Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote:
>
>
> Might want to check that one -- I think you'll find it's
> derived from BSD, not Linux.
>
> 73,
>
> - ps
>
> Ken Meinken wrote:
> > Actually, the Mac OS is based on Linux.
Once I was told that XP also took adventage of some BSD code.
Jose, CO2JA
Mike Blazek wrote:
>
>
> John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> >
> > Why do I find so so many RTTY signals up side down
> > on the ham bands.
> >
> > What ever happen to the old standard?
> >
> > Mark is hi space is low.
> >
> > John, W0JAB
> >
>
> Hi, John:
>
> I think the main reason is prett
Not exactly. I refer you to:
http://www.nsa.gov/ia/industry/tempest.cfm
in which you find the phrase "...Compromising Emanations..." .
This does not necessarily imply any emanations although some do attack the
problem by attempting to restrict all emanations.
73
Ted WA7ZZB
- Original Message
Rein Couperus wrote:
> My comments were meant to be a bit provocative
He! Well, you knew what you were doing
> The ONLY point I wanted to make is that if you use a proper filter,
> matched to the mode, you will have a lot more fun and hear/work many
> more stations. The
kh6ty wrote:
> A "dual-loop" AGC system may help and some high-end transceivers have this.
>
> 73, Skip KH6TY
Dual loop AGC is a two sided sword. I have come to find better, and not
necessarily easier, to have low noise, low gain stages before the
filters that will not
>> Enable your RF attenuation and increase the volume. This can help
>> keep a strong signal from wiping out the weaker ones.
The same that was recommended to work CW ages ago, using manual gain
control and no AGC.
>> Attenuation
>> will probably be around 20 dB, b
sequences of multipath, selective
fading, only on rather wide signals, like pactor 3 or DRM. I have not
noticed it so far in narrower signals, which doesn't mean it isn't there
too. It shows up as a fast darker banding on the waterfall, that sweeps
across the signal bandwidth. I have not
Hi Skip,
Appreciate your comments.
The Lindenblad is indeed a favorite omni-directional antenna for satellite
enthusiasts since it maintains nearly circular polarization
for all azimuth and elevation angles of wave arrival. It does, however, favor
lower elevation angles for gain. The
How about the best of both worlds (or at least an approximation thereof).
I would suggest for two meter home station applications that a lindenblad
antenna is a versatile
compromise omni-directional antenna that works equally well with both
vertical and horizontal polarizations.
The complexity
; 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
Precisely, the KPC-2 used as dumb modem with an RTTY or pactor terminal.
I made it run with Terman93. Sometimes it did well, sometimes, not so
well...I added a tuning aid with two LEDs.
Actually, the KPC-2 was intended only for packet
Jose A. Amador wrote:
> Kantronics and AEA too.
>
> I have a Communications Quarterly issue from the mid 90's somewhere here
> in which the author modifies
A PK-232...forgot to include that
> its filters for 170 Hz and describes a
> great improvement for AMTOR...
Kantronics and AEA too.
I have a Communications Quarterly issue from the mid 90's somewhere here
in which the author modifies its filters for 170 Hz and describes a
great improvement for AMTOR...but also becomes almost useless for 300
baud packet.
AM7910 modems have 200 Hz shift.
Andy,
I use only AFSK lately. I find it easier to net, just click on the
waterfall and there you go.
One asset of soundcard generated keying is that usually the tones are a
bit "softer", due to the use of phase continuous keying, which may not
be the case with IF generated FSK
It should be better, because of the Walsh code layer.
I have used it for tests among other Olivia modes, but never compared
RTTY and 2/250 Olivia. It worked fairly well, but it was just for
curiosity sake, more than anything else. It was not a serious, well
planned, exhaustive test.
