[digitalradio] What ALE control - not just RX - software

2006-03-25 Thread Paul
I did a message search on ALE and see reference to PCALE and occasionally other software that will receive the ALE mode. And I've seen control software that will support scanning - like for a Ten Tec 320D. But I haven't seen software that will control a rig (preferably a Ten Tec model) to Scan fo

[digitalradio] Re: What ALE control - not just RX - software

2006-03-25 Thread Andrew O'Brien
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did a message search on ALE and see reference to PCALE and > occasionally other software that will receive the ALE mode. > > And I've seen control software that will support scanning - like for a > Ten Tec 320D. > > But

[digitalradio] PCALE for HF ALE (Re: What ALE control - not just RX - software)

2006-03-25 Thread expeditionradio
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there something out there that will both control a rig to scan for, > and receive, ALE? PCALE is a complete ALE controller that runs on a PC. It scans, decodes, encodes, and keeps track of propagation between other ALE sta

[digitalradio] PCALE for HF ALE (Re: What ALE control - not just RX - software)

2006-03-25 Thread Paul
Bonnie, Maybe I'm trying to take too much of a shortcut by asking the group but I did visit the PCALE website and click on a few links. My experience is that frequency "computer" control software has to be written for each rig. For example, BandMaster will control a Paragon but not an Argo V, DXLa

Re: [digitalradio] PCALE for HF ALE (Re: What ALE control - not just RX - software)

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hi Paul, The radio control in PC-ALE at present is planned to be expanded upon in the future based I work that I have done with MARS-ALE. Charles and I have discussed the approach to be taken, when however it will happen is unknown at this time. In many but not all respects, the support for r

[digitalradio] ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Andrew O'Brien
>However, when Scanning (and multi-channel Sounding which is not > allowed under the current Part 97) -- Steve , can you explain this a little further? I know sounding without a control op is not legal, but what do you mean by the above ? Andy K3UK Fredonia, New York. Skype Me : callto://an

[digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread expeditionradio
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >However, when Scanning (and multi-channel Sounding which is not > > allowed under the current Part 97) > -- > > Steve , can you explain this a little further? I know sounding > without a control op is not leg

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hello All, For most Amateurs, this particular topic is rather moot as their stations can not even handle full multi-channel ALE operation in receive, let alone transmit! Anyhow, Bonnie's station can and so can mine, I use it daily in MARS and SHARES, Bonnie and I have had this discussion in t

Re: [digitalradio] Have MFJ 1278 TNC Need Manual!!!

2006-03-25 Thread bill.w7tvf
Hi Jeff, I have the mfj-278 interface here, brand new in the box with the manual but I haven't been able to locate it yet.  If and when I locate it I will let you know.  Only one comment about the jumper wiring, you won't believe it but if I can find it, I have tyhe jumpers for several dif

[digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Andrew O'Brien
Thanks Steve. So, since I do not "sound" unless I am in the shack, I should be "OK" as long as I do not allow PC-ALE to xmit if the freq is in use, right? Easier said than done, but since I often manually "sound" specfic freqs, I should be OK. With Olivia and MT63 still often on the same

[digitalradio] N1MM Digital Group

2006-03-25 Thread Andrew O'Brien
The contesting software, N1MM Logger, has set up a separate email list for discussion of the digital modes and use of N1MM. Check it at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/N1MMLogger-Digital, -- Andy K3UK Fredonia, New York. Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 Also available via Echolink Need a Dig

Re: [digitalradio] PCALE for HF ALE (Re: What ALE control - not just RX - software)

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hello All, In my post on radio control and PC-ALE earlier I should has mentioned a few other items. Obviously any can place their radio into SPLIT VFO when PC-ALE or any program (ScanCat, BeaconSee etc.) is directly controlling frequency scanning where you want the program to be under PC cont

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hi Andy, You really can't control the tool as far as being a control operator is concerned even sitting there with you hands on the mouse/keyboard ready to dump it if during multi-channel Sounding your station is about to Sound and you hear the channel is busy and you want to stop it, you mig

[digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread expeditionradio
>< > However, in my personal opinion, any such operation as detailed in > proceeding paragraph is not in keeping with FCC Part 97 as it > currently exists within any sub bands by U.S Steve, you and I have had this discussion before... and we agreed to disagree on it :) I pointed out that y

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hi Bonnie, We are all entitled to our opinions and your statements are just that, as are mine. I could but won't argue all or any of this with you or anyone else Bonnie, its pointless and a waste of bandwidth. As this is NOT an ALE focused forum as is HFlink, I only mentioned FCC Part 97 on t

[digitalradio] Re: ALE: Sounding and Part 97?

2006-03-25 Thread Dave Bernstein
97.101(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. Allowing your station to transmit on a frequency already in use is a clear violation of 97.101(d). 97.101(d) doesn't say "except if you're transmitting your

[digitalradio] re: TCI 8174 receiver user and service manual

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hello All, For those that have asked, the user and service manual on the TCI 8174 receiver has been posted in .PDF format by the Premium Receiver folks, see: http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~mechtron/PremRxPage/ref_mans/tci8174/tci8174manual.pdf These are very good units and are popping up more and mo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oldest Rigs That Handle ALE?

2006-03-25 Thread doc
> Yes, the 735 requires a CI-V level converter. You can purchase third- > party units for ~$30, or build one yourself for under $10; let me > know if you want a schematic. > The 735 has a longterm reliability problem with VFO capacitors; ask > on the Icom reflector for the gory details. >73,

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oldest Rigs That Handle ALE?

2006-03-25 Thread Steve Hajducek
Hi Doc, I have and use my FT-890AT for ALE, it fails the SPLIT VFO test (QS/S) but otherwise is a fine radio for ALE in single channel operation and can be pressed into use for multi-channel within reason, you would not want to use it 24/7 and tax those relays. As far as TXCO is concerned, fr

Re: [digitalradio] Small type- was - Have MFJ 1278---

2006-03-25 Thread Bill Aycock
Bill- This small type is hard to read. If you really want to communicate- enlarge it. These old eyes tell me to reject anything this small, and , really, I think it is a good idea to dump such junk, unread. It's pointless. So I usually do Bill-W4BSG bill.w7tvf wrote: > Hi Jeff, > I have the mf

Re: [digitalradio] Small type- was - Have MFJ 1278---

2006-03-25 Thread Alan NV8A
If some people would stop sending messages in HTML *and* other people would stop choosing to view messages as HTML, we wouldn't have this problem. Bill's message displays on my computer in the same size type as everybody else's messages do. Alan NV8A On 03/25/06 11:43 pm Bill Aycock wrote: >

Re: [digitalradio] Small type- was - Have MFJ 1278---

2006-03-25 Thread Bill Aycock
Alan- Since ham radio is not my whole world, I keep the ability to RECEIVE HTML active. There is a lot of email traffic that is better that way. I very rarely send any HTML, but I can. In fact, my email client is set to ask me if I really meant to do it, as a precaution. I still don't like small