Re: [digitalradio] Question on bandwidth on HF
JT8 is proposed as a possible alternative to JT4. Modulation is 8-FSK at 2.857 baud. FEC uses convolutional codes with K=14, r=1/4, K=15, r=1/6, or K=16, r=1/8, depending on message length. Synchronization uses 8×8 Costas arrays at the beginning and end of a transmission, followed by two additional symbols to distinguish between 30-bit, 48-bit, and 78-bit messages. Total bandwidth is 23 Hz. At present, only the 78-bit messages have been implemented. http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/WSJT8_User.pdf VE3BDR From: Russell Blair Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:46 PM To: Digital Radio Subject: [digitalradio] Question on bandwidth on HF THIS IS NOT TO START A BIG THING...I was using one of the new modes today WSJT8 Beta and was informed that the bandwidth exceeded to limits on HF... My question What is the bandwidth ? Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3019 - Release Date: 07/21/10 02:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] Question on bandwidth on HF
It is a very NARROW mode On 7/21/10, Russell Blair russell_blai...@yahoo.com wrote: THIS IS NOT TO START A BIG THING...I was using one of the new modes today WSJT8 Beta and was informed that the bandwidth exceeded to limits on HF... My question What is the bandwidth ? Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 -- Sent from my mobile device
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, This regulation was made years ago and just covers all spread spectrum. In the FCC's opinion, ROS is spread spectrum, both by description by the author and lab analysis. So, they had no choice but to uphold the current ruling. If someone wants to redefine spread spectrum on HF as having a limited spreading factor (no more than SSB phone, for example), this must be done via a petition to the FCC. The procedure is straightforward. I have done it myself on other matters. Those with an opinion that ROS is NOT really spread spectrum and wants to use it in the US only need to file a petition stating why it is not harmful and what limits should be imposed. ROS will have to be given a definition designator and the FCC will then decide where a mode with that emission can be used without harm. For example, why is NBFM not allowed to be used below 10 meters? Perhaps it also should be, but until the regulations are changed to permit it, it may not be done. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:19 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. You are talking about real, 20kHz or more wide spread spectrum though, aren't you? If it's only as wide as a voice signal, it's causing no more harm than a voice signal (and it probably isn't spread spectrum according to at least some learned opinions.) Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal. Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of the US ham population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over 50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox... Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote: Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
BINGO!!! I invoke Godwin's Law!!! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Dave NK7Z On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com thus spake: Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
SO ! that whats in my swimming pool.. I'll have to add more chlorine.. Garrett / AA0OI From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:58:44 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Enough of this juvenile garbage. Amateur radio in the US is governed by regulations to which we agree to abide when we are granted a license. These regulations are particularly important in amateur radio because we all share one set of frequencies. These regulations are not perfect; in particular, the regulation constraining Spread Spectrum usage is insufficiently precise, and as a result precludes the use of techniques on HF that the FCC would likely approve given a competent exposition. In this situation, an amateur radio operator interested in using these techniques on HF should hold off until the regulation has been changed to permit their use, contributing to or leading the effort to change the regulation if capable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the FCC for their view of whether a particular mode or technique is legal under the current regulations. The knowledge that many amateurs are confused about what constitutes Spread Spectrum should if anything make the FCC more receptive to a proposal to clarify the regulation. The claim that asking the FCC a question can kill amateur radio is amazingly ridiculous; asking the FCC a question is more likely to teleport the Loch Ness Monster into your swimming pool than kill amateur radio. Unlike broadcast television stations, amateur radio operators don't individually negotiate their licenses with the FCC. Thus the comments below regarding regulations being trumped by station permits negotiated by attorneys is completely irrelevant. The nasty name-calling that appears below and in previous posts today is flat-out unacceptable. Were I moderator of this group, the offending parties would be long gone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From:John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river. net To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Just because the Government has written it down on paper, does not make it right.. And not to start another argument, but incase you haven't noticed we've lost control of our Government and that includes the FCC Garrett / AA0OI From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:17:08 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad government doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I wonder if anyone making that flim-flam argument frequents the W6NUT repeater. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
That right they would.. I hold a Exta Class ham license I hold Commercial Pilots License, single engine land , multi engine land , Insturment rated, CFI, CFII, Multi Engine Instructor. with over 20,000 hrs I hold a Captians Liscense for over 600,000 tons I Owned my own company teaching backpacking and wilderness survival. in Colorado I'm a marksman with a pistol at 100 ft and rifle to 1000 yards.. What you done with your life? Garrett / AA0OI From: k8yzk k8...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:30:59 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Sounds like a LID response. Channel 19 is 27.185 Mhz, I am sure the will welcome you back. Kurt K8YZK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI aa...@... wrote: Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@... To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@... PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Dave: Very good,, I could have done worse and call him O'Bama ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Dave Cole d...@nk7z.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 7:43:51 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA BINGO!!! I invoke Godwin's Law!!! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Dave NK7Z On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com thus spake: Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
Andy asked me not to call you a Nazi,, that it was personal,, so I retract it,,, You O'bama You. Thomas Jefferson said, that at some time our government would become so out of hand that we the people would have to take back control of it.. (The second amendment ain't about hunting) Sit back and make yourself comfortable,, just keep following the rules, right or wrong.. We the People will try to correct the problems. When you follow the laws blindly, your no long a citizen of the country, your a citizen of the government,, which are you??. Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:47:43 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Garrett /AA0OI said Spoken like a good Nazi NZ4O says it's all about obeying the law. The Nazi's did not obey the law and it was their downfall. Garrett /AA0OI said What happened to the real Americans ??? NZ4O says real American's used to obey the law. As a society we are no longer doing that and it's one of the reasons that America is in total societal collapse. NZ4O says my post was tongue in cheek but I forgot to add the smiley face. :)) 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
Can we PLEASE dispense with the dick waving contests, and the political rhetoric. Believe it or not, the rest of the world cares little for your politics. Can we please get back to ham radio? VE3BDR From: AA0OI Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:12 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Andy asked me not to call you a Nazi,, that it was personal,, so I retract it,,, You O'bama You. Thomas Jefferson said, that at some time our government would become so out of hand that we the people would have to take back control of it.. (The second amendment ain't about hunting) Sit back and make yourself comfortable,, just keep following the rules, right or wrong.. We the People will try to correct the problems. When you follow the laws blindly, your no long a citizen of the country, your a citizen of the government,, which are you??. Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:47:43 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Garrett /AA0OI said Spoken like a good Nazi NZ4O says it's all about obeying the law. The Nazi's did not obey the law and it was their downfall. Garrett /AA0OI said What happened to the real Americans ??? NZ4O says real American's used to obey the law. As a society we are no longer doing that and it's one of the reasons that America is in total societal collapse. NZ4O says my post was tongue in cheek but I forgot to add the smiley face. :)) 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
That sounds like fun, and useful too. ve3bdr in kanuckistan From: kb2hsh Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM Good morning all... This has been interesting me since I read about it in QST last year. I, too, have been looking to do some experimenting with this mode. Last year, I briefly tested this by heading to my Churchabout 3.5 miles away. I brought along my TINY Sony Vaio and my IC-2AT...and then set my FT-817 in receive with DominoEX-8. With 100 mW, I had nearly solid print from the old 2AT and a rubber-duckie antenna. With better antennas, one would think that significantly better distances could be accomplished. Too bad more don't experiment like this. 73, John KB2HSH --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
