___
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:15:58 -0800
From: "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:
Like most US Hams.. I am about as confused about the current regulatory
situation as you are...
Rick,
I was running about 50-60 watts from a Yaesu
FT-990. Ant is an inverted "V" with the apex at 55 ft.
Iwas not copying KN4LF at 100% mainly because
of static from a WX front that came thru my area about noon. It is close enough
now to cause qrn on the lower bands. KN4LF is maybe 500-
Using the 500/16 submode I had a 45 minute
QSO with KF4MH on 1807.500 kc beginning at 0200 UTC. He was 450 miles away in
Mobile, AL using 50 watts to an inefficient 80 meter dipole. The lightning QRN
was really bad but I had 100% on the station the whole QSO. At times he QSB'ed
down to S/N
Howard,
I think you are making way too much of all this. The ARRL has a
perfectly acceptable web area and they would be pleased to publish any
new protocols. It seems very unlikely there are any competent authors
of programs who have not written down the most rudimentary information
outlining
I was able to auditorially hear both KN4LF and W4JSI (as I later
deduced) but was in the process of setting up the software and wiring
for a new computer and sound card. I could hear KN4LF, but could not see
his signal in the noise on the waterfall. After I finally got things set
up here in ord
I too believe that the ARRL needs to come forward
with a band-plan. After all, if I want to sell something, I have to not
only advertise it, but show what it will do and why, plus demonstrate to the
customer why he needs to accept it. Same here. If they want to go to
a bandwidth regula
If you are not a member, and dont vote--- then you have just voted in the
present administration. That includes our US Congress, President and the
ARRL Board. We need more members. More members mean a wider spread of
thought about different subjects, and the possibility to move the currrent
admi
David, its odd to me that you and others rant at
the ARRL about code, when it is we that support the continued code testing are
the injured party. Three times, the ARRL asked its membership to respond
(in different ways) and we did. The MAJORITY voted to KEEP the code as a
requirement, o
On Monday 28 November 2005 17:46, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> Being that the ARRL is the Only National Organization representing Amateur
> Radio, and as it likely represents a Majority of Active Ham and Membership
> is Open to All Hams so those who are not already members can join and have
> a say
Like most US Hams.. I am about as confused about
the current regulatory situation as you are...
We constantly have to look over our shoulders to
see if the latest digital mode is legalyes... we could publish some
documentation about the protocol on a web site to disclose it... and if
Being that the ARRL is the Only National
Organization representing Amateur Radio, and as it likely represents a Majority
of Active Ham and Membership is Open to All Hams so those who are not already
members can join and have a say, it would seem logical that the ARRL develop the
Voluntary
> - Original Message -
> From: Danny Douglas
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and Olivia
>
>
> May I ask just how removing the telegraphy licensing barrier will go a
> long way to reducing the bu
On Monday 28 November 2005 16:56, Williams wrote:
> The reason that the ARRL will be the primary organization that develops
> a band plan is precisely that they are the defacto U.S. National Amateur
> Radio Organization. They do represent the full gamut of competing ham
> interests. Even those who
On Monday 28 November 2005 09:49, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
>
> I believe that there is a possibibility of having 150 KHz or 300 KHz wide
> channels with many very high speed and robust "QSOs" going on all using the
> same bandwidth. Basically spread spectrum like mode within a define
Maybe you should look at in the perspective of the
FCC trying to drag the ARRL into the present, and force it to look toward the
future.
As far as anarchy goes, look at HR1491 (Authorized
W.E.P. [ War and Emergency Powers Act]), Congressional Research Report 93-549
(Most recent look at W
I had some problem with Mixw, and had to reload
here, and when went to the site, I cannot get the version 2.15 dual channel to
work. I keep getting an alarm flash that something is missing. I
thought I was using version 2.17 before, but dont find it here on the normal
site. Where is it?
Walt,
Did you get a chance to try out SCAMP when it was temporarily available
as an experimental mode?
The average computer of today, >1 GHz, can handle some pretty strong ARQ
decoding. The concept of not being able to download the next block
while decoding seems to me to be an obsolete conce
- Original Message -
From: Thomas
Giella KN4LF
To: a MixW eGroup ; a
Oliviadata eGroup ; a PSK31 070 eGroup
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:15 PM
Subject: Olivia on 160 Meters Monday Morning
Weather permitting I'm going to begin
calling CQ again via the Olivia mode 500/16 at
The reason that the ARRL will be the primary organization that develops
a band plan is precisely that they are the defacto U.S. National Amateur
Radio Organization. They do represent the full gamut of competing ham
interests. Even those who are not members.
Even though only 20% of the total lic
I agree 100 percent. Few if any amateurs are going to ever need any such
communications, except during an emergency. If we don't need it, we are not
going to spend money on it, and we are not going to invite its use on OUR
bands when there is no emergency. If they need and want a trained corps o
Hi Walt,
I am not biting Walt. I know the intent and purpose of Part 97 and
attempt to abide by it. I am well aware of how vague it is with respect
to certain things and why and how specific it is regarding other things
and why and I am not about to take the time to debate the idiosycrasies
of
Something about this has been puzzling me.
