Yes, that could be an option.
Perhaps an easier way would be to implement some sort
of IPC interface in one of the psk packages for
windows? Multipsk was mentioned on this thread, I know
nothing about it but can you make it report reception
to one file and watch for the existence of another
file (
Dave- let's face it, it's clear that johns' mind is made up about what
your mind is made up about.
(There- I said it, and I'm glad!)
Bill-W4BSG
Dave Bernstein wrote:
>Re: "But you and others already have you mind made up with this anti
>wide and pactor attitude"
>
>I am neither opposed to wide
Pactor is not the problem, Roger. Ops running keyboard-to-keyboard
Pactor can determine that the frequency is clear before
transmitting, just as you would in PSK, RTTY, or Olivia.
Other than excluding commercial content, its a slipperly slope to
say what kind of traffic constitutes "true ham ra
Roger they do listen but it's to bad it's just for
other pactor stations. Would that email traffic
be anything like what PSKMAIL is doing?
Oh sorry, forgot, PSK is not one of the *wide*
modes.
>The Pactor stations never listen before they transmit, and they
>indiscriminantly QRM other law ab
John,
At one time it was not technically possible for a robot station on semi
(or for that matter on fully) automatic, to be able to detect diverse
signals in the pass band.
There were some who said it could not be done. Well, it HAS been done.
Do you understand this?
Your acceptance of this
Dave Bernstein wrote:
>"Automatic stations should not transmit without first verifying that
>the frequency is clear" would please me just fine, John. Judging
>from a sample of comments filed with the FCC regarding the ARRL
>proposal, it would please a lot of hams.
>
>You've again failed to resp
"Automatic stations should not transmit without first verifying that
the frequency is clear" would please me just fine, John. Judging
from a sample of comments filed with the FCC regarding the ARRL
proposal, it would please a lot of hams.
You've again failed to respond to reasonable questions,
Yes, SCAMP's busy detectors exceeded everyone's expectations.
Some SCS modems also include a busy frequency detector, but to my
knowledge no automatic station operation software exploits them.
The issue, as illustrated in John's scenario, is that the remote
station activating the automatic stat
WinWarbler already does this for PSK and RTTY operation. You can
define PSK sub-bands, and RTTY sub-bands (with comma-delimited
files, sorry!). The frequency scale above the waterfall display uses
green and red color to distinguish "good" from "bad" frequencies.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--
you just made my point once again.
> I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please
> you.
At 08:31 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>Lets take this in two parts, John.
>
>1. In your original post (message 13673) you said "You know it not
>always the fault of the automatic station but more the us
> If you cannot hear them they should not be able to hear
> you -- unless you are running an "alligator" station
> (transmit side not balanced with the receive side).
>
> IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e
Hi Doc,
It is normal for non-reciprocal or unbalanced paths to exist on HF.
Local noise level an
Re: "But you and others already have you mind made up with this anti
wide and pactor attitude"
I am neither opposed to wide modes, nor opposed to Pactor. I operate
RTTY frequently, and Pactor on occasion.
You have made this allegation before, John. The first time, I
privately challenged you to
Lets take this in two parts, John.
1. In your original post (message 13673) you said "You know it not
always the fault of the automatic station but more the user". In the
scenario you describe below, what did the "user" being QRM'd do
wrong?
2. Why is it unreasonable to expect the automatic st
I am trying to use AWGterm with AGW to run Packet.
To get conected I need to set the hardware acceleration in windows
to a lower value than default. I had it working but suddenly windows
went back to the default value. Attempting to reset the harware
acceleration windows puts it back to default a
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What has been the experience with frequency-selective
> fading? I've noticed (watching waterfalls) that fading
> appears frequently as a sliding notch through the
> waterfall... might it be better to have the zero-t
expeditionradio wrote:
> RMPSK31 (160Hz) example <500Hz bandwidth
> Carrier A: Freq = 000Hz Time = 0sec
> Carrier B: Freq = +160Hz Time = +0.16sec
> Carrier C: Freq = +320Hz Time = +0.32sec
>
> RMPSK63 (320Hz) example <1kHz bandwidth
> Carrier A: Freq = 000Hz Time = 0.0sec
> Carrier B: Freq = +320
Hasn't SCAMP already successfully demonstrated the technology
for checking multiple modes prior to transmission?