Actually, the Nazi's did obey the law. (That is not a defense of their actions.) They just changed the law to make whatever they wanted to do legal, or did it outside of Germany where the law did not apply. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O [mailto:n...@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:48 AM To: digital radio eGroup Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Garrett /AA0OI said Spoken like a good Nazi NZ4O says it's all about obeying the law. The Nazi's did not obey the law and it was their downfall. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com
Re: [digitalradio] Yaesu FT-690
Part Numbers Options: SignaLink USB Part Numbers (please specify when ordering): a.. SLUSB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLUSB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLUSBRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLUSBRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLUSB5PD - For 5-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLUSB8PD - For 8-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLUSB13I - For ICOM 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLUSB13K - For Kenwood 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLUSB6PM - For 6-pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLUSBK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLUSBNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Extra Radio Cables: a.. SLCAB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLCAB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLCABRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLCABRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLCAB5PD - For 5-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLCAB8PD - For 8-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLCAB13I - For ICOM 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLCAB13K - For Kenwood 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLCAB6PM - For 6-Pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLCABK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLCABNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Accessories: a.. Plug Play Jumper Modules - Click here for part numbers and radios supported b.. SLHEAD - SignaLink Programming Header for wiring your own jumper module The instructions will include details on the jumpers. You will need a cable to go from the Signalink USB to the headphone jack also. I own 2 Signalink USB s and am very happy with them. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Yaesu FT-690 Does anyone use the FT 690 for 50Mhz digital? Especially with the Signalink. If so I'd like to know the equipment number of the connecting serial cable which attaches both these units. Jon G4FUT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
You'd better care about our politics,, if we go under, so does the rest of the world ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Rudy Benner ben...@vianet.ca To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:24:46 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Can we PLEASE dispense with the dick waving contests, and the political rhetoric. Believe it or not, the rest of the world cares little for your politics. Can we please get back to ham radio? VE3BDR From: AA0OI Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:12 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Andy asked me not to call you a Nazi,, that it was personal,, so I retract it,,, You O'bama You. Thomas Jefferson said, that at some time our government would become so out of hand that we the people would have to take back control of it.. (The second amendment ain't about hunting) Sit back and make yourself comfortable, , just keep following the rules, right or wrong.. We the People will try to correct the problems. When you follow the laws blindly, your no long a citizen of the country, your a citizen of the government,, which are you??. Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay. rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:47:43 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Garrett /AA0OI said Spoken like a good Nazi NZ4O says it's all about obeying the law. The Nazi's did not obey the law and it was their downfall. Garrett /AA0OI said What happened to the real Americans ??? NZ4O says real American's used to obey the law. As a society we are no longer doing that and it's one of the reasons that America is in total societal collapse. NZ4O says my post was tongue in cheek but I forgot to add the smiley face. :)) 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org - - -- http://www.obriensw eb.com/digispott er.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook .com/pages/ digitalradio/ 123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
This is interesting, but I am curious, are you bragging or complaining? Bob, W5XR From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA0OI Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:58 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA That right they would.. I hold a Exta Class ham license I hold Commercial Pilots License, single engine land , multi engine land , Insturment rated, CFI, CFII, Multi Engine Instructor. with over 20,000 hrs I hold a Captians Liscense for over 600,000 tons I Owned my own company teaching backpacking and wilderness survival. in Colorado I'm a marksman with a pistol at 100 ft and rifle to 1000 yards.. What you done with your life? Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif _ From: k8yzk k8...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:30:59 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Sounds like a LID response. Channel 19 is 27.185 Mhz, I am sure the will welcome you back. Kurt K8YZK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , AA0OI aa...@... wrote: Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@... To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@... PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
right, I still can't copy over 63 wpm code and that I learned in 1971.. Garrett / AA0OI From: k8yzk k8...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 1:47:02 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Well with everything you hold and a $1 you can buy a cup of coffee at Mac's. I hold a Extra Class and been licensed since 1966 when you did not have to memorize the test, and had to know Morse Code. I am retired army, I have shot everything from 45 cal up to a 109MM. I am qualified with pistols also, big deal.. I don't fly so you got me there. So run ros and see where it goes. Oh one thing is I don't have to brag about what I can do, if you don't agree with the FCC why not petition for them to change it, Kurt SSG US Army (Retired) K8YZK (Ex WN8VBX,WA8VBX,HL9JB,XW8GW,DA1UE,DA2VC) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI aa...@... wrote: That right they would.. I hold a Exta Class ham license I hold Commercial Pilots License, single engine land , multi engine land , Insturment rated, CFI, CFII, Multi Engine Instructor. with over 20,000 hrs I hold a Captians Liscense for over 600,000 tons I Owned my own company teaching backpacking and wilderness survival. in Colorado I'm a marksman with a pistol at 100 ft and rifle to 1000 yards.. What you done with your life? Garrett / AA0OI From: k8yzk k8...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 6:30:59 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA  Sounds like a LID response. Channel 19 is 27.185 Mhz, I am sure the will welcome you back. Kurt K8YZK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI aa0oi@ wrote: Spoken like a good Nazi  Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O nz4o@ To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA nz4o@ PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
WOMEN ?! Garrett / AA0OI From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 2:21:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to interesting DIGITAL RADIO that this reflector's name indicates..? ? I am wearing out my delete key on the daily mess of crap about ROS...?? There HAS to be something more interesting to talk about then ROS on a daily basis..? de Ted -- W7RHB _ _ _ _ _ ___ Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Yaesu FT-690
Well, I think that is correct, but I seem to be getting my butt kicked all day, so I decided to send you enough data to figure it out and come out smelling rosy for a change. I think I get the Bonehead Award today. Don't forget that you will need a cable for the receive, that part is easy. If you are going to kick me, please take a number and line up. No pushing. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Yaesu FT-690 Rudy, I pressed the SEND button too soonfrom the list you kindly posted will this cable SLCAB8R ...be the correct one for the connection from the Signalink to the Yaesus 8 pin mike socket? Regards again Jon --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jon_g4fut jon_g4...@... wrote: Thanks Rudy, Yes, I am very happy with Signalink, I use one with my ICOM 718 for data so wish to move onto 6 metres now Regards Jon --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Benner benner@ wrote: Part Numbers Options: SignaLink USB Part Numbers (please specify when ordering): a.. SLUSB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLUSB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLUSBRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLUSBRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLUSB5PD - For 5-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLUSB8PD - For 8-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLUSB13I - For ICOM 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLUSB13K - For Kenwood 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLUSB6PM - For 6-pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLUSBK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLUSBNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Extra Radio Cables: a.. SLCAB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLCAB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLCABRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLCABRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLCAB5PD - For 5-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLCAB8PD - For 8-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLCAB13I - For ICOM 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLCAB13K - For Kenwood 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLCAB6PM - For 6-Pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLCABK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLCABNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Accessories: a.. Plug Play Jumper Modules - Click here for part numbers and radios supported b.. SLHEAD - SignaLink Programming Header for wiring your own jumper module The instructions will include details on the jumpers. You will need a cable to go from the Signalink USB to the headphone jack also. I own 2 Signalink USB s and am very happy with them. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Yaesu FT-690 Does anyone use the FT 690 for 50Mhz digital? Especially with the Signalink. If so I'd like to know the equipment number of the connecting serial cable which attaches both these units. Jon G4FUT No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA
Whatever. From: AA0OI Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA You'd better care about our politics,, if we go under, so does the rest of the world ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Rudy Benner ben...@vianet.ca To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:24:46 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Can we PLEASE dispense with the dick waving contests, and the political rhetoric. Believe it or not, the rest of the world cares little for your politics. Can we please get back to ham radio? VE3BDR From: AA0OI Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:12 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Andy asked me not to call you a Nazi,, that it was personal,, so I retract it,,, You O'bama You. Thomas Jefferson said, that at some time our government would become so out of hand that we the people would have to take back control of it.. (The second amendment ain't about hunting) Sit back and make yourself comfortable, , just keep following the rules, right or wrong.. We the People will try to correct the problems. When you follow the laws blindly, your no long a citizen of the country, your a citizen of the government,, which are you??. Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay. rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:47:43 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Operating ROS In USA Garrett /AA0OI said Spoken like a good Nazi NZ4O says it's all about obeying the law. The Nazi's did not obey the law and it was their downfall. Garrett /AA0OI said What happened to the real Americans ??? NZ4O says real American's used to obey the law. As a society we are no longer doing that and it's one of the reasons that America is in total societal collapse. NZ4O says my post was tongue in cheek but I forgot to add the smiley face. :)) 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org - - -- http://www.obriensw eb.com/digispott er.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook .com/pages/ digitalradio/ 123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo
RE: [digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment
Post a notification to the Greenkeys mailing list. __ GreenKeys mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:greenk...@mailman.qth.net Mark T. Regan, K8MTR, CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991) -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Becker, WØJAB Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 17:00 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment After thinking about a for a while - I'm going to part with all my RTTY equipment. It's all going. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I sure am glad I grew up! MAN! Get a life! From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:21:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to interesting DIGITAL RADIO that this reflector's name indicates..?? I am wearing out my delete key on the daily mess of crap about ROS...?? There HAS to be something more interesting to talk about then ROS on a daily basis..? de Ted -- W7RHB Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
The IMD shouldnt be a significant problem unless something is overdriven. However, you see that with PSK31 and to a lesser extent RTTY fairly often on the bands, although most of what i see is 60 cycle hum and audio harmonics related to that, rather than just pure overdrive. AFSK, etc., is the way to go if you can keep it clean (vs FSK). PSK31 is too slow for contesting, so the first shift required is to PSK63. 73, Ty K3MM Jul 20, 2010 04:00:06 AM, digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Quite frankly, RTTY could easily be replaced with PSK63 as the prime digital contest mode. However, many PSK operators are so clueless and often downright rude when it comes to contests that its an extremely uphill battle. We could fit a lot more PSK63 signals on the band than RTTY... It would be interesting to see what happened if a semi-major RTTY contest was moved to PSK63 only. Agreed, though the IMD might be a problem, especially as many RTTY contesters use class C amps. Of course, you could also argue that they wouldn't need to use as much power... As a not completely unrelated aside, a few of us have been helping to test G4HYG's APRS Messenger software which at the moment is an experiment to find an alternative publicly documented mode to FSK300 packet that gives better performance on the HF bands. We had been using PSK63 but very recently have been trying the GMSK modes (63, 125 and 250) which are implemented in the MMVARI free software. I don't know (and don't at the moment have time to find out) what exactly the technical differences are between PSK and GMSK but the performance seems to be even better, and apparently it doesn't have the amplitude variations that cause IMD products when using PSK. Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Moderator (again) Politics
Andy, it seems to be time for a poll. 1. I wish to continue reading discussions of ROS 2. Enough already, lets talk about something else! Care to guess what the vote would be? Bill On 7/20/2010 4:51 PM, Andy obrien wrote: Me again. In addition to a prohibition on personal attacks , this group should be free of politics . This does not preclude disagreement with Ofcomm, IARU, CRTC, FCC, or other national bodies when it relates to amateur radio. It does mean that we should avoid declarative statements about one country being better than another, or espousal of one political theory over another (right wing reactionaries versus left wing revolutionaries, etc). You are entitled to your own political views but they are not part of this group. The rules are posted below, they have been unchanged for many years but I have added the following While expressions of national pride are understandable at times , please avoid political statements that are not relevant to communications/amateur radio policy. Rules. This group is uncensored. Members are free to engage in the posting of information, solicit answers to questions, and engage in lively discussion. Expressions of diverse opinions are encouraged. However, expressions of opinion should be non-judgmental and devoid of personal insult. For example : You can say I really disagree, and I think your view is totally wrong but should not say You are a jerk,and obviously have the I.Q of a mole. Racist remarks, or remarks intolerant of the diverse cultures found within the amateur radio community, are not allowed. While expressions of national pride are understandable at times , please avoid political statements that are not relevant to communications/amateur radio policy The expression of fraternal greetings associated with varying holidays celebrated around the world ARE allowed The use of swear words is discouraged. Please try to avoid endless debate of a topic. Make your opinions known by all means, respond to counterpoints a couple of times if you want. However, after a while, debates often turn in to endless circular arguments. When this happens the moderators will occasionally end the debate by giving a 72 hour notice. This means after 72 hours notice, posting on the topic should end. Occasionally, a cooling off period is enacted whereby the list is placed on fully moderated status to allow the debate to cool of. Andy K3UK Owner.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
- Original Message From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some like to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just something to play with that many enjoy. I doubt that many hams that run the digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Yaesu FT-690
