Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-22 Thread KV9U 
If it had just been for willful interference, I would agree, but the 
undertone of not following the bandplan was pretty alarming to me.

Anyone can claim interference if you have voice modes in a CW area since 
you can not filter out a wide mode that has frequencies spread out and 
that will enter even a narrow 100 Hz passband when using a narrow mode 
like CW.

For many of us, CW in a voice area is not a problem since we just hit 
the ANF or MNF as the case may be.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Danny Douglas wrote:

>The way I read this, it was not because they were on a band plan for CW, but
>that they were interfering with communications that was already in use.  The
>band plan was just something that gave them the ability to "gig" them for
>one more thing.
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-22 Thread John GM4SLV 
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:52:37 -0500
"Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As you say, everyone is a bit different  as to where their waterfall
> "pointer" lies on a digital signal.  It is much better to just spot
> the actual freq where the audio signal comes out on the waterfall.
> I.E.  14.0731.  No matter who clicks on a spot like that, their
> "trace" comes out on the waterfall as that freq.  We dont care where
> each others dial freq is - but the location of the signal.  In your
> case its dial plus 1500 -  In mine its dial plus 1000, other will
> have similar setting according to where their sound card best passes
> a signal (sweet spot), and there is no qestion where the transmitting
> signal is found.  Double click a spot, and bang- your
> reciever/transmitter freqs are set properly, and no one has to look
> around to see where in the world the spotter found it.


I'm not sure I follow this argument...not the part about deriving RF
frequencies from dial & audio...about using DX cluster spots to auto
tune

If I click on a spot on a cluster (as above...say 14.0731) then my rig
QSYs to 14.0731...ie carrier/dial frequency. If the actula RF frequency
of the signal I want is on 140731 then I'm not going to see it, as
it'll be a zero Hz on the waterfall.

All the signals in the passband are therefore above 14.0731 (assuming
USB)...with the middle of the passband corresponding to roughly
14.0746).

If I read you right you're suggesting reporting spots with the actual
RF frequency of the TX (derived from your software adding AF frequency
to the reported RF frequency from the rig - taking into account
USB/LSB). 

This is fair enough since that's all you can know, you can't know what
combination of "dial" and "audio" was configured by the sending
station, nor the infinite combinations used by everyone else. 

My problem is that in my experience clicking a spot on a DXCluster will
put the rig's dial to that QRGyou still need to offtune down a kHz
or so to put that specific frequency into the passband...

I agree that the actual QRG should be the one reported - but AFAICT
we'll still need to do our own maths to put the required RF frequency
into the right area of baseband on the waterfall.

BTW I find most Olivia sigs in Europe around 14106.5 or 14107.5
(centre)...with 1k/32 that puts the bottom carrier @ 14106 or 14107.
I see MFSK, as already reported, around 14073 and up with very little
below the PSK31 region. Never knowingly seen Throb.

Cheers from Shetland 

John GM4SLV


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Danny Douglas 
The way I read this, it was not because they were on a band plan for CW, but
that they were interfering with communications that was already in use.  The
band plan was just something that gave them the ability to "gig" them for
one more thing.

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital
calling/beacon frequencies