Also, just because one cannot detect 1/2 of a QSO does
not mean that one may not detect the other 1/2.
If one truly cannot detect either side (with reasonable
receive sensitivity and a
I wonder if the logging program vendors might be able to, as a group,
offer a gentle nudge here. For example, a band plan file (in XML, of
course, hi hi) could advise the program to alert the user about domestic
calling in the 160m DX window, or RTTY mode on 14.070. Even better if
we can get
Dave I could talk till I was blue in the face about ready
to drop dead. But you and others already have you mind
made up with this anti wide and pactor attitude.
I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please
you.
Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
ring of silence (you ca
Hello,
The PK-232 manual isn't too clear on some points
regarding connections between the PK-232 (15 yrs old)
and my new FT-897 HF/VHF/UHF transceiver. I hate it
when smoke comes from my equipment, so I'm wondering
if anyone has connected these critters together
before. I'd like to tell them how
Yes, lots of talk, but no description of an actual scenario that
substantiates that talk.
The explanation, I believe, is that there is no such scenario. If you
disagree, describe the scenario.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
It should be noted that the gMFSK *might* be able to
be be compiled under Cygwin. Gnome-2, fftw, etc. are
available under Cygwin... it might make for a fairly
complicated install, but it should be do-able.
73,
Paul / K9PS
Per wrote:
> No windows version, only linux.
> There are plans for a live
Hi Rick,
So far, it looks like the Olivia 500 Centre-of-Activity
freqs at 14076-14079 have good support, and not much opposition.
If it continues well for Olivia, I will put up a web page on
HFLINK's international bandplan website with other band charts
of existing modes and trends for centres
H,. up to a point I would agree about the numbers who have gone from
being solid RTTY only ops, to switching over to PSK. Those guys havent
stopped RTTY, but just added PSK and maybe Olivia etc. At my present
location for over 21 years now, and when I first arrived I tuned around rtty
freqs,
This has been talked about by many
Me for one.
At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in
>which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic
>station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.
>
>If you can desc
I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in
which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic
station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station.
If you can describe such a scenario, please do so.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradi
Hi Patrick,
Good to know that you have experimented with RMPSK techniques.
Your method of 2 carriers with 80Hz separation for "quadRPSK" is very
interesting! You may find that if you increase the 80Hz frequency
separation of the carriers, the linearity/power is not as critical.
You may also increa
Tim,
You are reading way more than what was said. Nothing about the demise of
anything. You always have the diehards who operate older technology
equipment and modes. But I am saying that it is not as active as it once
was. Same thing can be said for CW. If you have a certain number of
active
You know it not always the fault of the automatic station
but more the user. I dont know how many times that has
been said by me and others.
At 04:47 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a
>clear frequency because an automatic station incapab
Dave Bernstein wrote:
>I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a
>clear frequency because an automatic station incapable of listening
>before transmitting might later show up.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
You got that right.
de Roger W6VZV
Need a Digital mode Q
The basic rule is "don't transmit on a frequency that's already
occupied". If everyone bent over backwards to avoid QRMing others,
there'd be no need for exclusion zones.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@ya
I strongly diasgree with the suggestion that someone shouldn't use a
clear frequency because an automatic station incapable of listening
before transmitting might later show up.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I fail to
14.069 and 14.070 have become the "normal" freqs that folks set on their
transceivers for the PSK bands. Then your sound board and waterfall display
go upward from there 2-4 KC and that is the area that should be left clear
for PSK operations. Above that, you will find RTTY and some of the other
On Monday 20 February 2006 08:40, KV9U wrote:
> Bonnie,
>
>
> What I would like to see are some practical bandplans that have a
> recommended spot frequency for digital modes. We do have that by default
> now on 20 meters for the .070 PSK31, and similar areas on 40 and 80
> meters. The RTTY operat
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did copy this also since I was camped out on about
> 14,072 for a while.