Thank you. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Yaesu FT-690 Rudi, No kicking from me...instead I'll defend you for the excellent information you sent... :-) Cheers Jon --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Benner ben...@... wrote: Well, I think that is correct, but I seem to be getting my butt kicked all day, so I decided to send you enough data to figure it out and come out smelling rosy for a change. I think I get the Bonehead Award today. Don't forget that you will need a cable for the receive, that part is easy. If you are going to kick me, please take a number and line up. No pushing. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Yaesu FT-690 Rudy, I pressed the SEND button too soonfrom the list you kindly posted will this cable SLCAB8R ...be the correct one for the connection from the Signalink to the Yaesus 8 pin mike socket? Regards again Jon --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jon_g4fut jon_g4fut@ wrote: Thanks Rudy, Yes, I am very happy with Signalink, I use one with my ICOM 718 for data so wish to move onto 6 metres now Regards Jon --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Benner benner@ wrote: Part Numbers Options: SignaLink USB Part Numbers (please specify when ordering): a.. SLUSB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLUSB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLUSBRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLUSBRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLUSB5PD - For 5-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLUSB8PD - For 8-pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLUSB13I - For ICOM 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLUSB13K - For Kenwood 13-pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLUSB6PM - For 6-pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLUSBK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLUSBNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Extra Radio Cables: a.. SLCAB4R - For 4-Pin Round Mic Connector b.. SLCAB8R - For 8-Pin Round Mic Connector c.. SLCABRJ1 - For RJ-11 Mic Connector d.. SLCABRJ4 - For RJ-45 Mic Connector e.. SLCAB5PD - For 5-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector f.. SLCAB8PD - For 8-Pin DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector g.. SLCAB13I - For ICOM 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector h.. SLCAB13K - For Kenwood 13-Pin DIN Accessory Port Connector i.. SLCAB6PM - For 6-Pin mini DIN Data / Accessory Port Connector j.. SLCABK3 - For the Elecraft K3's rear panel Audio In/Out PTT jacks k.. SLCABNC - Un-terminated cable (bare wires on radio end) for building your own cable Accessories: a.. Plug Play Jumper Modules - Click here for part numbers and radios supported b.. SLHEAD - SignaLink Programming Header for wiring your own jumper module The instructions will include details on the jumpers. You will need a cable to go from the Signalink USB to the headphone jack also. I own 2 Signalink USB s and am very happy with them. From: jon_g4fut Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Yaesu FT-690 Does anyone use the FT 690 for 50Mhz digital? Especially with the Signalink. If so I'd like to know the equipment number of the connecting serial cable which attaches both these units. Jon G4FUT -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10 02:36:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3018 - Release Date: 07/20/10 14:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
PSK63 was developed as an intended RTTY contesting mode replacement, not for conversation. PSK31 is too slow for contesting and has a preamble and a postamble that slows turnovers down, so the idea was that 100 wpm PSK63 would, overall, including faster turnovers than PSK31, be as fast as RTTY for contest exchanges, and contesters would benefit from less power needed, panoramic reception, less crowding, and faster synchronization. In the contesting world, a rapid exchange and turnover is more important than a faster typing speed. Peter Martinez designed PSK31 for ragchewing and so selected 50 wpm as fast enough for conversation for most typists. Even though Don, AA5AU, a big-time winner of RTTY contests, said he was just blown away about the possibility of PSK63 for contesting when I showed it to him, I was unable to get it implemented into WriteLog, as the author took a chicken and egg approach in which he said he would not add PSK63 to WriteLog until it became popular for contesting! Since WriteLog is so popular with contest winners, and did not support PSK63, the mode never took off, except in Europe. What might help would be for someone to convince the contest managers to do something like adding a multiplier for PSK63 contacts, or perhaps some other acceptable incentive, to make it worthwhile to use PSK63 for contests. Everybody would win, because so many PSK63 signals can fit into the space of one RTTY signal, and with panoramic displays, you get a list of callsigns to select from all presented to you, and can even highlight zones or callsign areas you need for multipliers, etc.. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote: - Original Message From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com mailto:julian%40g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some like to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that run the digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
I completely understand the lure of the old mechanical teleprinters. But I have to say I was surprised at my reaction to the addition of RTTY to the firmware in my NUE-PSK modem. I typically use the NUE-PSK battery powered plugged into my 817 while doing QRP in the field. I don't need to lug along a laptop to do PSK31. Apparently it was easy for them to add RTTY support, and by golly, I found myself doing the occasionally RTTY QSO using this little device. And it was fun. I would not have guessed a modern little device like the NUE-PSK would ever support RTTY, and I would not have guessed I'd get a kick out of it. I mean, I still prefer other digital modes, but RTTY once in a while can be fun too, I've discovered. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency - Original Message From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 4:29:15 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency Just because a mode is better doesn't mean that people will want to use it, though, and I guess both RTTY and PSK31 are so established now that you'll never persuade people to give them up. Julian, G4ILO While rtty can be replaced by other modes, they will not run on the 50 plus old mechanical printers and the demodulators that go with them. Just as some like to run AM on the ham bands. Not that good of a use of bandwidth, but just something to play with that many enjoy.I doubt that many hams that run the digital modes can really type very fast and depend on the micros in the programs. For the ones doing it in real time, psk31 probably has enough speed.
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver's Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulatecomputer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audioinput Welcome to the group, tell us more. AndyK3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:33:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency I completely understand the lure of the old mechanical teleprinters. But I have to say I was surprised at my reaction to the addition of RTTY to the firmware in my NUE-PSK modem. I typically use the NUE-PSK battery powered plugged into my 817 while doing QRP in the field. I don't need to lug along a laptop to do PSK31. Apparently it was easy for them to add RTTY support, and by golly, I found myself doing the occasionally RTTY QSO using this little device. And it was fun. I would not have guessed a modern little device like the NUE-PSK would ever support RTTY, and I would not have guessed I'd get a kick out of it. I mean, I still prefer other digital modes, but RTTY once in a while can be fun too, I've discovered. Jim - K6JM I have an old mechanical printer that dates back to around 1945. Still works fine. I let it run just to watch it work. Sometimes it is interisting to compair the print of the old 1970 something homebuilt modem and mechanical printer with the modern sound card programs. The NUE-PSK should not be hard to impliment rtty on. I wrote a program to run on an 8080 processor board that only had 1 K of ram and 2 K of rom in it about 30 years ago. I did have an external modem to convert the tones to pulses. Same one that worked the mechanical printer. While the NUE-PSK looks interisting, I have a small netbook computer that will run all the sound card programs. If you have to have a keyboard, the netbook is not much larger with its 10 inch screen. . A small interface box handles the audio interface.
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Gary Edwards To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. -- From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
It'd be pretty cool if that nue-psk device was a little more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 With the built in keyboard. Is it very cumbersome to have that, a keyboard and your radio going all at once? On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - *From:* Gary Edwards gfe00...@yahoo.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. -- *From:* J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - *From:* obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM *Subject:* [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
HEY !! I had one of those. In fact, I had a Trash 80 Model 1 with 4 k of RAM and Level I rom. That cassette interface was a POS. I also had most of the other TRS models at one time or other. From: James Hall Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input It'd be pretty cool if that nue-psk device was a little more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 With the built in keyboard. Is it very cumbersome to have that, a keyboard and your radio going all at once? On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Gary Edwards To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3018 - Release Date: 07/20/10 14:36:00
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
On 7/20/2010 3:54 PM, KH6TY wrote: Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done. Skip, My path tests show that ROS is less tolerant to Doppler spread than Olivia or one of it's variants so I'd have to agree with your on-air evaluation. Throughput starts to fail as the Doppler spread is increased beyond 20Hz (two channels 2ms delay) and I suspect you could be experiencing frequency dispersions beyond that range. I haven't been able to find any propagation data that shows how much Doppler spread is likely take place on VHF/UHF. Wish I knew that answer to that. Tony -K2MO Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5293 (20100719) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input