73
Jon Maguire wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Patrick sent me this... wanna play? :-)
>> "There is a Word document which goal is to show from two Multipsk
>> snapshots how to do the basic operations in SSTV in MFSK16. This
>> document (0.5 Mo) is available from my sit
Dave,
Getting only 40 watts out means you still need an audio level 4 dB higher.
Going the easy way, can't you tweak some attenuator in your interface?
73,
Jose, CO2JA
Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote:
> I recently discovered that my Soundblaster Audigy card was causing
> some problems to my sof
Tooner wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> ... but what it does and how it does.
>> ... And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL
>> ... as a peek at its specs will show you.
>
> How
Tooner wrote:
> MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:
>
> "Windows - No Disk
> Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> ...
> Cancel, Try Again, Continue"
>
> Selecting either will still pull up the program. Seems to work fine.
>
> N
Similar hardware here, set up in a different fashion.
Onboard AC97 for mic input and TX output
Creative Audigy 2 for RX input and speaker out.
Needs a trick to mute the input RX audio using the effects menu.
You must mute the line input to the soundcard mix, or you will get
the received
Copied XE1RK very well, SNR between 9 and 12 dB, no interruptions at
all. He was in QSO with some W0 I did not hear AT ALL.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
__
Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana,
Reviewing what I received here, and comparing with what others have
posted, here and in other groups, I had a pretty good documented
reception almost at the end. I have a particularly clean and strong echo
at 05:58:10, a direct signal with no multipath.
HAARP signals at that moment had a
Fortunately, the effects of QRM on the radio have been so far less
damaging than the new form of taliban torpedo you mention.
Should motor vehicles be banned until that shortcoming is solved?
73,
Jose, CO2JA
---
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When s
OK, Bill, I had heard it before, and refrained to comment, but this time
I suffered it myself.
I decided to change the subject to something more appropiate to what I
am referring to.
I have been thinking a bit about all thisI am tempted to try to
monitor using Multipsk with the soundcard
7102.2, center frequency. Certainly, a busy frequency.
I cannot tell what "mode" called on top of me, because, robotic or
manned, all pactor link initiations are about the same. Only after you
receive a system ID or a human greeting you get to know. But I guess,
given the frequenc
Rick,
I believe they address one of the largest shortcomings of packet: its
modem.
As I understand (I might be mistaken, I have not upgraded my PTC) it is
the same AX.25 protocol with a more robust modulation. In fact, a
different modulation with robust encoding.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
--
Rick
arguments.
Years ago (some 8+ years ago), I used the FBB cron to switch bands with
an automatic antenna tuner / switch, that even allowed remote QSY of the
BBS with a simple CAT program I wrote for the FT-757.
I am crossposting this reply to both linuxham* lists and the WSJT Group,
because that even
Yes, but the RS ID signal has to be transmitted.
I believe that Jack refers to some thing like a function PK-232's had to
analyze and identify the mode.
Something could be done using MultiPSK Analysis function.
But for an example, today I attempted to decode a signal tha APPARENTLY
was P
MultiPSK also has a reverse button for QPSK modes.
Jose, CO2JA
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> And don't forget that really it does not matter if you use USB or LSB
>
ect.
It is actually better to have a variety of solutions available, and
being capable of selecting the most appropiate or convenient in each
scenario.
It is just not safe or fair to extrapolate that my best solution is
everybody's else best solution. It is something that we should be
aper way, the old way became less and
less popular (or fashionable, as you may like).
I had a clash with a younger local ham in a contest team asking "what
the I was using that I did not copy anybody quick enough". He was
using MixW and I was using my PTC-II in PSK31. I told him
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> Happy New Year to you and your family.
Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list).
> As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought
> out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an
Rick wrote:
> The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well
> over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however
> they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher
> bands became unusable. Packet does not work we
e SCS
Z-80 Pactor Controller.
PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in
general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA
did.
Jose, CO2JA
---
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
&
anywhere in the
Third World to find it the same case...
