal and wasn't > overdriving, and it was all just poor receiver front ends. It > wasn't...the RF was a big problem, and his signal covered over 1KHz. > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Wed, 30 May 2007 4:51 pm, Brian A wrote: > > "There is no need to run 1000 watts" is just plain wrong. > > > > It depends upon what your're trying to do. > > > > If you're trying to make a QSO with a station half a world away under > > tough propogation conditions, it may indeed be necessary. 1000 watts > > may be the minimum power required to make the contact. > > > > PSK and other digital contacts are good for DXCC digital credit. For > > example, some people did indeed work one of the VU4 dxpedition > > stations half a world away using PSK. It did take them a lot of power. > > It was legit to do so. Contests are also legit. Ragchewing isn't the > > only activity digital modes can be used for. > > > > I agree if you're intent on only working easy paths than 20-50 watts > > is mostly OK. That's not what everybody wants to do. The only reg > > requirements are min power necessary a clean transmitted signal and no > > intentional interference. > > > > Also there is no relationship between transmitted power and > > distortion. A KW can be clean and 2 watts can be dirty. You can't > > tell from a waterfall that somebody is running too much power for a > > given path. A clean 2 watts from across the street can look pretty > > dirty if your RX can't handle the signal without RX overload. > > > > The expectation that one is going to sit there day in and day out with > > a wide RX filter and not be bothered by other stations is unrealistic. > > This is a shared frequency hobby. > > > > Putting the blame on the other guy and trying to "reform him" isn't > > the answer. The answer is to make YOUR station as bullet proof to > > intefering signals as possible. That means narrow filters will often > > be necessary. It means knowing how to use passband tuning, notches, > > AGC, RF gain control and whatever other technology you can throw at it. > > > > QRM is part of the hobby. Digital modes are not immune or exempt. > > > > Quit crying and accept reality. > > > > de K3KO > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Lew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I have been running PSK for severial years, I run around 20 - 25 > > watts, with > >> the ALC just starting to move > >> My IMD report is around -32. and the fan runs very little > >> I have tried running 50 Watts and after a few min. the fan is > > running at > >> full speed and the radio is hot. > >> > >> CW or voice are 50% duty cycle (not always xmitting at power set > >> point) > >> PSK and other digital modes on the other hand always has a tone being > >> xmitted. ie 100% duty cycle. > >> > >> I have talked to stations with sidebands and they were running around > >> 100Watts > >> had them cut the power to 20 - 30 watts, the side bands were gone, > > their IMD > >> got much better > >> and I could still copy them with no problems. > >> > >> I run a TS-2000 to a dipole and as a rule if I can hear them I can > > contact > >> them. > >> > >> so much for high power with PSK or other digital modes > >> > >> just my 2 cents > >> > >> Lew N4HRA > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:56 > >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought. > >> > >> > >> > D
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought.
Last year there was an OM about 6 miles from me who regularly ran 250W on PSK. In QSO after QSO, he was told he had RF feedback in his signal, he he pointedly ignored it all, saying he had a clean signal and wasn't overdriving, and it was all just poor receiver front ends. It wasn't...the RF was a big problem, and his signal covered over 1KHz. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Wed, 30 May 2007 4:51 pm, Brian A wrote: > "There is no need to run 1000 watts" is just plain wrong. > > It depends upon what your're trying to do. > > If you're trying to make a QSO with a station half a world away under > tough propogation conditions, it may indeed be necessary. 1000 watts > may be the minimum power required to make the contact. > > PSK and other digital contacts are good for DXCC digital credit. For > example, some people did indeed work one of the VU4 dxpedition > stations half a world away using PSK. It did take them a lot of power. > It was legit to do so. Contests are also legit. Ragchewing isn't the > only activity digital modes can be used for. > > I agree if you're intent on only working easy paths than 20-50 watts > is mostly OK. That's not what everybody wants to do. The only reg > requirements are min power necessary a clean transmitted signal and no > intentional interference. > > Also there is no relationship between transmitted power and > distortion. A KW can be clean and 2 watts can be dirty. You can't > tell from a waterfall that somebody is running too much power for a > given path. A clean 2 watts from across the street can look pretty > dirty if your RX can't handle the signal without RX overload. > > The expectation that one is going to sit there day in and day out with > a wide RX filter and not be bothered by other stations is unrealistic. > This is a shared frequency hobby. > > Putting the blame on the other guy and trying to "reform him" isn't > the answer. The answer is to make YOUR station as bullet proof to > intefering signals as possible. That means narrow filters will often > be necessary. It means knowing how to use passband tuning, notches, > AGC, RF gain control and whatever other technology you can throw at it. > > QRM is part of the hobby. Digital modes are not immune or exempt. > > Quit crying and accept reality. > > de K3KO > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Lew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I have been running PSK for severial years, I run around 20 - 25 > watts, with >> the ALC just starting to move >> My IMD report is around -32. and the fan runs very little >> I have tried running 50 Watts and after a few min. the fan is > running at >> full speed and the radio is hot. >> >> CW or voice are 50% duty cycle (not always xmitting at power set >> point) >> PSK and other digital modes on the other hand always has a tone being >> xmitted. ie 100% duty cycle. >> >> I have talked to stations with sidebands and they were running around >> 100Watts >> had them