Hi Andy..you are quite right ...i have had a problem with CW for
many years due to hearing problems...tinitus in right ear and hearing
loss in bothat times when a band is very noisy i also have trouble
hearing ops on SSBthis is why i find digital modes are excellent for
Sure is. A long time ago I knew a ham who operated
2 modes, CW by a flashing light and RTTY.
In fact I think I have a QSL card from him for RTTY
going back to the late 70's
At 09:08 PM 11/30/2007, you wrote:
In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member
who told me that
And in this entire thread, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any
comments about D-STAR! 960 bps is built into every radio and the ID-1
can do 128 kbps. It's not AX.25, but it is packet digital data. It's
pretty cool to put two ID-1s back to back and watch the amount of
data
that can
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed
In reviewing the background of some new members, I note one new member
who told me that he was switching to digital modes because he is
losing his hearing . I know that we have many visually impaired hams,
speaking on the radio seems like a natural match. However, I had not
given much thought to
Ed,
Even when All USA and other messages were blocked from going through the
network, it was still too slow for practical use like we have on the
internet. Other than for emergency use, packet could not compete with
the rich content of the internet, especially after the advent of the web.
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
Why?
Because ham's already have ampr.org and a entire Class A subnet (44/8)
which IANA would love to reclaim if they could since that means
I suspect you are hearing JT2 which is very narrow and uses 2FSK and
DBPSK modulation for sync and data or JT4A at 17.5 BW and 4.375 spacing.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Around 2045Z Friday the 30th
Freq. 14076+1750
Mostly
For us Amateurs there is 2390 to 2400 which is outside the ISM band. At
5.8 we have frequencies above and below as well as in the ISM band.
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
Hello Simon,
PSK63F is a bit more quicker that PSK31, a bit more sensitive, is less
sensitive to Doppler modulation and is more reliable due to the convolutional
coding. It is a good choice.
I don't see any interest in PSK125F.
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: Simon Brown
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet?
With every increase in speed, you reduce the distance you can transmit.
We could not begin to
Well, we have been using the D700s for a couple years now on 9k2 in a
straight packet mode. I just made sure the message sizes fit the TNC in
the D700.
73, Tom n4zpt
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam k5rud@
Which radio?
The Kenwood D710.They've
I have a relative who is totally deaf. While she is not a ham, her
mother, who signs to her, was impressed seeing digital ham radio in action.
In the past I have read articles on hams who are either completely deaf
or have severe hearing losses and who have used alternative ways to
So I'll add a few more cents.
Packet died in the US because it was too popular for what it could do.
The number of For Sale messages and announcements that were sent
worldwide just overwhelmed users and BBSs. It came to the point that
there was too much content and nothing that you wanted to
Hi Simon,
I have tested these modes on HF NVIS with a nearby station, but the the
trade off in speed to support the Viterbi coding is at least half or
perhaps slightly over half. They seem to be rarely used and only if you
ask the other station to try it for testing purposes. Like many of the
Around 2045Z Friday the 30th
Freq. 14076+1750
Mostly a steady tone, with several clicks per second, the
clicks being probably PSK transitions.
really it was not meant to be.
Hi Rick et al
Rick wrote:
[snip]
9k6 was the minimum usable speed for TCP/IP via ham radio in my view. It
was moderately expensive, but as you know, many rigs came along that
could do it. Most synthesized rigs can now, I have one here in the
shack, but it will never be connected because
Do you plan to treat yourself to a D-Star radio for Christmas? Amateur Radio
Newsline is conducting a very unscientific survey to see how many are and how
many are not.
Its easy to participate: Just take your web browser to
http://www.arnewsline.org/ and scroll down the page until you see the
I've been working on this for the last month and a half or so. The local emcomm
group has been using Aresdata for our database and messaging needs, and we've
come to the conclusion that it sucks and needs to be replaced.
This addresses some of aresdata's greatest shortcomings by keeping a local
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
Why?
There are alternate TLD
lookup services out there but no one cares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
It's true most people don't know or care. It's
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Don Fanning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.
Why?
There are alternate TLD
lookup services out there but no one cares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
It's true most people don't know or care. It's
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 08:57 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote in part:
Personally, I'd love to have this happen and I'd also be happy to
assist in the technical details. I do have the skills.
Me to but you sound a lot like those that
John,
What kind of a response is this? It sounds like you are a very bitter
person toward others, or am I reading this wrong.
To put this in perspective:
- after my wife and daughter got their Technician licenses, they were
stunned by the comments of a (somewhat) OT packet BBS operator on a
Rub,
Although I agree it would be nice to run this group, and perhaps a few
other ham discussions over some kind of RF network, how can this
possibly be practical?
It could take days to deliver such messages, assuming you had some kind
of server system to coordinate it. It seems to me that
On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Rud Merriam k5rud@
Which radio?
The Kenwood D710.They've supposedly fixed the issues with the D700
and, if true, we have a dual band frequency agile 9k6 and 1200 baud
data radio. Unfortunately the current premier packet data
application, Airmail 2000, doesn't
Rick,
Having groups on RF becomes practical if the network is designed to handle
the messaging. The design probably needs (1) higher speed last mile
transfer (but the speed may not need to increase a lot), (2) group /
bulleting messages streaming / broadcast with fills vs. point to point
Has PSK63F / PSK125F shown advantages in real life? I am very tempted to code
it up in my PSK engine (which is based on fldigi / gMFSK).
Any comments really appreciated before I start pounding the keyboards.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
from
a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a
ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet?
The 2.4 Ghz ISM band
29 matches
Mail list logo