Towers may fall...fibers may break (it happened recently in the US west
coast), etc, etc. We have had that scenario here in my country several
times this decade. In the middle of a category 5 hurricane, only HF
works...who is going to k
t; No wonder I'm getting S-9 QRM in my QTH hi hi
>
> 73
> Patrick
> VK2PN
>
> John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>>
>> This is a photo of 1000 6ft light tubes powered only by the
>> stray static energy from the
.
Likewise other digital modes can and do move to the area between
14080-14090 and operate there.
I think you do see RTTY stations, even in contests, not mobbing the
frequencies normally used by PSK stations-- at least on 20M. 40M is a
whole other story for many reasons.
73 de Brian/K3KO
Look at:
http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html
It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters.
One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted.
This is despite the fact that there are at least 32 now.
So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think ag
Robert,
Thanks for pointing this out. The link is for 1999.
Regarding WF1F/RITTY.
The 1998 manual I have for WF1B (a DOS program) shows support for
RITTY as a DOS TSR. Earlier manuals don't show it. I recall trying
to get a sound card going in DOS. It was a real bear-- at least fo
Rick wrote:
> I have to concur with Jose on this. I was a very active HF and VHF
> digital ham starting around 1981 with a homebrew XR2206/XR2211 TU that
> was from QST magazine and called "The State of the Art TU." It most
> assuredly was not, but being naive and new to
Rick,
I used a CP-1 TU up to the day the WF1B RTTY contest program became
unsupported. WF1B supported quite a few TU types but no sound cards.
That was around 1996 or 7.
Here's a tidbit of info.
Score required to win 1997 USA CQ WW RTTY single op assisted in 1997 =
553k points. I still
Allow me to disagree (slightly) on the beginnings of RTTY popularity.
I would "blame" Baycom, and the old Mix DOS versions.
I used them (as well as quite few hams I know) way before
PSK31 and the sound card modes appeared. Actually, after using them, I
built a hardware modem that
Andy,
Maybe it is a chicken and the egg thing. To have activity, you have
to have activity.
I don't think it has anything to do with the digital mode. The
advance that made RTTY so popular was the advent of sound card RTTY.
I can attest to that since I operated RTTY contests befor
g with Linux Mandrake 9.1 ? It is a
> PCI card (before it I used an ISA card that worked fine, but I moved it
> to another comp).
>
> Misko YT7MPB
__
Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, C
Rick,
Your no ground situation + high power is a recipe for RF problems.
Try some 1/4 wave counterpoises connected to the rig ground. You can
have multiple ones for different bands connected simultaneously.
People who live on second and third floors have the same problem with
long ground paths
Rick,
Welcome to the world of QRO.
You didn't mention your antenna system or band. Common problems guys
have:
1) open wire line with goofy unbalanced antenna attached.
2) poor grounding of the rig. (A fat short ground connecting amp and
rig needed.) Corroded connections at the ground
ve no "off AGC" position. The only other choice becomes
reducing the RF gain. That eliminates the weak one you're trying to
hear. A narrower filter can mitigate the AGC problem as well as
improving the S/N ratio.
The sound card digital filtering comes after all these stages in
Patrick,
I applaud all the experimenters out there trying to push the envelope.
Meeting personal goals is a really healthy part of the hobby. It
doesn't really matter if that goal become an integral part of ham
radio or not. Experimention for its own sake is good.
Also, thanks for the
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, honest.
If one put ALE400 and RTTY side by side for the average ham ALE-400
would be a hard sell. Same speed in twice the bandwidth.
I guess one may conclude all the bells and whistles of ALE, ARQ etc
are doubling the bandwidth requirements. On
So one gets the 60wpm of 170Hz shift RTTY for a 400 Hz bandwidth?
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ALE400 Narrow band ALE mode now available
>
> Patrick F6CTE has announced that a narrow band version of the
Well, I do not have a distinct characterization of Olivia submodes.
8/500 seems to be fair enough, not too greedy on bandwidth and works
where other modes (not Olivia) fail.