> Danny,
>
>
> The ARRL bandplan shows Digital Modes to be 1.800 - 1.810. They also
> have an Experimental modes area at the top of the band from 1.995 -
> 2.000 in the Beacon bandplan area:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html
>
> I came across some information this week that really upset me in
> reference to bandplans.This is not something new, as the incident
> occured in 2001. I don't know of the outcome.
>
> If a large group such as the ARRL publishes a bandplan, the FCC can cite
> you for poor operating practices if you do not follow it and someone
> claims interference:
>
> "Band plans are voluntary in nature," Hollingsworth acknowledged in each
> of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary
> compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be
> called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from
> band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission
> expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring
> the band plans."
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/10/04/1/?nc=1
>
> I definitely agree that very few operators use digital modes on 160, but
> in general the percentage of digital operating is much lower than even
> CW, much less phone.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>
>
> Danny Douglas wrote:
>
> >As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about
operating
> >digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan.  Bandplans are arbitary and there
is
> >NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary.  Now -
subbands
> >ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks
changes
> >in separating modes.  The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur
Bands
> >shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
> >says of 160:
> >"CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE"  The only note of distinction in this whole
> >band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
> >harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
> >protection from radiolocation operators"
> >
> >Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the first
10
> >kc.  I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart
the
> >ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
> >thing.  That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
> >places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
> >without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
> >
> >As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
> >above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs.
Give
> >a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
> >really irritating to a CW op.  Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
> >countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
> >14.069-14.073 bandwidth.   The other digital modes have all been around
> >14.065 - 14.070.  This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
> >PSK rather than just above it.  I havent called CQ on the other modes,
above
> >the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below
it.
> >Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals at
all
> >on 20.   I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
> >dont know how those separate out.  Also have not been digitally active on
80
> >or 40 all that much either.  Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford
me
> >"new ones" very often.  The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
> >figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but
so
> >far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops.  I just
dont
> >think enough people are using the band with PSK or other ne

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread KV9U 
Danny,


The ARRL bandplan shows Digital Modes to be 1.800 - 1.810. They also 
have an Experimental modes area at the top of the band from 1.995 - 
2.000 in the Beacon bandplan area:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

I came across some information this week that really upset me in 
reference to bandplans.This is not something new, as the incident 
occured in 2001. I don't know of the outcome.

If a large group such as the ARRL publishes a bandplan, the FCC can cite 
you for poor operating practices if you do not follow it and someone 
claims interference:

"Band plans are voluntary in nature," Hollingsworth acknowledged in each 
of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary 
compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be 
called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from 
band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission 
expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring 
the band plans."

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/10/04/1/?nc=1

I definitely agree that very few operators use digital modes on 160, but 
in general the percentage of digital operating is much lower than even 
CW, much less phone.

73,

Rick, KV9U





Danny Douglas wrote:

>As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about operating
>digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan.  Bandplans are arbitary and there is
>NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary.  Now - subbands
>ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks changes
>in separating modes.  The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur Bands
>shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
>says of 160:
>"CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE"  The only note of distinction in this whole
>band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
>harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
>protection from radiolocation operators"
>
>Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the first 10
>kc.  I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart the
>ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
>thing.  That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
>places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
>without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
>
>As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
>above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs.  Give
>a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
>really irritating to a CW op.  Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
>countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
>14.069-14.073 bandwidth.   The other digital modes have all been around
>14.065 - 14.070.  This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
>PSK rather than just above it.  I havent called CQ on the other modes, above
>the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below it.
>Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals at all
>on 20.   I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
>dont know how those separate out.  Also have not been digitally active on 80
>or 40 all that much either.  Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford me
>"new ones" very often.  The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
>figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but so
>far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops.  I just dont
>think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital modes.
>
>Your last comment:  " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we
>operated
>  
>
>>voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice
>>transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
>>
>>
>would appear to be exactly what we should be doing.  It would keep the voice
>part out of the lower piece of the band and
>place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
>legal according to the charts.  I was hoping that would be what we would see
>on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Danny Douglas 
You would think so, but look at the band plan, and then at who is the lead
for IARU within region 2  (ARRL).  They say 1800-18930 CW, yet do not say
that on their own US Amateur Bands chart, or at least recommend it.  Phone
doesnt show up on there, until 1840-1850 DX window.

One hand doesnt know what the next is doing.

We need INTERNATIONAL band plans.  Get all three regions together in a room
and make them stay there until they get a bandplan agreement - with teeth.


Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck Mayfield - AA5J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital
calling/beacon frequencies


> It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan should at least be
> consulted as part of the subject process..
> See http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html.
>
> 73 de AA5J
>
> Danny Douglas wrote:
>
> > As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about
> > operating
> > digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and
> > there is
> > NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary. Now -
> > subbands
> > ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks
> > changes
> > in separating modes. The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur
> > Bands
> > shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
> > says of 160:
> > "CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE" The only note of distinction in this whole
> > band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
> > harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
> > protection from radiolocation operators"
> >
> > Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the
> > first 10
> > kc. I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart
the
> > ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
> > thing. That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
> > places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
> > without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
> >
> > As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
> > above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs.
> > Give
> > a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which
is
> > really irritating to a CW op. Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
> > countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
> > 14.069-14.073 bandwidth. The other digital modes have all been around
> > 14.065 - 14.070. This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
> > PSK rather than just above it. I havent called CQ on the other modes,
> > above
> > the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below
it.
> > Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals
> > at all
> > on 20. I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
> > dont know how those separate out. Also have not been digitally active
> > on 80
> > or 40 all that much either. Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford
me
> > "new ones" very often. The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
> > figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but
so
> > far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops. I just
dont
> > think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital
> > modes.
> >
> > Your last comment: " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if
we
> > operated
> > > voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between
voice
> > > transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
> > would appear to be exactly what we should be doing. It would keep the
> > voice
> > part out of the lower piece of the band and
> > place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
> > legal according to the charts. I was hoping that would be what we
> > would see
> > on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.
> >
> > Danny Douglas N7DC
> > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> > DX 2-6 years each
> > .
> > QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> > As

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Chuck Mayfield - AA5J 
It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan should at least be 
consulted as part of the subject process..
See http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html.

73 de AA5J

Danny Douglas wrote:

> As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about 
> operating
> digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and 
> there is
> NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary. Now - 
> subbands
> ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks 
> changes
> in separating modes. The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur 
> Bands
> shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
> says of 160:
> "CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE" The only note of distinction in this whole
> band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
> harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
> protection from radiolocation operators"
>
> Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the 
> first 10
> kc. I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart the
> ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
> thing. That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
> places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
> without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
>
> As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
> above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs. 
> Give
> a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
> really irritating to a CW op. Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
> countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
> 14.069-14.073 bandwidth. The other digital modes have all been around
> 14.065 - 14.070. This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
> PSK rather than just above it. I havent called CQ on the other modes, 
> above
> the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below it.
> Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals 
> at all
> on 20. I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
> dont know how those separate out. Also have not been digitally active 
> on 80
> or 40 all that much either. Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford me
> "new ones" very often. The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
> figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but so
> far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops. I just dont
> think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital 
> modes.
>
> Your last comment: " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we
> operated
> > voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice
> > transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
> would appear to be exactly what we should be doing. It would keep the 
> voice
> part out of the lower piece of the band and
> place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
> legal according to the charts. I was hoping that would be what we 
> would see
> on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.
>
> Danny Douglas N7DC
> ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
> SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
> DX 2-6 years each
> .
> QSL LOTW-buro- direct
> As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
>
> 
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 
>3:54 PM
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Danny Douglas 
As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about operating
digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan.  Bandplans are arbitary and there is
NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary.  Now - subbands
ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks changes
in separating modes.  The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur Bands
shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
says of 160:
"CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE"  The only note of distinction in this whole
band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
protection from radiolocation operators"

Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the first 10
kc.  I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart the
ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
thing.  That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.

As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs.  Give
a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
really irritating to a CW op.  Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
14.069-14.073 bandwidth.   The other digital modes have all been around
14.065 - 14.070.  This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
PSK rather than just above it.  I havent called CQ on the other modes, above
the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below it.
Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals at all
on 20.   I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
dont know how those separate out.  Also have not been digitally active on 80
or 40 all that much either.  Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford me
"new ones" very often.  The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but so
far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops.  I just dont
think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital modes.

Your last comment:  " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we
operated
> voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice
> transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
would appear to be exactly what we should be doing.  It would keep the voice
part out of the lower piece of the band and
place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
legal according to the charts.  I was hoping that would be what we would see
on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.





Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread KV9U 
Danny,

I typically find the RTTY stations about 10 Khz higher than the PSK31 
stations. This leaves a big hole in between. Maybe this is just the way 
propagation works in the northern midwest U.S.?