Well, I set up a portable chair that has a small shelf on the side where I place my 817. Battery on the ground. The NUE-PSK and very small keyboard sit on my lap. Works very comfortably. With PSK, I don't need to tune the radio very often, typically. I also liked the Commodore back in those days. And my dad had a TI 99 (I think it was). When computers were real and printed line by line on the screen. None of this namby pamby GUI stuff. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: James Hall To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input It'd be pretty cool if that nue-psk device was a little more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100 With the built in keyboard. Is it very cumbersome to have that, a keyboard and your radio going all at once? On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: Remote control. Very useful in some situations. Especially if you aren't allowed to have decent antennas where you live. The kick I get from battery-operated QRP operation is communicating without infrastructure. I am out there with a battery, a radio, a NUE-PSK modem and a portable antenna. No internet, no power company. (Full disclosure -- I don't yet have a portable solar facility to recharge my battery, so right now I'm still tied to power company infrastructure for re-charging. But architecturally, I don't have to be.) As you say, both approaches have value. This diversity is why Ham Radio is so interesting Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Gary Edwards To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input NUE PSK is great for back packing and mobile operation so long as only PSK 31 or RTTY is of interest. Computers offer a richer display with more options and the ability to generate many different modes. The idea is to go directly from the computer via IP to a back box that is broadband and can be remotely located and is mode agnostic. Both approaches have their own advantages. -- From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:50:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input Will be interesting to compare this effort to the NUE-PSK, which takes a different appoach. They have a modem that plugs directly into a transceiver' s Data port eliminating the need for PCs and soundcards, but they are now working on a NUE-SDR transceiver that either will fit as a card inside the little modem, or attach underneath it (not sure what their final design will be). This would eliminate both the PC and a separate transceiver. http://www.nue-psk.com/ Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:20 PM Subject: [digitalradio] directly modulate computer /thus eliminating transceiver audio input I am developing a 'modem' to directly modulate computer generated modes to RF thus eliminating the requirement of using a transceiver audio input Welcome to the group, tell us more. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. What's sad is that one country's regulations (and they affect me since I live there) focus on the mechanism instead of the bandwidth. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: jsavitsky To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum is mot legal on HF in the USA. In spite of what author claims, ROS is not a spread spectrum mode. Spread spectrum definition said that the SS signal is spread over the much wider frequency band (orders of magnitude) than the bandwidth minimum required to convey the intelligence. Let's take a pencil and do some math to check this with Shannon-Hartley law for channel capacity: C = B log2 (1 + S/N), where C channel capacity in bps, B channel bandwidth in Hz, S/N signal to noise ratio. ROS1 mode is capable of 21 characters per second and -30 dB S/N. Assume we have 7 bit characters. So, it's 21 * 7 / 60 = 2.45 bps. S/N = (-30 dB) = 0.001. The required channel bandwidth to transmit 2.45 bps with -30 dB S/N ratio will be: B = C / log2 (1 + S/N) = 2.45 / log2 (1 + 0.001) = 1699 Hz It's not hard to see that 1699 Hz ~ 2250 Hz. With this example it needs to be at least 17 kHz for name it spread spectrum. 73 Alan NV8A 73 Ivan UR5VIB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC. Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of), we CAN be fined $10,000 and lose our licenses for violating the law. It' just not worth it to most of us. There are some that are dumb enough to push the issue, the smart ones work to try and get the law changed. All it takes is ONE person to screw it up for ALL of us. I don't intend to be that person. :-) Jeff -- KE7ACY CN94 - Original Message - From: g4ilo --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. Not that I have any interest at all in encouraging use of the ROS mode! But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 07/19/10 11:48 am, g4ilo wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. 73 Alan NV8A
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Jeff: Aren't you glad that our forefathers didn't feel that way about freedom from the British ! Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc,,, I'd be in good company Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 12:32:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC. Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of), we CAN be fined $10,000 and lose our licenses for violating the law. It' just not worth it to most of us. There are some that are dumb enough to push the issue, the smart ones work to try and get the law changed. All it takes is ONE person to screw it up for ALL of us. I don't intend to be that person. :-) Jeff -- KE7ACY CN94 - Original Message - From: g4ilo --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. Not that I have any interest at all in encouraging use of the ROS mode! But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg inline: 12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS vs RTTY
All the QRM makers operating on three fixed frequencies, what a Lovely Thought la5vna Steinar On 18.07.2010 16:29, g4ilo wrote: And the hundreds of people who take part in the major RTTY contests would all operate on three fixed frequencies how, exactly? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Well, old modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than fix frequency modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com , Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care. Garrett / AA0OI From: bg...@comcast.net bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:12 PM, bg...@comcast.net wrote: pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI **From:** Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - *From:* AA0OI mailto:aa...@yahoo.com Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI *From:* g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
sorry, your not worth answering.. and check back about 2 weeks ago when I said, ..Let it die Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:02:56 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! You've now gone over the deep end! This thread needed to die a long time ago. You want to risk your license - go right ahead! When you lose it or get a nice hefty fine for being stupid - I'll be LMAO! As for freedom and IRAQ, you comparing this discussion to the fight for freedom anywhere IS absurd -- grow up! Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
Dave, I forgot to point out that we use Contestia 64/1000 on SSB, not FM, for that 200 mile path. When using FM, DominoEx works just as well, but of course, the overall range is less on FM. Essentially, if you can work a VHF or UHF station on SSB phone, you can work the same station on FM using DominoEx 4 (the most sensitive DominoEx variation). This was the subject of my presentation to the Southeastern VHF Society in April of last year, and we have since proven that over and over again. The difference is that the data rate of DominoEx 4 compared to SSB phone is much slower (assuming an average speaking speed of 200 wpm). However, on tropospheric scatter UHF paths, DominoEx does not survive at all and only Contestia or Olivia (half the speed of Contestia) get through, when even moderately strong SSB phone signals are so distorted by Doppler spreading that they are not understandable. This is true on probably 80% of our morning schedules on 432 MHz over 200 mile paths when there is no propagation enhancement. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:35 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Interesting suggestions, Skip. We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertical yagi's at the Skyview Radio Society before winter sets in. I'll be sure to do some weak signal work with the DominoEx 8 as you suggest. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jperelst@ wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
actually, this could be a good development because I still have a funny feeling that they would balk at the idea of calling it illegal. I don't use the mode because I am chicken, but there are still many in the USA that do. Andy K3UK On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
oooh kaay ;-) ke4mz - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:32:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care. Garrett / AA0OI From: bg...@comcast.net bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com , Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Thank you Andy,, I'm not a chicken, never have been ,, never will be.. I'm also not a little rat that runs to government and whines like a mule.. Such a sad state.. What happened to the real Americans ??? Garrett / AA0OI From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:26:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA actually, this could be a good development because I still have a funny feeling that they would balk at the idea of calling it illegal. I don't use the mode because I am chicken, but there are still many in the USA that do. Andy K3UK On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality? 14CFR91.307(f)(2): (2) No non-phone emission shall ex- ceed the bandwidth of a communica- tions quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total band- width of an independent sideband emis- sion (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emis- sion, shall not exceed that of a commu- nications quality A3E emission. - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:56:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The FCC has been very remise in keeping up with their own opinions compared to the published rules. In fact if you go too far too the edge they will issue at worst a cease and desist which you will comply with and add an apology Based on that case you will apply for a modification of the rules. Going to the FCC prior to such instance is like a whining kid running from the sandbox. On 7/19/10 9:15 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Actually, it's less than half of a 6 Khz. wide AM signal. -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality?