I have used the most common available on MultiPSK, that is, 8/250,
8/500, and 16/500. Ocassionally, 32/1000, or even 2
Rud Merriam wrote:
> Jose,
>
> Just as you were posting this message I was stumbling on a web site that
> agreed with your comment.
>
> With further searching I think I have the relationship. The QEX article has
> the statement that to go from the 3kHz bandwidth used you
Of course it is. PSK31 goes raw, while MFSK and Olivia have FEC added.
So, stand a better chance of being decoded correctly.
When nature starts stirring the gas above, all it reflects (refracts)
suffers the same effect as it had passed thru the house of mirrors,
making giants look like dwarfs
Rud,
You can see the variations in the ionosphere as a phase modulator
embedded in the channel. So, it will phase modulate whatever you attempt
to get thru it. Actually, it has a phase modulator embedded for each
arriving path.
With differential encoding, and signalling speed higher than the
hannon Limit?
That's right...
> Then you need to take the value of the baud rate and bandwidth of the
> signal into consideration and that ratio is multiplied against the
> Eb/No. Wouldn't that further raise the required S/N ratio?
Actually, those "negative SNR's"
h
> frequency
>> tracking algorithms.
>
> PSK31 bandwidth is much lower than of PSK100 that Pactor 2/3 utilizes.
> PSK100 will lock to a signal 100/31 times far mistuned than PSK31.
>
> Symbol length of PSK31 is 32msec, symbol length of PSK100 is 10msec. I
> would say tha
I want to point out that 7070 and the surrounds are part of the "phone
" band in Europe and elsewhere(e.g. Canada). It has been that way
long before any of these digital modes existed. It isn't just
contests. It is a very popular spot day in and day out. The BC
stations in EU fr
Luc,
Guess what? Contesters work during the week too. Many have weekends
only for radio. So you get them engaged in their favorite activity on
weekends. Why is this hard to understand?
They don't complain about the QRM but rather accept it as a challenge
to overcome. I suspect this is
uency was already in use in PSK, MFSK or Olivia.
I am afraid that something does not fit...and not only with "robots".
A theory, in practice, may prove to be more complicated than the same
theory, in theory.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
PS: Don't try to convince me of what is allowed and
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> +++ AA6YQ comments below
> +++ I do not know the date at which 97.101 was originally instituted or last
> modified. Part 97 is available online via
Thanks for the links.
> +++ That's not true, Jose. If an unattended station contains a busy
> frequency d
Alan,
Your post just shows how people are missing the point.
Just who is going to be able to copy D*? I wouldn't bet
my life on D* communications. Would you? Too few people able to copy it.
I might change my mind in 10 years but for now it's a fringe mode.
One needs
The digital systems being proposed for emergency use require a rig
with antenna, a computer with soundcard and functional software. Also
an operator trained with the protocol in use. Right?
My perception of emergency situations is that just having a
rig/antenna available and working may be no
(1.09 ???) and JNOS (1.10 ???) followed later.
>
> Not really Jose, There was a young developer in the St. Louis, Missouri
> area who had a WB9 call that was playing with it back then. I just cant
> remember his call but I'm sure Pete, WB9FLW would.
>
> Then say the mem
You are pretty persistent, sir
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> >>AA6YQ comments below
>
> *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jose A. Amador
>
>> >>snip<<<
>
> Rating automatic operations as extremely un
ket. It's about as slow and wide as
> well as out dated as it can get..
I used Pactor as "layer 1" of FBB (actually it was a far more profound
change) and it brought a 10:1 increase in thruput compared to AX.25 and
Bell 103 tones with no FEC and no memory ARQ or maximum likelyhood
I had quite good results with 1200 baud on 10 meters.
It was a long time ago, but it was comparable to 2 meters at times.
Jose, CO2JA
--
Rud Merriam wrote:
> Assume an RF mesh network operating on 10m.