On 20 meters, which is typically the main digital band, I will find 
PSK31 stations beginning at 14.070 and usually all of them will be 
within a voice passband width. The RTTY stations seem to be around 
14.080 and up. I don't normally use any of the frequencies above 14.090 
because there is usually enough space in between.

It is very rare to find any digital stations on 160 meters but the band 
plan is a bit odd with placing them at the bottom 10 kHz of the band. As 
you know, I want to have places on the bands that allow for 
voice/data/image to all be used as the operators desire. Theoretically 
160 meters is the only lower band that permits this to happen. 
Unfortunately, I now find out that you can be cited by the FCC if you do 
this. The ARRL bandplan has a pseudo force of law behind it.

It would also be out of compliance here in the U.S. with operating a 
digital mode outside the 1800 to 1810 bandplan such as above 1840 as you 
suggest. Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if we operated 
voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice 
transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Danny Douglas wrote:

>Rick  I think that you are pretty much looking at RTTY freqs, which usually
>are 2 or 3 KC above the PSK signals, and upward from there.  This suggest
>calling freq for other digital modes, therefore should be a bit above or
>below the combination package of PSK/RTTY so as to get them out of each
>others way.  As to giving your VFO (dial) freq, that is not the normal way
>PSK is spotted, nor any other mode dependant on a "waterfall".  As you say,
>everyone is a bit different as to where their waterfall "pointer" lies on a
>digital signal.  It is much better to just spot the actual freq where the
>audio signal comes out on the waterfall. I.E.  14.0731.  No matter who
>clicks on a spot like that, their "trace" comes out on the waterfall as that
>freq.  We dont care where each others dial freq is - but the location of the
>signal.  In your case its dial plus 1500 -  In mine its dial plus 1000,
>other will have similar setting according to where their sound card best
>passes a signal (sweet spot), and there is no qestion where the transmitting
>signal is found.  Double click a spot, and bang- your reciever/transmitter
>freqs are set properly, and no one has to look around to see where in the
>world the spotter found it.
>
>I am a bit perplexed about 160 meters.  It is such a wide band, with so few
>signals per KHZ, I wonder why anyone wants to send SSB, for instance, down
>in the low part.  We should have sub bands down there, even more than the
>other bands, but dont.  Why anyone would want to send SSB on top of ongoing
>CW signals is beyond me, but they do it all the time there.  Thus, I think
>your suggestion for PSK at 1.808 or even lower is much too low for that
>activity.  How about bringing it up to 1.850 and have cw below that and SSB
>above it?  If not - why not?  Most all of us have antenna tuners these days,
>and we dont run much power on PSK anyway, so it hasnt much to do with where
>our antennas are "cut".  I could certainly understand the mix-mash mess on
>160 back when radio location signals abounded on the band, and hams in
>specific areas of the states/world were forbidden to operated in portions
>near those signals.  That is no longer the case and we can pretty much
>transmit wherever we want on that band.  We just need some gentlemens
>agreement (I.E. subbands) to protect signals from inteference from different
>modes.
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Danny Douglas 
Rick  I think that you are pretty much looking at RTTY freqs, which usually
are 2 or 3 KC above the PSK signals, and upward from there.  This suggest
calling freq for other digital modes, therefore should be a bit above or
below the combination package of PSK/RTTY so as to get them out of each
others way.  As to giving your VFO (dial) freq, that is not the normal way
PSK is spotted, nor any other mode dependant on a "waterfall".  As you say,
everyone is a bit different as to where their waterfall "pointer" lies on a
digital signal.  It is much better to just spot the actual freq where the
audio signal comes out on the waterfall. I.E.  14.0731.  No matter who
clicks on a spot like that, their "trace" comes out on the waterfall as that
freq.  We dont care where each others dial freq is - but the location of the
signal.  In your case its dial plus 1500 -  In mine its dial plus 1000,
other will have similar setting according to where their sound card best
passes a signal (sweet spot), and there is no qestion where the transmitting
signal is found.  Double click a spot, and bang- your reciever/transmitter
freqs are set properly, and no one has to look around to see where in the
world the spotter found it.