cut the power to 20 - 30 watts, the side bands were gone, > their IMD >> got much better >> and I could still copy them with no problems. >> >> I run a TS-2000 to a dipole and as a rule if I can hear them I can > contact >> them. >> >> so much for high power with PSK or other digital modes >> >> just my 2 cents >> >> Lew N4HRA >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:56 >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought. >> >> >> > Danny Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell >> new >> >> people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they > can. >> >> There is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run >> >> more) on the PSK, etc. digital modes. Everytime I say that though, >> >> someone jumps in the middle and says that a well adjusted signal, >> >> blah blah blah, wont cause problems. Ive been told to get a > receiver: >> >> get a rig: get a filter, etc. I have all three thank you - but >> that >> >> doesnt mean that the person transmitting such signals is not >> >> responisble to the amateur code and should not run the "minimum > power >> >> needed to make contacts". One can almost always tell who is > exceeding >> >> necessary power, just from the view on the waterfalls. When one >> >> signal out of 20 appears 4 time brighter, and has traces above and >> >> below their main signal for half the width of the waterfall, > they are >> >> exceeding power badly. Especially with PSK, many of us use >> broadband >> >> copy software, so we can see and copy every signal on the band > at the >> >> same time. With one of those signals, I see the same station >> readout >> >> on a dozen or more channels of that window. Often, they just > wipe out >> >> everyone else. >> > >> > There is never an excuse for running an unclean signal on PSK or any >> > other mode, i.e. with sidebands, etc. In
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
I know I started this thread with the idea of dividing contest points by power output, I did choose the word silly in the subject intentionally, but, the real problem is that there is a ssb contesting mindset that is filtering over into common usage. Yesterday there was a station, over 800 miles away from me, taking out my entire waterfall (no contest on, and the station he was working wasn't DX, or a rare county/grid square, in fact it was a casual rag chew). I was running DM780 in SuperBrowser mode, and 'reading the mail', following about 10 qso's at the same time, I'm certain I could have shifted away and filtered him out, but then I'd only be able to print a couple of the ongoing qso's I'd been monitoring. At any rate this gentleman was running his brag macro, a 4 element beam at over 100 feet (and no, I was no where close to being on a direct line between the stations)... I immediately went into personal fantasy mode, imagining what I could do with such an antenna, lets just say that with an antenna like that, when running psk, the biggest power draw in my shack would probably be the rotor... anyway, this op went on to explain/complain that he couldn't really get any power out of his linear, as he couldn't feed it with any more than 40 watts without distorting (goodness knows what his output power was, but I'm guessing that if his tower were any shorter, his neighbors would get their fluorescent lighting for free). This was the point where I decided to go mow the lawn. As to the physics of more power on successful qso'ing, perhaps it is more important to consider the 'physics' of afsk and sharing the ssb audio passband of the average ham rig with a dozen or more signals. The key word here is 'sharing', and the problem is that with the growing popularity of digital modes, especially those that can 'get through' in the doldrums of the solar cycle, there are too many high power ssb stations out there that run in a 'I've got a linear and its my given right to use it, take no prisoners, me first' mindset, and it wrecks the experience for the rest of us who have to 'share' with them. Lets not forget that the 'cool' thing about psk31, is that it is narrow and fast enough for casual keyboard to keyboard ops. By its very nature, it plays well with others in a confined space. Your signal may only be 31Hz wide on the waterfall, but if you cancels out everything else 1.5KHz wide on either side of it, you are really occupying 3KHz not 31Hz, aren't you? I would propose that considerate narrow band digital operators boycott qso's with any operators running needlessly excessive power. As they say, we are known by the company we keep. These operators are not ignorant, they know what they are doing to others on the band, and they don't care (this is, by the way, the very definition of being both inconsiderate and rude). I honestly think the only way to correct their perception and operating practices is to ignore them. Just like a child throwing a tantrum, when they realize being loud won't help them get their way, they'll stop screaming. They'll modify their behavior to a more 'acceptable' standard of operating, and that will improve the experience for us all. We can't fight the contest sponsors, and the marketing machines that want us to buy a linear, because 'it will get you DXCC on psk31 in no time at all', by passively accepting it. It may not be 'our' fault, but, I believe 'we' are the only ones with both the ability and incentive to fix it. If you're a DX station, and you really want to make my day, the next time 20 is 'open' and a big gun is chasing you, tell him the frequency is in use, and enjoy some nice leisurely rag chews with a few 20 watt stations (you might even call for any qrp stations, hihi). A few DXpeditions with a policy of ignoring the over powered could change our world. Ask yourself how it is that the whole world can hear and work the DXpedition station running a 100 watt barefoot rig off a battery at 20 watts into a dipole strung between 2 coconut trees, but we seem to believe we need 400 watts into a 4 element beam to make the other half of the same or lesser qso, especially when the guy before us just completed the same qso with an FT-817 and a slinky in his attic? 73, Erik N7HMS IRLP Node 3804 445.975 Simp PL103.5 Emails sent directly to this address instead of going through a yahoo group are automatically processed as junk mail, so I never see them. If you want to email me directly, try 'mycall' at 12bars dot com, thanks.