>
> Is there an advantage in the ability to use 1200 baud? Or is multipath
>
As Jean Paul Roubelat explains in the FBB docs, the design of FBB B1
compression had to comply with a requisite from the french authorities,
by which message headers must be sent in clear text.
But compression gives a measure of efficiency and allow to double the
traffic or reduce the channel
October 17, 2007 8:41 PM
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [digitalradio] Pactor and Seasonally Affected Disorder (SAD)
>
>
>
> New Discovery from the Bolivian Journal of Medicine
>
> Physicians in Bolivia have recently released a paper on the destructive
>
Rud,
Running Linux in an old box requires an old version of Linux, matched to
the box contents.
I used RedHat 5.2 on a 486, and 6.2 on a P1. Mostly, text mode, with a
CGA or the older and less voracious GUI, with 1 MB RAM video cards. The
BBS's ran happy with it, and I even did ftp and
Even when flame bait abounds here, let's try to keep the temper.
I see both claims a bit high. Ten percent of an amateur band may look
high, but just one 3 kHz channel as now exists on 40 meters is too
little. I see the claim more as a bargaining start, and some harmonizing
work by IAR
accept the hidden transmitter issue,
> which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a
> major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden
> transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very
> least an apology is in order for
Beware ! Do you see how you act?
Nowhere in my text it says it is useless, it just says it is
unavailable. Isn't it ?
Those are very different words.
Dave Bernstein wrote:
AA6YQ comments bloew
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> You've
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> *** more AA6YQ comments
> *** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing
> QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then
> what was your intention?
I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything a
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on
> your waterfall to be QRM
With a bit of self education people can get to identify what is on the
waterfall.
> 2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor
Yes, I do also.
&g
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> ### more AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
> PMBOs use a protocol that can't be
Howard Brown wrote:
> Jose and Demetre,
>
> Let's say the two of you were having a nice Pactor QSO on 14.091.00
> kHz. Now let's say that N4XX (made up callsign) calls me on the same
> frequency using RTTY because he can't hear you.
OK on the made up callsign.
The fact is that SCS modems REDUCE the power to what is just needed to
keep the link. If QRM shows up, the modem will just attempt to maintain
the needed SNR. And it is not done ONLY in the PMBO but also on the user
end. I have seen powers as low as 5 watts with a 100 watts radio.
Jose, CO2JA
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> +++more AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
>>>> then would anyone de
Dave Bernstein wrote:
>>>> AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> snip<
>
> There are physical mechanisms in radio propagation that creates
> hidden stations
I had already grown tired of all of this before.
But there is no right to rest yet if somebody wants to trick us into
silence
out of endlessly attempting to impose a senseless idea by making people
grow
tired of confronting such an absurdity once and again.
There is no worse kind of blindness
r the circumstances. This really
requires depth in the number available modes and frequencies. Pinning
all your communications hopes on one mode is a recipe for failure.
Things never go as planned.
The strength in emergency communications will always come from skilled
operators.
73 de Brian/K3KO
-
Tests in ARQ FAE
I just got off the air on 30 meters with N5UNB a few seconds ago. He had
called CQ on Olivia 16-500 and we had a nice QSO. About half way through
it I noticed some ALE 141A centered across our live QSO. It may be that
they could not hear the TX station, but I am sure they could
wrote:
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Brian A"
> > wrote:
>
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests
> > > that what these "wonder modes" want and or
David,
I do not have full Internet at home, just e-mail.
I have been using CHU with the CLOCK program from F6CTE, for Windows.
I am running XP now, but this is a dual boot PC. That's the reason I
am interested in using the radio to sync my PC, which is necessary to
use WSJT or
Robert Thompson wrote:
> You probably mean "Linux kernel-mode" AX.25, since JNOS runs fine on
> Linux =)
Yes, I meant EXACTLY that. Kernel AX.25 can be fooled to endless repeats
by TFPCX and an inadequate computer (say, a 286 running some terminal
ughh !!) That has been a
I guess you are using ntp via modem.