I am a bit perplexed about 160 meters.  It is such a wide band, with so few
signals per KHZ, I wonder why anyone wants to send SSB, for instance, down
in the low part.  We should have sub bands down there, even more than the
other bands, but dont.  Why anyone would want to send SSB on top of ongoing
CW signals is beyond me, but they do it all the time there.  Thus, I think
your suggestion for PSK at 1.808 or even lower is much too low for that
activity.  How about bringing it up to 1.850 and have cw below that and SSB
above it?  If not - why not?  Most all of us have antenna tuners these days,
and we dont run much power on PSK anyway, so it hasnt much to do with where
our antennas are "cut".  I could certainly understand the mix-mash mess on
160 back when radio location signals abounded on the band, and hams in
specific areas of the states/world were forbidden to operated in portions
near those signals.  That is no longer the case and we can pretty much
transmit wherever we want on that band.  We just need some gentlemens
agreement (I.E. subbands) to protect signals from inteference from different
modes.


Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital
calling/beacon frequencies


> How about using PSK31 as the "baseline" and then transmit any other
> digital mode a kHz or so up from the highest PSK31 signal that is on at
> that time?
>
> That is pretty much what I do on 80, 40, and 20.
>
> I would very much like a spot frequency to operate on for 30 meters
> which seems grossly underutilized and is a superb digital band. I like
> 10.133 for a dial frequency. It clears a high power government digital
> station by a few kHz, that is frequently on in my reception area, and I
> like anything with repeating digits:) I wonder if hams do not tend to
> operate there because they do not  have an antenna for that band?
>
> On 10 meters, I generally put the dial at 28.120 and on 6 meters at
> 50.290. I have not done much with other bands except a little bit with
> 160 around 1.808, but I guess I am a bit high and probably should try
> 1.805. But I love the number 1808 with my repeating my favorite number
> twice. As you can see my dial frequency selections are done with great
> scientific analysis:)
>
> My actual transmitting frequency is going to be nominally 1500 Hz above
> my dial frequency. This will vary for each user depending upon their
> particular equipment and operating preferences, but I suspect that most
> will be around 1000 to 1500 Hz higher than their dial frequency.
>
> Are there any hams who find that they prefer other center frequencies
> due to some reason or due to their rigs filtering requirements?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> Andrew J. O'Brien wrote:
>
> >Just to clarify my original point...
> >
> >I'm looking to establish a suggested calling frequency for ALL digital
modes except CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV , PACTOR , and ALE(data ALE).
> >
> >My suggestion is that members of this list utilize a common frequency to
call CQ and/or use attended beacon features within their digital software.
This would be for Olivia, Dominio EX, Throb, PSK63/125 , , MT63 ,Hell CHIP,
MFSK16/8, PAX/PAX2 , THROB, experimental AX25.
> >
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread KV9U 
How about using PSK31 as the "baseline" and then transmit any other 
digital mode a kHz or so up from the highest PSK31 signal that is on at 
that time?

That is pretty much what I do on 80, 40, and 20.

I would very much like a spot frequency to operate on for 30 meters 
which seems grossly underutilized and is a superb digital band. I like 
10.133 for a dial frequency. It clears a high power government digital 
station by a few kHz, that is frequently on in my reception area, and I 
like anything with repeating digits:) I wonder if hams do not tend to 
operate there because they do not  have an antenna for that band?

On 10 meters, I generally put the dial at 28.120 and on 6 meters at 
50.290. I have not done much with other bands except a little bit with 
160 around 1.808, but I guess I am a bit high and probably should try 
1.805. But I love the number 1808 with my repeating my favorite number 
twice. As you can see my dial frequency selections are done with great 
scientific analysis:)

My actual transmitting frequency is going to be nominally 1500 Hz above 
my dial frequency. This will vary for each user depending upon their 
particular equipment and operating preferences, but I suspect that most 
will be around 1000 to 1500 Hz higher than their dial frequency.