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Enough of this juvenile garbage. Amateur radio in the US is governed by regulations to which we agree to abide when we are granted a license. These regulations are particularly important in amateur radio because we all share one set of frequencies. These regulations are not perfect; in particular, the regulation constraining Spread Spectrum usage is insufficiently precise, and as a result precludes the use of techniques on HF that the FCC would likely approve given a competent exposition. In this situation, an amateur radio operator interested in using these techniques on HF should hold off until the regulation has been changed to permit their use, contributing to or leading the effort to change the regulation if capable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the FCC for their view of whether a particular mode or technique is legal under the current regulations. The knowledge that many amateurs are confused about what constitutes Spread Spectrum should if anything make the FCC more receptive to a proposal to clarify the regulation. The claim that asking the FCC a question can kill amateur radio is amazingly ridiculous; asking the FCC a question is more likely to teleport the Loch Ness Monster into your swimming pool than kill amateur radio. Unlike broadcast television stations, amateur radio operators don't individually negotiate their licenses with the FCC. Thus the comments below regarding regulations being trumped by station permits negotiated by attorneys is completely irrelevant. The nasty name-calling that appears below and in previous posts today is flat-out unacceptable. Were I moderator of this group, the offending parties would be long gone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad government doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I wonder if anyone making that flim-flam argument frequents the W6NUT repeater. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
In expressing views on this matter, please avoid personal attacks or insulting language. Andy K3UK Owner. If you do not like the regulations, then petition to change them. That is your duty as an American... Without laws, there is anarchy, and with anarchy, follows chaos. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 10:09 PM, W2XJ wrote: Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
I know this is out of fashion, but I really like PSK31, for its narrow bandwidth and effectiveness with low power. It was the first mode I ever did where I could have a QSO with a signal burried by the noise. I like some of the newer modes, and am happy to see the popularity of Olivia and Contestia. Of course, intellectually, I probably prefer CW to all of these, since its the first digital mode, but I just never developed the skill I wanted in that mode. RTTY was something as a new ham in the early 1960s that I badly wanted to do, but teletypes were hard to get and life intervened, and I didn't actually do any RTTY until recently. It was like driving a wonderful old car from the 1930s -- slow, inefficient, unwieldy, but neat just because it's old. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: la7um To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
My first exposure to RTTY was an old genuine teletype machine with a crummy interface. It was heavy, made a lot of noise, smelled great and I should never have gotten rid of it. As for CW, I learned it well enough to pass the exam. I used it only for MS. I suppose I could relearn it. ve3bdr in kanuckistan From: J. Moen Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:51 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta I know this is out of fashion, but I really like PSK31, for its narrow bandwidth and effectiveness with low power. It was the first mode I ever did where I could have a QSO with a signal burried by the noise. I like some of the newer modes, and am happy to see the popularity of Olivia and Contestia. Of course, intellectually, I probably prefer CW to all of these, since its the first digital mode, but I just never developed the skill I wanted in that mode. RTTY was something as a new ham in the early 1960s that I badly wanted to do, but teletypes were hard to get and life intervened, and I didn't actually do any RTTY until recently. It was like driving a wonderful old car from the 1930s -- slow, inefficient, unwieldy, but neat just because it's old. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: la7um To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:10 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3012 - Release Date: 07/17/10 14:35:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
Same here , my first exposure was with the old mechanical clunkers. The paper tape, chad, oil and the smells.. they had it all, hihi 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: Rudy Benner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta My first exposure to RTTY was an old genuine teletype machine with a crummy interface. It was heavy, made a lot of noise, smelled great and I should never have gotten rid of it. As for CW, I learned it well enough to pass the exam. I used it only for MS. I suppose I could relearn it. ve3bdr in kanuckistan From: J. Moen
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB. I like the digital modes and the weak signal software but its made things too easy, not that I would want to turn back the clock. I would not want to wade through all that again. Just just retired at 62 and I am glad I did. Its nice being in the KMA club. de rudy in kanuckistan ve3bdr From: F.R. Ashley Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta Same here , my first exposure was with the old mechanical clunkers. The paper tape, chad, oil and the smells.. they had it all, hihi 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: Rudy Benner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta My first exposure to RTTY was an old genuine teletype machine with a crummy interface. It was heavy, made a lot of noise, smelled great and I should never have gotten rid of it. As for CW, I learned it well enough to pass the exam. I used it only for MS. I suppose I could relearn it. ve3bdr in kanuckistan From: J. Moen No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3013 - Release Date: 07/18/10 02:35:00
Re: [digitalradio] ROS vs RTTY
Well, old modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than fix frequency modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar On 18.07.2010 06:10, la7um wrote: Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 22:59, F.R. Ashley wrote: Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@... To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
At 08:19 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB. Now that an Idea for income since I have 3 of them. (1, 28 RO 2, 28ASR's) and still use them all. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy
I'm not in anyway saying that what happened was OK but after all it was a contest. Not like it happens all the time. But look at the good side. Lucky it was not a CW contest. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM49lk Pike county for the county hunters. At 10:56 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. And, BTW, I know for damn sure they could see and hear my signal as I switched to RTTY at 50w on all stations and repeated the frequency is in use until the moved. I don't think anyone should suggest limiting to contests to fixed frequencies, but it damn sure would be nice if some of the mindless RTTY contesters would start showing some common courtesy by listening a second or two before stomping on QSO's in progress. -Dave, KB3FXI
Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise
One of 2 things come to mind. 1) a very weak station trying to get into the repeater. 2) strong RF. At 11:18 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: [Attachment(s) from Mike Liller included below] Hi all, I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is? We are getting this interfeafence on one of our repaeters on the input (144.850) and whatever it is, it opens the PL (123.0) and floods the repeater. 73 de Mike N7NMS - Forwarded Message From: Terry Bolinger, Jr. wx3m.te...@gmail.com To: Mike Liller n7...@yahoo.com Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM Subject: sample attached Attachment(s) from Mike Liller 1 of 1 File(s) e1d337.jpg http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/395636760/name/interference1%2Ewavinterference1.wav inline: e1d337.jpginline: e1d376.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Repeater noise
I think cable channel E is one of the usual culprits on the leaky coax. At least it used be when I lived on a street with cable TV. It is all DirecTV for me now. Rick KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:03 PM, KB3FXI kb3...@yahoo.com wrote: We had some very serious interference with a Pittsburgh repeater that was a result of Cable TV leaks. Comcast made a valiant effort and actually found some of the problem spots but it came back. I think it was CSPAN 2 audio, if I recall correctly. In any case, we wound up having to switch pairs. I heard of one fellow with a similar problem but the cable company refused to try to solve the problem. So he reversed the pair (what goes out can also go in). Suddonly, I suppose, the cable company was getting picture and audio complaints from their customers and SHAZAM... magically, the leaks were quickly repaired. You can have situations where nearby signals mix and cause interference on the input, too. It was amazing to me that the noise problems we had got right past the CTCSS. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mike Liller n7...@... wrote: Hi all, I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is? We are getting this interfeafence on one of our repaeters on the input (144.850) and whatever it is, it opens the PL (123.0) and floods the repeater. 73 de Mike N7NMS - Forwarded Message From: Terry Bolinger, Jr. wx3m.te...@... To: Mike Liller n7...@... Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM Subject: sample attached
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy
Let me get this right. You want a station to ask if the frequency is in use. That is understandable except he will be on RTTY and you are on another sound card mode. Many times stations do not even have the audio running now. They are just looking at a digital display and clicking on the signals. If it does not look like a rtty signal then it is ignored. I don't do contest either except for some at field day and some vhf and above contest. - Original Message From: KB3FXI kb3...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 12:57:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy I agree. And while I have little or no interest in contesting, I can appreciate it as being a big part of amateur radio and does have value in practice and experience in understanding exchanges and band conditions/propagation. And for a great many people, it's just plain old fun. But, there's really no excuse for ops to just pop on a frequency that is in use. What the 3 ops did on the net I was participating in last night was really inexcusable. I helped with a special event station yesterday and on ever qsy I first listened and put out 3 calls asking if the freq was in use. This procedure took about 1 minute of my time and I was assured that I was not interfering with a qso in progress. It's just common sense and common courtesy. -Dave, KB3FXI
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy
I was taught to listen first, then transmit. Hard to listen with the AF gain all the way down. Once one is established on a frequency, turn it down, if you QSY, listen again. ve3bdr From: Ralph Mowery Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy Let me get this right. You want a station to ask if the frequency is in use. That is understandable except he will be on RTTY and you are on another sound card mode. Many times stations do not even have the audio running now. They are just looking at a digital display and clicking on the signals. If it does not look like a rtty signal then it is ignored. I don't do contest either except for some at field day and some vhf and above contest. - Original Message From: KB3FXI kb3...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 12:57:03 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy I agree. And while I have little or no interest in contesting, I can appreciate it as being a big part of amateur radio and does have value in practice and experience in understanding exchanges and band conditions/propagation. And for a great many people, it's just plain old fun. But, there's really no excuse for ops to just pop on a frequency that is in use. What the 3 ops did on the net I was participating in last night was really inexcusable. I helped with a special event station yesterday and on ever qsy I first listened and put out 3 calls asking if the freq was in use. This procedure took about 1 minute of my time and I was assured that I was not interfering with a qso in progress. It's just common sense and common courtesy. -Dave, KB3FXI No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3013 - Release Date: 07/18/10 02:35:00
Re: [digitalradio] Why HamSpots dropped support for ROS
I think is was very gracious of you to offer. Too bad he did not take up the offer. 73 de Andy K3UK On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Laurie, VK3AMA group...@vkdxer.com wrote: Why HamSpots dropped support for ROS. After several emails, it became clear that Mr ROS would not allow any interaction with HIS software (What interaction?? it would be one-way, ROS-HamSpots) and he would continue to use the existing DX Cluster network to propagate the ROS Auto-Spots. I chose to remove the ROS Spotting, Chat Reporting facilities of HamSpots.net after that. The only public ROS reporting is purely statistical. de Laurie, VK3AMA PS. ROS Auto-Spot spam is currently 97% of all ROS Cluster spots (7 day period)
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160 So will be calling CQ on 50.200 for a hour. Tnx Russ NC5O jt65-hf 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 8:27:02 AM Subject: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? All of my JT65A QSO's have been on 50200 kc (+/-). I have not seen any on 50.260 kc and 50.290 kc.I have had PSK31 and RTTY QSO's on the other two frequencies. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
I use the free method of the FCC. http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.netwrote: What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line now? Been so lone I forgot -- Mr.C.Robinson 73 DE KF6NFW
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
Too bad, I don't see much of your call on the spotting nets for today other than 1 Jul-17 15:16 +1 hour K4GMH United States VA 14089.00 20 RTTY C 2 Jul-17 13:24 +3 hours KB1RXA United States CT 14084.06 20 RTTY P Have been listening on 50.200 too. Noise level goes up and down, that's all folks !! ve3bdr in Kanuckistan. From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:42 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160 So will be calling CQ on 50.200 for a hour. Tnx Russ NC5O jt65-hf 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 8:27:02 AM Subject: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? All of my JT65A QSO's have been on 50200 kc (+/-). I have not seen any on 50.260 kc and 50.290 kc. I have had PSK31 and RTTY QSO's on the other two frequencies. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line now? Been so lone I forgot http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
Hi Rudy, Ya I was in the DMC contest earlyer today and will be in the NAQP as well later today but was able to hear AA5AM he's local to me but I need to see why jf65-hf would not decode his signal, had to chang over to MultiPSK to work him.. neeed to see up with that.. and yes were on 50.200 Tnx Russ NC5O EM12px 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Rudy Benner ben...@vianet.ca To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:44:32 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Too bad, I don't see much of your call on the spotting nets for today other than 1 Jul-17 15:16 +1 hour K4GMH United States VA 14089.00 20 RTTY C 2 Jul-17 13:24 +3 hours KB1RXA United States CT 14084.06 20 RTTY P Have been listening on 50.200 too. Noise level goes up and down, that's all folks !! ve3bdr in Kanuckistan. From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:42 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160 So will be calling CQ on 50.200 for a hour. Tnx Russ NC5O jt65-hf 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell. Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay. rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 8:27:02 AM Subject: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? All of my JT65A QSO's have been on 50200 kc (+/-). I have not seen any on 50.260 kc and 50.290 kc.I have had PSK31 and RTTY QSO's on the other two frequencies. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
If it was easy, you would not be interested, right? VE3BDR From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Hi Rudy, Ya I was in the DMC contest earlyer today and will be in the NAQP as well later today but was able to hear AA5AM he's local to me but I need to see why jf65-hf would not decode his signal, had to chang over to MultiPSK to work him.. neeed to see up with that.. and yes were on 50.200 Tnx Russ NC5O EM12px 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Rudy Benner ben...@vianet.ca To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:44:32 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Too bad, I don't see much of your call on the spotting nets for today other than 1 Jul-17 15:16 +1 hour K4GMH United States VA 14089.00 20 RTTY C 2 Jul-17 13:24 +3 hours KB1RXA United States CT 14084.06 20 RTTY P Have been listening on 50.200 too. Noise level goes up and down, that's all folks !! ve3bdr in Kanuckistan. From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:42 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160 So will be calling CQ on 50.200 for a hour. Tnx Russ NC5O jt65-hf 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell. Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay. rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 8:27:02 AM Subject: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? All of my JT65A QSO's have been on 50200 kc (+/-). I have not seen any on 50.260 kc and 50.290 kc. I have had PSK31 and RTTY QSO's on the other two frequencies. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay. rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o. org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00
RE: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
I just renewed my license via ULS, as described below. I had an FRN, but no password, so I requested a password on Monday 7/12 and received one immediately via email. After logging in, I applied for renewal, which took less than a minute. Yesterday morning, I logged in to check the status of my renewal, and found that it had been issued on 7/13; a hardcopy arrived by postal mail yesterday afternoon. I don't see how this process could be any simpler... 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE John, There is an FCC Registration Number (FRN) associated with your call. You need the FRN and a password to logon to FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS). Go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp and search for your callsign. It's there, of course, and so is your FRN. Write that down. Before you go any farther, you should know the FCC database says your call expires 7/31/2011. So you have a year to do this, and as I recall, you cannot renew until there are 90 days to go. When you do the renewal process next year , you'll need your password. If you've done this before in the past, it may be burried in your files. However, it is more likely that when you got your license, the VE did all the FCC paperwork for you, and you were automatically assigned an FRN but you never set up a password. So you will need to set one up. Go to https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/licManager/login.jsp - enter your FRN and click on Forgot your password? Contact Tech Support. First you'll need to Set Personal Security Question. I'd recommend you get all that set up now, including a password, then save the FRN and password in your files so it will be easy to log on and renew when it is time. There's a simpler alternative. The major VECs like ARRL and W5YI Group offer renewal services for a small fee. ARRL's is described at http://www.arrl.org/call-sign-renewals-or-changes The W5YI Group's process is at http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=87 You've got plenty of time, the way I read the FCC database. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Chris Robinson To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE I use the free method of the FCC.http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net wrote: What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line now? Been so lone I forgot http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
