> Time to put MFSK16,Hell, standard ALE, Olivia , Contestia, RTTYM,
> DominoEX , etc, in to the virtual junk-box. They can join their
> counsins from the non-virtual world...Betamax ,8 track tapes, and
> cassettes. All good applications, but no one uses 'em anymore.
>
> Andy K3UK
Between
I subscribed to linuxhams back around 1996 or so, and was very useful on
my start with linux, packet and associated stuff.
At some point I had to unsubscribe and lost that part of history.
Eventually, the list moved to Yahoo Groups.Lately there is VERY LITTLE
activity on the list. I am a subsc
Jon Maguire escribió:
> Sholto, does Multipsk support 2/250? I didn't see it in the selection
> list.
>
> 73... Jon W1MNK
No...but MixW does, from the very useful to the very useless tones/BW
combinations
Jose, CO2JA
__
Participe en Universidad 2008
Pretty confusing indeed.
As Jack says, you never know when someone will connect.
Have any of the proponents been a sysop? I guess they have not.
Software would have to be rewritten, so an incoming call rings a bell,
turns on a lamp, awakens the dogs and let'em out,
something that lets the sy
For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations.
The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when
somebody started calling on top of us.
I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be
heard: my correspondent,
me, and me and my half gallon linear. An
Seems well founded. Even when HF operation has been traditionally on
JT65A, the wider modes
(JT65B and JT65C) might prove better, in spite of being wider (ugh !!
horror, more wide modes !!...he, he)
Nevertheless, I am not sure but I believe that JT65C is not even 1 kHz
wide.
73,
Jose, CO2JA
Rick,
Every wire "under the influence" of your radiating antenna can be a
feedback pickup path.
Try to minimize currents, ferrites are your best friends. Use only
capacitors in shunt to ground
only after a choke to minimize currents.
All the homebrew equipment I have built has an RF filter
I have tried MultiPSK on packet and it is interesting, works well but
is only a terminal.
I once comented that converting MultiPSK into a full fledged packet
mailbox was too much,
considering all the other things it does well.
I have not tried, but maybe with TCP/IP it could be done...using M
in altitude is an aircraft and must be
> licensed by the country of origin while it's over international
> waters and by the country it's flying over when over land.
>
> 73,
>
> John KD6OZH
>
>
> - Original Message - *From:* Jose Amador
> <ma
I believe it falls, jurisdictionwise, in the same case as a satellite.
It must be licensed by some administration, and also, do not
violate the spectrum boundaries of others under it.
That is cleat on the satellite bands, but not so in HF, in a non
satellite activity allocated band.
Jose, CO2JA.
Vojtech Bubnik escribió:
> PSK as well as MFSK will be affected by multipath, it will create
> another type of inter symbol interference - time overlap. DominoEX
> with its incremental MFSK tries to cope with it, but there is a price
> for that. I am not convinced yet that the incremental MFSK
Real attempts on 40 meters have had the same results for me.
On 20 it works far better, almost perfect..
MT63 is robust but too slow, and "waving the carpet" leaves it dizzy.
Being too slow, even slow doppler has a too high impact on it.
Jose, CO2JA
---
Tony escribió:
> Hi Steve,
>
> > Too
Dave Bernstein escribió:
> >>> You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated
> none of them.
Who? Me? The one who has attempted to make me slip on a banana peel is
you, .
That is unnaceptable, and a waste of time.
> You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon
> whi
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> I'm very happy with my RACAL. I often take it to the mountains as a
> backpack radio with it' 2.5 meter whip. See http://sv1uy.ampr.org/~sv1uy
I will
I got mine without the battery box, so I am using it fixed with a 12 V
PSU I built..
I am very pleased with it. The last
Off list, to avoid clutter.
Well, my first setup was a Johnson Ranger and a HRO-60, heavily modified
(1972).
I built a multiband (80-40-20-15-10 m) phasing transmitter with a fixed
9 MHz IF.
Quite similar to a Hallicrafters HT-37. (1973)
I have used dipoles or verticals always, no beams.
I b
JAS-1 was the first japanese amateur radio satellite that had a
particular digital mode.
Jose, CO2JA
---
Barry Murrell wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I have acquired a Tasco Telereader TNC-24MkII Allmode terminal, with
> no software. Is there anyone in the group familiar with this unit
> that can hel
It may hold the link, but thruput goes wy down
Jose, CO2JA
Rick wrote:
> Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some
> tests that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I
> understand that some hams compared Clover products and presented the
Andy,
To me, it is a matter of being "fashionable". No matter whatever
happens, Olivia is a ROBUST mode,
and most likely, the most robust conversational mode I know. The most
robust is JT65A, but is hardly
conversational, unless you do what you suggest on a previous mail using
short phrases.
T
--- jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've been reading all the posts over the last
> > >
I think it is not the only solution needed. A wider
radio might be needed too (rules allowing, that is).
So far, I see a Software Defined Radio as the
solution.
You may, then, define the bandwidth you NEED on the
fly.
In the cell phone business, the operators see SDR as
the solution, because it
Packet COULD have been a solution, but had a
modulation format unable to do the job.
As a MultiPSK user, I think that PSK31 is inadequate,
maybe PSKFEC could perform better, but I would try
PAX.
It has some long keying delays I don't like from the
moment you press the ENTER key, but is an ARQ
--- jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been reading all the posts over the last
> several weeks about
> single tone/multi-tone, baud/bps, narrow/wide, etc.