The FCC, when specifically asked [1] about mixed information content
picture. and text with digital modulation, chose to respond by proposing
to allow AM and FM (A1C and F2C) image modes "currently in use". The
NPRM says that they did this to "contribu
The Autobahn DOES have speed limits, only certain
sections have "unlimited" speed.
Andy K3UK
- Original Message -
From:
Dr. Howard S. White
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:51
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Bandwidth
Hey
Steve,
See
below.
-Original Message-From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Steve
HajducekSent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:46 PMTo:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE
soundcard ARQ modem in PCALE with
On Monday 28 November 2005 10:27, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> If 4 users are sharing the channel, then each will see a quarter of
> the channel's capacity (less, actually, due to the overhead from the
> channel-sharing part of the protocol). If a single user requires all
> of the channel's bandwidth to
The point being that why do we even need to think
about whether a mode is legal or not...
For example the combination of image and data in
MFSK is illegal in the USA...
If we had bandwidth only regulation, then all modes
and combinations thereof would be legal as long as they fit within
On Monday 28 November 2005 13:51, Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
>
> If I have a vote.. I would vote for the minimum regulation necessary and
> leave it up to us Hams to decide how we want to use our bands with our own
> bandplans (WHICH I AM SURE THE ARRL WILL DEVELOP AFTER WE KNOW WE ARE GOING
> TO
I actually enjoy driving on the Autobahn where
there are no speed limitsDepending on the vehicle I am driving.. I cruise at
150 - 200Kph which is within my comfort zone for driving.stick to Lane 2 so
that those more skilled than I can pass at 280 -300 Kph in Lane 1... Ironic
though
Hi Walt,
We can discuss the technical aspects of this stuff until the cows come, I
enjoy such conversations, I enjoy coding this stuff as well. However what
needs to kept in mind Walt is what can now be accomplished within a 3Khz
or less channel per FCC Part 97 rules for Amateur Radio applicat
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE soundcard ARQ modem in PCALE with FTP
Steve,
If my math is correct, the User Throughput to obtain 3 pages a minute of printed text is 94 Kbps.
Depending on your FEC and ARQ, you would probably need 1200 Kbps. This is based on FEC using 80% if the RAW t
Hi Walt,
I don't agree with your comments as to FS-1052 DLP not providing enough
throughput or robust performance to meet the needs of FEMA. From my
experience with the protocol on some very poor channel conditions, the
protocol is extremely robust, of course you do at times need to give up
so
> Walt/K5YFW wrote
> On thing we found in Kartina and Rita was the need to get
> "time sensitive" information out to hundreds of stations in
> a very short time. This could only be done with a QST
> broadcast. However, due to poor signals, etc. voice and
> even CW broadcast didn't not meet the
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ALE soundcard ARQ modem in PCALE with FTP
Bonnie,
If PCALE is made to the Fed-STD then it cannot produce the required throughput not will it be as robust as I stated.
The ALE standard (FS-1045) IS NOT NEW and I have used FS-1052 and FS-1045 on government sys
Dear Walt and others,
Your discussion about possible development of 16kHz modes has nothing
to do with the subject line of this discussion: ARQ soundcard Modem in
PCALE with FTP - (within a 3kHz channel).
I want to point out, that the working PCALE soundcard ARQ modem
system already exists, it i
If 4 users are sharing the channel, then each will see a quarter of
the channel's capacity (less, actually, due to the overhead from the
channel-sharing part of the protocol). If a single user requires all
of the channel's bandwidth to achieve the performance requirements,
then the channel can'
Rick
and I are pretty much in agreement. We must..."focus more on what is
possible and what can be done now."
Modes like SCAMP are only the starting point or jumping
off point...more and better to come.
Additionally, again Rick is sorrect..."is more progress
toward adaptive robust so
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: 39 Tone DQPSK - ARQ Modem in PCALE with FT P - (Soundcard)
Yes, all/most of what you suggest and perhaps more innovative coding that might be discovered.
We must start thinking out side of the bun...errr box.
Hummm, I hadn't thought about token passing...bu
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: 39 Tone DQPSK - ARQ Modem in PCALE with FTP - (Soundcard)
Well yes...speed and robustness. Something down aroung -5 to -10 dB SNR on a poor CCIR channel and speeds that would produce 3-5 printed pages of information a minute. Pages Per Minute (PPM) is now how
May I ask just how removing the telegraphy
licensing barrier will go a long way to reducing the burden on the FCC?
They don't write the test, they don't give the test and they don't score the
test. I am starting to feel that people simply don't like "rules to live
by" and it has nothing
Mark:
Very perceptive of you... in the long run, the FCC
has a lot of better things to do than spend their limited resources
continuing the excessive regulation of the Ham Bands... Removing the Telegraphy
licensing barrier and reducing excessive Ham Regulation will go a long way to
reduc
Mark:
The point is that the Region 1 Plan is a Voluntary
Bandplan...
Not fixed in stone with difficult to change
government regulation!
Regulation is by bandwidth... NOT
Mode...
Which is what the ARRL is attempting to do in a
limited way...
__
41 matches
Mail list logo