Smooth as baby's bum. -- From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:37 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE I just renewed my license via ULS, as described below. I had an FRN, but no password, so I requested a password on Monday 7/12 and received one immediately via email. After logging in, I applied for renewal, which took less than a minute. Yesterday morning, I logged in to check the status of my renewal, and found that it had been issued on 7/13; a hardcopy arrived by postal mail yesterday afternoon. I don't see how this process could be any simpler... 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE John, There is an FCC Registration Number (FRN) associated with your call. You need the FRN and a password to logon to FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS). Go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp and search for your callsign. It's there, of course, and so is your FRN. Write that down. Before you go any farther, you should know the FCC database says your call expires 7/31/2011. So you have a year to do this, and as I recall, you cannot renew until there are 90 days to go. When you do the renewal process next year , you'll need your password. If you've done this before in the past, it may be burried in your files. However, it is more likely that when you got your license, the VE did all the FCC paperwork for you, and you were automatically assigned an FRN but you never set up a password. So you will need to set one up. Go to https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/licManager/login.jsp - enter your FRN and click on Forgot your password? Contact Tech Support. First you'll need to Set Personal Security Question. I'd recommend you get all that set up now, including a password, then save the FRN and password in your files so it will be easy to log on and renew when it is time. There's a simpler alternative. The major VECs like ARRL and W5YI Group offer renewal services for a small fee. ARRL's is described at http://www.arrl.org/call-sign-renewals-or-changes The W5YI Group's process is at http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=87 You've got plenty of time, the way I read the FCC database. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Chris Robinson To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE I use the free method of the FCC.http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net wrote: What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line now? Been so lone I forgot http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00 http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an automatic happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT STICKY Missouri. Q How do you know it's summer in Missouri A the blacktop melts
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
Check out ARRL's web site at http://www.arrl.org/renewals which says: As one of the many benefits we offer ARRL members, ARRL members will automatically receive a form from ARRL with instructions on license renewal once they are just outside the 90 day window for renewal of their amateur license. This will be a letter with a form at the bottom of the letter to sign and return to the ARRL VEC. Amateurs can renew no sooner than 90 days before the expiration of the license. License modifications or NON-Vanity renewal procedures are a free membership service. Vanity renewals require a FCC Regulatory Fee and a $5 ARRL processing fee. - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an automatic happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT STICKY Missouri. Q How do you know it's summer in Missouri A the blacktop melts
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
Russ, You can find out a lot about digital mode use on 6 meters by searching DX Summit . http://www.dxsummit.fi/Search.aspx Leave the search string blank (no call sign) and set the mode to DIGI and the band to 6M. The database goes back to 1997. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?
Tnx Tony, I'l keep an eye on it thanks. Russ NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Tony d...@optonline.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 4:26:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Russ, You can find out a lot about digital mode use on 6 meters by searching DX Summit . http://www.dxsummit.fi/Search.aspx Leave the search string blank (no call sign) and set the mode to DIGI and the band to 6M. The database goes back to 1997. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Some Cluster Stats - ROS auto-spotting
Hi Is it possible for the administrators of these Cluster Nodes to filter out ROS spots on their servers ? la5vna Steinar On 16.07.2010 04:39, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote: FYI I ran some sql over the database at HamSpots which carries 7 days of Cluster spots. ROS Software Auto-Spots run at over 95% of all ROS mode spots. Data from from www.HamSpots.net/ros/ Cluster Spot Summary: -- 48,261 : Total Cluster Spots 2,886 : Total ROS Spots 5.98% : Percentage ROS Spots ROS AUTO Spot Summary: -- 2,886 : Total ROS Spots 2,764 : Total AUTO Spots 95.77% : Percentage AUTO Cluster Node Counts: -- 175 : US6IQ-1 492 : 9A0CSI 483 : 9A0DXC 366 : UA4CC 220 : SM4ONW-14 469 : SM0RUX-6 322 : SK3W-6 5 : SM6YOU-2 7 : SM7GVF-6 100 : BG2RVL-9 43 : BD5RV 46 : BA2IA-2 36 : 9H1LO-1 -- de Laurie, VK3AMA
RE: [digitalradio] New question
Just picked this up from HamSpots: Due to increased abuse of the Cluster Network by spam auto-spots generated by the ROS software. HamSpots will no longer provide a Local Spot Chat facility for the promotion of the ROS mode. HamSpots will no longer report a consolidated view of ROS Cluster spots. All ROS Cluster spots have been removed from other HamSpots pages. Effective: 16-July-2010, 2100utc Wonder what this software is really up to? From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Andy You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want to just whine to the FCC and ARRL. On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view of why this fine software and mode are not worth the hassle. Andy K3UK On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jim, N1SZ n...@japierson.com wrote: Dave All, No, I was thinking the same thing. Let's take a look at some significant red flags with the ROS software: 1.)Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the software (although reportedly removed in recent versions) 2.)Won't make the source code open for public inspection (not that it is 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software) 3.)Requires Gmail e-mail account and password - (giving such things away would make any IT security professional lose their mind). is this still the case? 4.)PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and Authored by signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose's own work... I wonder how that happened? 5.)Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of servers. and possibly other places? 6.)Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors 7.)Gives users little if any control over the software's spotting to the internet 8.)Now, after going away for a short time, has a new version that if you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically shuts down. (Sounds like a child's temper tantrum to me.) Well, I've make it known that I've been suspicious of Jose's intentions all along, but if this all seems Normal to you and doesn't bother you.. I say good luck and press on with your use of ROS. But from my limited interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms and warning signs to me. Jim N1SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Some Cluster Stats - ROS auto-spotting
Yes! If you're a psychotic jerk and you want to flood the cluster with unnecessary unwanted traffic. - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien [snip] If there is no page is there still a reason to send spots? sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 07/15/10 01:54 pm, John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. I received a few ROS transmissions within a week or two of the mode's appearance but have taken little interest since. I no longer have the software on my computer. It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum is mot legal on HF in the USA. 73 Alan NV8A
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] 40m PSK31
I troll both places. You never know what you might find. Rick KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:56 PM, sholtofish sho...@probikekit.com wrote: What 40m frequency are most PSK31 QSOs in region 2? I haven't been on for a couple of years and it used to be around 7.070 but now it seems like there's a lot of stateside QSOs down around 7.035. Does anyone still use 7.070? Don't the CW stations object to PSK31 on 7.035?? 73 K7TMG
RE: [digitalradio] New question
Dave All, No, I was thinking the same thing. Let's take a look at some significant red flags with the ROS software: 1.)Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the software (although reportedly removed in recent versions) 2.)Won't make the source code open for public inspection (not that it is 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software) 3.)Requires Gmail e-mail account and password - (giving such things away would make any IT security professional lose their mind). is this still the case? 4.)PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and Authored by signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose's own work... I wonder how that happened? 5.)Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of servers. and possibly other places? 6.)Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors 7.)Gives users little if any control over the software's spotting to the internet 8.)Now, after going away for a short time, has a new version that if you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically shuts down. (Sounds like a child's temper tantrum to me.) Well, I've make it known that I've been suspicious of Jose's intentions all along, but if this all seems Normal to you and doesn't bother you.. I say good luck and press on with your use of ROS. But from my limited interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms and warning signs to me. Jim N1SZ PS - I know. I'm feeding Jose's need for attention From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Wright Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien mailto:siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net image001.jpgimage002.jpg