Are there any hams who find that they prefer other center frequencies 
due to some reason or due to their rigs filtering requirements?

73,

Rick, KV9U


Andrew J. O'Brien wrote:

>Just to clarify my original point...
>
>I'm looking to establish a suggested calling frequency for ALL digital modes 
>except CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV , PACTOR , and ALE(data ALE).  
>
>My suggestion is that members of this list utilize a common frequency to call 
>CQ and/or use attended beacon features within their digital software.  This 
>would be for Olivia, Dominio EX, Throb, PSK63/125 , , MT63 ,Hell CHIP, 
>MFSK16/8, PAX/PAX2 , THROB, experimental AX25. 
>
>The idea is simply to make it easier to find stations to work rather than 
>trawling the bands in 300-500 Hz ranges looking for  potential signals.
>
>My experience suggest that even on good propagation days, say on 20M, the 
>amount of simultaneous QSOs in the aforementioned modes rarely exceeds 3-5 .  
>When it is at the 5 level,  it is often 2-3 Olivia stations, maybe 1 MFSK16 
>and one Hell.  I will argue that MOST of the time it is less than three 
>simultaneous QSOs . Sometimes NO signals at all.
>
>Thus, the amount of interest in the "exotic digital modes " is at such a level 
>that we would benefit from clustering, and our use of a calling/beacon 
>frequency would not likely clutter up the portion of the band.
>
>If we established 4 beacon frequencies  (80,40,30, and 20M) you could easily 
>monitor  the bands via scan features in  the radio .  
>
>Again, the idea would be just to "meet" on the calling frequency and move 
>further up/down the band for extended conversation.  I am NOT suggesting a 
>different calling frequency for each mode. 
>
>20 M seems like the easies band to establish a data frequency that allows 
>worldwide participation.  The others are more complex due to varying regional 
>bandplans.  I  will read the feedback I have received so far and suggest some 
>frequencies to try this weekend.
>
> 
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.25/593 - Release Date: 12/19/2006
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Jose_Angel Amador Fundora 



I have worked Olivia on 14105-14110...also MT63, not very often, indeed.

Never checked below 14070 for digitalmaybe it could be interesting.

On 40, I have found 2 watering holes: 7070-7075 and 7035-7038

I have used Olivia and Hell on 7073.

I have worked quite a few exotic DX on 7035, and would like to keep it 
that way, keeping the chatter on 7070...yesterday night there were two 
south african stations, making it a more interesting place to look around.

Jose, CO2JA

-- Original Message --
From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date:  Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:59:21 -0500

>I have used Olivia, Throb, PSK63, Hell, MFSK all successfully on the low end 
>just below the normal PSK freqs on 20 meters.  It would seem to me the best 
>place on all bands, using the low end of normal PSK frqs, where people would 
>notice you.  Early on, in each of those modes, that is about the only place I 
>heard anyone, or saw any spots.
>
>Danny Douglas N7DC
>ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
>SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
>DX 2-6 years each
>.
>QSL LOTW-buro- direct
>As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
>use that - also pls upload to LOTW
>or hard card.
>
>moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: Andrew J. O'Brien 
>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>  Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:38 PM
>  Subject: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon 
> frequencies
>
>
>  Just to clarify my original point...
>
>  I'm looking to establish a suggested calling frequency for ALL digital modes 
> except CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV , PACTOR , and ALE(data ALE).  
>
>  My suggestion is that members of this list utilize a common frequency to 
> call CQ and/or use attended beacon features within their digital software.  
> This would be for Olivia, Dominio EX, Throb, PSK63/125 , , MT63 ,Hell CHIP, 
> MFSK16/8, PAX/PAX2 , THROB, experimental AX25. 
>
>  The idea is simply to make it easier to find stations to work rather than 
> trawling the bands in 300-500 Hz ranges looking for  potential signals.
>
>  My experience suggest that even on good propagation days, say on 20M, the 
> amount of simultaneous QSOs in the aforementioned modes rarely exceeds 3-5 .  
> When it is at the 5 level,  it is often 2-3 Olivia stations, maybe 1 MFSK16 
> and one Hell.  I will argue that MOST of the time it is less than three 
> simultaneous QSOs . Sometimes NO signals at all.
>
>  Thus, the amount of interest in the "exotic digital modes " is at such a 
> level that we would benefit from clustering, and our use of a calling/beacon 
> frequency would not likely clutter up the portion of the band.
>
>  If we established 4 beacon frequencies  (80,40,30, and 20M) you could easily 
> monitor  the bands via scan features in  the radio .  
>
>  Again, the idea would be just to "meet" on the calling frequency and move 
> further up/down the band for extended conversation.  I am NOT suggesting a 
> different calling frequency for each mode. 
>
>  20 M seems like the easies band to establish a data frequency that allows 
> worldwide participation.  The others are more complex due to varying regional 
> bandplans.  I  will read the feedback I have received so far and suggest some 
> frequencies to try this weekend.
>
 

