Although Morse code is not the "digital" mode this group usually
focuses on, I wonder if any of the members are interested in CW
operations and the occasional sked ? By some miracle, a few years
ago, I managed to pass the 13 WPM code test in the USA. I must have
eaten good brain food that par
Im always available for a CW contact. I work CW probably 85 percent of the
time. Mostly these days, it on the hunt for new countries, and even new
modes, and an ocassional contest or two, but again looking for new ones.
Its nice to ocassionally sit back and have a chat with someone who isnt in
th
I've started to do the same thing, and have been
lurking around 3700-3715 nites getting my speed up
usually around 0300-0400Z
John
- Original Message -
From:
obrienaj
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:04
PM
Subject: [digital
NO
From:
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of obrienaj
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006
1:04 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] CW ?
Although Morse code is not
the "digital" mode this group usually
focuses on, I won
OK John, I will look for you.
Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I've started to do the same thing, and have been lurking around
3700-3715 nites getting my speed up
>
> usually around 0300-0400Z
>
> John
> - Original Message -
There are different standards (e. g. STANAG 4539) achieving 9600
bit/sec within 3 kHz of BW at an SNR of only 21 dB. That is today.
The ITU is adopting further standards on HF which will exceed this
with similar bandwidths. I don't believe anyone expects to experiment
with or achieve a bandwidt
I believe that the ARRL is suggesting that "symbol rate" is not the
best way to define a protocol. The symbol rate of most any modern
protocol is going to be much less than it is currently defined. For
example, Pactor 1 has a symbol rate of 200 baud and a speed of max
speed of 200 bps, while Pa
However, unless Part 97.1 is changed as to the purpose
> of Amateur radio, enhancement of the radio art also includes HF. The
> issue is that there is little incentive to further develop digital
> protocols for high speed binary transfer since under Part 97.221,
> there is little space to use
.
>
> It may be technically feasible to do everything WinLink, the ARRL and
> others may want to do by allowing more spectrum to be allocated to
> these services, but by doing so is the resulting environment still
> Amateur Radio?
This question, to me, is what it all boils down to.
I think the
If you are interested in cw, here is a posting from the Straight Key
Century Club. Since early January more than 1200 have signed up and
more cw is being heard on many of the ham bands. Most operators are
more than willing to send at any speed and conversations are encouraged.
There is an acti
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio
group.
File: /RM-11306.pdf
Uploaded by : palmdalesteve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description : ARRL RM-11306
You can access this file at the URL:
http://gr
Speaking of HECK NO, I'm a very active
digital modes operator and also an ARRL member. No one from the ARRL ever asked
me in advance what I thought about the proposal that has become RM-11306. I'm
dead set against it and made my thoughts known to the FCC via the ECFS system
back on January
N6CRR,
You sure did hit the nail on the head with this
one. That is exactly what the one want that is pushing this stuff. The want to
turn ham radio into an email forwarding service. I just wonder how many of those
guys ever work any other mode other than passing email. Most all emergency
. I just wonder how many of those guys ever work any other mode other
than passing email. Most all emergency communications is going to be
defined to a local area of the country anyway. (Emergency is defined a
threat to life and property). I am not against the handling of
important traffic, as a ma
Steve,
It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important
informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can sometimes
include systems such as Winlink 2000, but for the most part it will not,
since they have two things that greatly changes the calculus compared to
the pas
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> It is not just emergency traffic, but H&W traffic, important
> informational traffic, e-mail from distant points, etc. It can
sometimes
Rick you make some good points in your post, and I think the ARRL
should t
Why are they saying it is better? That is the question the ARRL's
proposal didn't answer!
No mathematical analysis of anything, no assessment of current
baud/bps/bandwidth protocols, and no analysis/assessment of
development/experimentation papers by business or universities. No
analysis of othe
It's time to change the subject to reflect
what you are now talking about.
It has moved from the ARRL proposal to an anti
traffic.
Please remember that before email ham's
had been doing the same thing for years.
John, W0JAB
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
I think I can answer some of your questions.
The ARRL definitely has taken the issue of having some kind of workable
network for emergency to heart. At least the past president did. After
doing a test to demonstrate how effective amateur radio networking is,
we were unable to deliver messages i
KV9U Wrote:
>What I do see is the restricting of
>bandwidths to ~3 or so KHz and that will make high speed digital
>protocols much more difficult since you can not ignore the science
>behind it.
[...snip...]
>the new proposals do not address my
>biggest concern of finally being able to inter
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
Even from to mobile.
John, W0JAB
>
>At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
>
>>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
>
>Peter,
>Please get your facts right.
>I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
>the last 3 or 4 years in less the 2.5Kc.
>
>Even from to mobile.
>
Clev
At 10:13 PM 2/5/06, you wrote:
>Clever retort, but not very elucidating. Obviously I need educating.
>Please say more. A pointer to a paper, something...
>
>de K1PGV
try this page for the AOR digital modem at
that most on digital voice are using.
http://www.aorusa.com/ard9800.html
scroll to t
">>I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive subbands (although they could be
used for other narrow band modes such as PSK31 and maybe some others
that have not been invented yet to fit in that size of bandwidth), a
shrinking of t
At 11:13 PM 2/5/06, Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
> >
> >At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
> >
> >>Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
> >
> >Peter,
> >Please get your facts right.
> >I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
> >the last
John, what are you using to do this. Can all of us do it, with simple
equipment/software? Thats where we need to go. I dont want to spend (and
cant) hundreds or thousands of dollars to speak with a few well heeled
individuals, but am more than willing to jump in for a few bucks (or even
less - s
Those answer my questions. It is NOT cheap, not readily available for me
to use in my computer with already owned equipments. Let me know when it
is.
Danny
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: [d
We should not rule out certain applications of amateur radio just
because the majority of hams currently doesn't find them interesting
or useful; that's the road to technical stagnation.
We need only insist that all amateur applications be responsible in
their stewardship of our shared commons,
28 matches
Mail list logo