I am interested in finding a way to sync Linux to CHU, WWV or WWVB using
a soundcard and the radio time codes.
Does anyone on the list has already done that? How?
73,
Jose, CO2JA
---
David Munn wrote:
> for clock accuracy im using the ntp server
Just for curiosity. I wonder if the digital experts out there would
care to speculate how all these new "wonder modes" would perform in
the din of this contest? Would ALE work at all? Would these modes be
able to exchange the contents of 2000 contacts as the bigger RTTY
stations do in
d for really weak VHF sigs.
6 or 7 minutes to make a single QSO is excessive on HF. Reducing the
periods to 30 seconds would make QSO length more reasonable and reduce
QRM chances.
73 de Brian/K3KO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL
Not at all. It is a mode where humans must decide if a QSO is valid.
EME ops are certainly picky about this. It is meant for EME, it was not
created as "another automatic box". Of course, it has proven useful for
extreme HF DX as well, which is not as extreme as EME may prove to be
In my personal experience, JNOS first, and Linux in second place, have
been a fairly good match to the radio channel characteristics for e-mail
and web browsing over AX.25 packet radio.
How is that?
Well, JNOS has "tweaked timers", or better stated, the ability of
setting chan
I used TERMAN93 with a homebrew FSK modem and my PC in 1997 was a 386 at
25 MHz with 20 MB RAM. I had to tweak the too simple dot clock
oscillator to shift it from 14.312 MHz to the correct frequency of
14.318181MHz.
I never knew about G4BMK Multi. But My PTC-II does that and more, too
In an animals meeting someone stated that the culprit was a
"big mouth animal"
...and then the frog and the alligator began blaming each other...
.
.
.
.
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Not sure what mode "the mode" is but should it not be for
> all modes?
>
> Cas
Roger J. Buffington wrote:
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>> First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it
>> transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have
>> their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
&g
, is the new ALE FAE mode. Currently, it is a non-standard form of ALE
> and only available on Multipsk. But after you make the connection, you
> don't have to switch back and forth. I did not have good luck with the
> mode working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF.
Hi all,
I would like to add my two cents.
>Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
> free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer,
> but this is not possible unfortunatelly.
Something that is NEVER ar
CW.
No computer needed. Also when you're operating QRP you need a large
number of potential stations to work. I really pitty the portable QRP
station with a budipole antenna trying to work the small handfull of
stations he might hear on an oddball digital mode. You might just as
well leav
Rick wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> Do you see any difference between the convolutional code of Pactor and
> the Viterbi code in MFSK16 or Patrick's use of Viterbi code in his F
> versions of PSK and his FEC of DEX?
I have not studied those in detail. And I know about Viterbi DE
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> but when burning an ISO image, I am not given this option.
Seems it is OK, I did realize it quickly enough. An ISO is an already
closed bundle. So, it would take some extra work to open the ISO in a
hard drive and burn the components as separate files. Th
A disk that accepts more data.
In Nero terms, you can leave a CD "closed" (will not accept further
data) or "open".
Usually, music CD's are closed. Open disks are mainly used for data, as
music readers will get confused with such a disk.
Jose, CO2JA
-=
Andrew O
come next, instead of what a blind demodulator does.
Interleaving is vital for HF data chennels.
What else could be better? Turbo codes or low density parity codes could
be added, to get even closer to the Shannon limit. But it does not mean
that it will accept a narrowband channel. Latency will ob
Good Morning Everyone:
My name is Tim Holmes, W8TAH, Amateur Extra Class operator -- I have
been messing around with digital as long as ive been on HF and i really
enjoy it -- finding a group to play with is cool.
I do psk, rtty, sstv, and im always willing to learn new or different
things
201 - 300 of 462 matches
Mail list logo