 
__ __ __ __
Correo enviado por ElectroMAIL. Facultad El�ctrica. CUJAE Dominio: 
electrica.cujae.edu.cu

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Roger J. Buffington 
Danny Douglas wrote:
>
>  I have used Olivia, Throb, PSK63, Hell, MFSK all successfully on the
>  low end just below the normal PSK freqs on 20 meters.  It would seem
>  to me the best place on all bands, using the low end of normal PSK
>  frqs, where people would notice you.  Early on, in each of those
>  modes, that is about the only place I heard anyone, or saw any spots.

Excepting Throb (which I have never used) I seem to find most of the 
activity on the above modes just ABOVE the PSK freqs, around 14073.5 or 
so.  And of course 14076 is a popular HELL calling freq.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon frequencies

2006-12-21 Thread Danny Douglas 
I have used Olivia, Throb, PSK63, Hell, MFSK all successfully on the low end 
just below the normal PSK freqs on 20 meters.  It would seem to me the best 
place on all bands, using the low end of normal PSK frqs, where people would 
notice you.  Early on, in each of those modes, that is about the only place I 
heard anyone, or saw any spots.

Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.

moderator  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  - Original Message - 
  From: Andrew J. O'Brien 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:38 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital calling/beacon 
frequencies


  Just to clarify my original point...

  I'm looking to establish a suggested calling frequency for ALL digital modes 
except CW, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV , PACTOR , and ALE(data ALE).  

  My suggestion is that members of this list utilize a common frequency to call 
CQ and/or use attended beacon features within their digital software.  This 
would be for Olivia, Dominio EX, Throb, PSK63/125 , , MT63 ,Hell CHIP, 
MFSK16/8, PAX/PAX2 , THROB, experimental AX25. 

  The idea is simply to make it easier to find stations to work rather than 
trawling the bands in 300-500 Hz ranges looking for  potential signals.

  My experience suggest that even on good propagation days, say on 20M, the 
amount of simultaneous QSOs in the aforementioned modes rarely exceeds 3-5 .  
When it is at the 5 level,  it is often 2-3 Olivia stations, maybe 1 MFSK16 and 
one Hell.  I will argue that MOST of the time it is less than three 
simultaneous QSOs . Sometimes NO signals at all.

  Thus, the amount of interest in the "exotic digital modes " is at such a 
level that we would benefit from clustering, and our use of a calling/beacon 
frequency would not likely clutter up the portion of the band.

  If we established 4 beacon frequencies  (80,40,30, and 20M) you could easily 
monitor  the bands via scan features in  the radio .  

  Again, the idea would be just to "meet" on the calling frequency and move 
further up/down the band for extended conversation.  I am NOT suggesting a 
different calling frequency for each mode. 

  20 M seems like the easies band to establish a data frequency that allows 
worldwide participation.  The others are more complex due to varying regional 
bandplans.  I  will read the feedback I have received so far and suggest some 
frequencies to try this weekend.




   


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: 12/20/2006 
3:54 PM