>
While I don't support fools who jam, I do wonder why the ARRL in all
it's wisdom can't set up exclusion zones in contest rules around some
o
That made me smile, we have a few million cows in Europe but as yet
we don't have a frequency for frightened cows on 14.080 Mhz.
G0GQK
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
Hello to all,
As a modest alternative to PSKmail under Windows, for the next 3.13 version
of Multipsk, I'll free all the responder and mail functions of PAX and PAX2
(ARQ modes derived from Olivia) which are, for instance, available under
licence (but used by nobody, so...).
73
Patrick
-
I did copy this also since I was camped out on about
14,072 for a while.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CW interference!
I had some nutcase trying to chase me off 14070. He kept sending "PSK
window" in CW. I thought it was pretty funny that a mode wit
No windows version, only linux.
There are plans for a live-cd, don't know now when
that will be available. Its all open source so you are
quite welcome to have a look. Its written in perl and
that runs on windows, the one obstacle is gMFSK that
will need to be replaced by something else. The short
I fail to see why in the first place you would use
14,100 to 14,110 for keyboard to keyboard when you know
that part of the band it loaded with Packet and Pactor
stations. It makes me and maybe other think just so you
would have something to complain about.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J
On what bands Danny?
At 09:39 AM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>You put your finger on what I see is a very bad problem that we are facing
>as hams. The lack of international band plans.If mine is one freq, the
>the dx is another freq, never the twain shall meet.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Co
Seems very interesting, but nothing to windows users?
-Tommi oh7jjt-
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Per <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's arq so in some ways it is like a less timing
> sensitive pactor. I think its a lot better than pactor
> in many ways. Anyway, it works really well a
It's arq so in some ways it is like a less timing
sensitive pactor. I think its a lot better than pactor
in many ways. Anyway, it works really well and the
link fails rarely.
I have a server online on 10.148 kHz and if you can
hear it then I can easily add you to the list of
users. There is a bea
Thanks Dave,
But then again PKS of any type it not RTTY.
And when it comes to RTTY I'am a purist. Use
a TTY machine.
At 12:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>PSK63 is significantly faster than RTTY, and consumes less
>bandwidth. The PSKCORE engine can simultaneously decode all PSK63
>signals within a 3
PSK63 is significantly faster than RTTY, and consumes less
bandwidth. The PSKCORE engine can simultaneously decode all PSK63
signals within a 3 khz band segment; coupled with callsign
extraction logic, this makes for a powerful DXing and contesting
tool.
Why replace something like RTTY that ha
I did not know there was even an effort to replace RTTY.
And that brings me to this question. Why replace something
like RTTY that has worked so well for so long of time?
At 11:01 AM 2/20/06, you wrote:
>RTTY remains the digital-mode-of-choice for DXing, despite efforts
>to replace it with PSK31
RTTY remains the digital-mode-of-choice for DXing, despite efforts
to replace it with PSK31 or PSK63. The MMTTY and MMVARI engines
enable freeware soundcard applications to perform well in this mode.
Given the continuing interest in DXing and Contesting, I doubt we'll
see any significant declin
You put your finger on what I see is a very bad problem that we are facing
as hams. The lack of international band plans.If mine is one freq, the
the dx is another freq, never the twain shall meet.
- Original Message -
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 20,
Considering all the talk about how some countries have moved or are
moving to bandwidth specified allocations on the amateur frequencies, it
seems to me that we also have to make some adjustments in the way we
view digital modes. If you have a narrow bandwidth mode (CW, PSK31,
PSK63) and then s
Bonnie,
From my frequent monitoring, I would have to say that the only really
popular mode is PSK31. It is not uncommon now to have more PSK31 signals
within a 2.3 KHz passband, than even cw signals during a contest. Like
this weekend you might find 4 to 6 cw signals but you would find up to
50 matches
Mail list logo
