At 18:01 18/9/2006 -0700, you wrote:
> I do know that with CW you can sometimes reduce the noise
> some without reducing the CW signal by reducing the RF gain.
> Other times reducing the RF gain just reduces both the noise
> and the signal by the same amount.
This happens if the noise is caused
At 15:27 18/9/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> If the Internet could have an "administrator" right at the console
> of every mail server, you would have a system with few or very hold
> ups in delivery...much like a point-to-point system.
Perhaps this is one of the main factors of low reliability
of ISP
There is a difference between an attack and a disaster. If we have a
major storm or an earthquake, the ability of the Internet to function
outside the disaster area will not be affected.
It is incumbent upon served agencies and gov't responders to make sure
that they have reliable Internet servic
Thanks for your comments, Jose, however, I think most of us understand
and agree with what you say.
What I am not clear on is the difference betwee the differential
versions of the PSK modes and the non-differential versions. For
example, my understanding is that PSK31 is really DBPSK31. I thin
> Lets make a little wager. I'll guarantee this message gets to the list
> using the supposedly unreliable SMTP technology. I'll guarantee it for X
> dollars that it works. Now - for what value of Y dollars will anybody
> here guarantee me that it doesn't work? Do we lose one message in a
>
> Maybe you should go read RFC 822 -- SMTP, which is the mail transport used
> on the internet, is NOT reliable, never was, never will be guaranteed
> delivery. Maybe in the future there will be yet another protocol for
> sending email that IS reliable and guaranteed delivery, but SMTP isn't it!
On both of my receivers (ICOM 736 and Kenwood TS-2000), with AGC off,
reducing the RF gain has almost exactly the same effect as reducing
the soundcard receive level.
My reading of the article is that turning down the RF gain will reduce
the "distortion" on a strong signal caused by either the
CQWW test usually permit the use of "teams" in their contests. This
is simply the summed scores of people that also participate as
individuals that have registered in advance as a 'team".
So, how about a team from this mail group ? If you plan on playing in
the CQWW RTTY test, even just very cas
Ok Jose and everyone...let's take a poll or have some SWAGs.
So what do YOU (plural) think is the best modulation technique to use for a NEW
and BETTER HF data mode?
PSK
QPSK
DBPSK
DQPSK (Dairy Queen PSK...Dairy Queen is an ice cream franchise)
8DPSK
DQPSK
8QPSK
16QPSK
And by the way, the Rus
Thanks Jose and Scott.
So, my original question was related to my observations were that lowering
RF gain on my receiver did range of the waterfall. Apparently this is
related to AGC circuitry being activated . On my radio the disappearance
of weaker signals from the waterfall when a very stron
Michael,
I was working with an very old DataGeneral mainframe using X.25 mail when
RFC-822 was released for comments (RFC=request for comments). My office
evaluated it and found it to be much more reliable than our X.25 mail and much
faster in delivery.
By 1990, we have stopped using X.25 mai
What are the patent numbers for
Pactor 1
Pactor 2
Pactor 3
?
I would like to read the patents.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://gro
Maybe you should go read RFC 822 -- SMTP, which is the mail transport used
on the internet, is NOT reliable, never was, never will be guaranteed
delivery. Maybe in the future there will be yet another protocol for
sending email that IS reliable and guaranteed delivery, but SMTP isn't it!
-Or
> I'm just trying to say that the PactorIII technology has a broad non-ham
> customer base and it is worth enough to be sold if the company has
> problems. Unless there is a better and cheaper technology which
> supplants PactorIII, I don't think a company failure will eliminate it.
> Charlie Criz
> DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> In the early days of HF digital, we used external hardware to encode and
> decode the data.
> Later we used a combination of hardware and computer software.
> Even later (today?) we used software only and have relied on the internal
> parts of a computer
The main problem with sole source technology is the absence of
competition, which generally keeps prices high. And "message delivery
over HF" is a niche market if ever there was one.
If we want out of this box (pun intended),
1. expand the market
Very few hams are interested in sending email
Andy and the group,
A thousand and one apologies. I can't even claim a senior moment. In
my rush to a knee jerk reaction I misread AGC as ALC and RF gain as RF
power.. Duuuh!
So, this EHam article is talking about receiving, not transmitting.
Now the statement makes sense. The same is
kd4e wrote:
>
>
> > It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from Real Time
> > OS's than the older software.
>
> Where is this data found?
>
> Is documented as true of all distributions of Linux
> or only the more popular and bloated (RedHat, SUse,
> Mandriva, etc)?
>
> What
Sure, it's a possibility they could go under, but not one that I really
think we need to worry about.
Most people don't realize how much sole sourcing they do. Your cell
phone technology is owned by QualComm. Your car radio uses Dolby Noise
Reduction. The list is endless.
If SCS was ever in trou
In the early days of HF digital, we used external hardware to encode and decode
the data.
Later we used a combination of hardware and computer software.
Even later (today?) we used software only and have relied on the internal parts
of a computer to encode and decode out data.
Some have said t
The reason you don't find it is that someone hasn't written it yet.
If enough individuals "cry" for a product, and there are those who are capable
of creating it, then in time it _might_ be produced.
If I am the only one who would like to see a mode capable of 1200-1600 WPM
printed text that ca
Rick, you wrote..."I don't see anyone using wide bandwidth HF digital modes and
I sure don't support it either on such limited bands. Other than the SDR1000
type of transceivers, there would not be many rigs that could even do these
kinds of wide digital modes."
There aren't any wide bandwidth
Where on the band can you find this?
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
Per,
FYI, you URL (http://pskmail.wikispaces.com) is being blocked by many
businesses and some educational institutions and research organizations because
they are listed by the "filters" as Personal Pages.
Sometimes pages which I am sure are really "research" pages should have strong
META sta
Perhaps I sould have said "not generally available". Hi Hi.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:56 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
DuBose
Rein, you wrote..."But of course you don't need the 0% error arq for k-to-k
mode"
Why is this? The conditions I operate under, when I use a data "chat" mode, I
need 100% or near 100% error transmissions because of the nature of the
information I am sending. If it is not received correctly, sc
Charles, your wrote..."If they went under, then the Pactor patents would be
sold. They could even find there way into the public domain. But I doubt it.
They seem to be doing
pretty well. "
Because a firm "goes under" does NOT mean that the patents would be sold. In
fact there have been many h
Andy,
Use the RF attenuator
It is the resource I have used in contests when
operating multiop-multitransmitter.
The S-meter will be less enthusiastic, but the
receiver will work.
73, Jose
--- Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Turning down the RF gain will reduce the signal
> b
My problem with the SCS Pactor "modem" and any sole source hardware/software is
just as Bill says...what if the company decides to quit selling their product
or changes it and will not allow anyone to keep on making it.
Its this was...if SCS stops making the Pactor hardware and selling the softw
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Maybe someone can clear this up, but what is the
> difference between the
> differential modes such as DBPSK, DQPSK, 8DPSK, and
> 16DPSK such as used
> with Pactor 2 and modes such as 8QPSK, 16QPSK?
Even when theory says that differential modes
Hi Andrew,
I get on 40m PSK31 on 7035 or 7070 most weekends Sat/Sun night local time -
and just about every contact is DX. The keyboard modes like PSK31 are a lot
of fun when the bands are open and Ops are about.
I record my contacts into a DX Cluster so as to help stir up activity - I
telnet dir
31 matches
Mail list logo