> digital
> modes/modems. The one thing I see missing is any
> discussion of the
> actual RADIO's being used in these systems
That kind of doubt should always be the first
consideration in data transmission.
Some 9 years ago I had a request for a project that
never materialized, because the "client" wanted to
transmit several raw, uncompressed data base files to
a central office, subtituting a "floppy mail"
transfer, a
--- jhaynesatalumni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know what of Pactor I/II/III is covered
> by patents
> versus what is proprietary information, or trade
> secrets? With
> patents there is at least supposed to be full
> disclosure of how
> the thing works; and patents have a limited
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are misinterpreting what I was asking. Probably
> because I did a poor
> explanation.
>
> What I am asking, and no one seems to confirm, is
> whether or not the MIL
> or STANAG modems really are running at multi
> thousand baud rates on HF
> frequenci
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me give one incident where high through put
> would be most desirable...
>
> When hurricanes hit the Texas Gulf Coast, all but
> radio communications can be lost between
> Brownsville, Texas to Houston, Texas. The weather
> st
--- Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Can you or anyone explain why they need this high
> >speed on HF when even
> >300 baud is pushing the limit on the higher HF
> > bands?
On the contrary, it is worse on the LOWER bands.
> I think this limit only applies to protocols that do
> not
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
I believe there is no single best mode. Like in
antennas
--- Scott Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
If the system is operating linearly, it is the way it
should work
> M
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
--- 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
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greeings All,
>
> How hard is it to demodulate a 16QPSK as compaired
> to a 8QPSK signal.
Demodulation...I think it is about the same. Carrier
regeneration is a bit more complex. Decoding it is
something else, but also doable.
> A
--- Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jose, some questions,
>
> * for Pactor, why do you need a so precise timing It
> seems that you need a 1/100,000 precision or better.
> This because the RX Pactor modem follows an exact
> timing from the beginning of the QSO (after a first
> si
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jose,
>
> I re-though the question and if 20M is near the MUF,
> then there would likely be more multi-path signals
> on 40 and 80. But I suppose that you need to define
> what "near the MUF" is in terms for frequency or
> percent.
to neighbor
> contact due to the
> allowance of large antennas and 2 watts on a
> frequency close to 2
> meters. But I don't think they can use digital for
> that. A mesh network on 2.4 perhaps?
It is what is springing up around like mushrooms...
and its bandwidth makes V90 m
--- John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your are right Bill but I don't see any software
> that will keep up with that TNC in Amtor or Pactor
> ARQ mode as yet. And both modes are still very alive
> and well.
>
> John, W0JAB
Well, some 8 years ago I built a quite complex
homebrew modem w
--- Joel Kolstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of
> the need for a $300 TNC,
> I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying!
> $300 in today's money is
> nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for
> their HF rigs years ago.
I believe that r
--- Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Open source is one solution. Another is to establish
> and maintain a
> repository containing source code and all necessary
> development
> tooling; this repository should be placed in the
> hands of a trusted
> individual or group with instruct
--- Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Open source is one solution. Another is to establish
> and maintain a
> repository containing source code and all necessary
> development
> tooling; this repository should be placed in the
> hands of a trusted
> individual or group with instruct
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hola Jose,
>
> I think that Paul, K9PS attempted to do this at one
> time, but was not
> able to finish it. He has developed ARQ criteria
> that was the used to
> help develop PSKmail. I thought that MT-63 could
> handle multi-path quite
> well, but I sti
--- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jose,
>
> Are there really more multi-path signals on 40M and
> 80M than 20M?
>
> I've never looked at signals on 80/40/20 from that
> aspect.
>
> 73,
>
> Walt/K5YFW
Well, maybe "I am blaming the butler", as in mistery
novels,
--- Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Rick,
>
> TKS for info. Perhaps, next year I will see if it is
> possible to carry a synchronous ARQ mode (perhaps
> Pactor 1 forced to 100 bauds) in Multipsk, under a
> big PC XP.
>
> 73
> Patrick
I know that somebody I cannot remember
--- Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Folks,
>
> Let's cast our minds back to the days of AM
> (Advanced Modulation, for
> those who are unfamiliar with the abbreviation )
> rigs and RTTY.
>
> Now I know that simple AFSK would work - and provide
> both sidebands
> and the carrier and
--- Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this is not an antenna forum, but hoping that
> all the experience represented here can assist me.
>
> When using a dipole antenna fed with 450-ohm
> ladderline, does the length of the feedline matter?
For sure! It ALWAYS does.
> The dipole I'm goi
--- "Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't explain the image reject filter right.
> It will be an RF bandpass filter, not a "phasing"
> type image reject network. On 160 meters, it is
> fairly easy to do a bandpass filter because the
> percent bandwidth is fairl
--- "Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Related question: The softrock receiver has I and Q
> outputs
> to 2 audio inputs for image rejection. If I build a
> hardware
> image reject filter, can I get away with just using
> I, which saves
> an audio input, and halves t
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree completely, Jose.
>
> However, all these things can (and often are done)
> with other modes that
> do not run as fast. The bandwidths are no
> differerent than the wider
> sound card modes at either 500 Hz for Pactor 2 or
> closer to a voice
> ban
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still have not understood what P2 and P3 have that
> is all that special and allows them to run as fast
> as they do (not to mention they are also ARQ modes).
> If we had non ARQ modes with similar modulation, why
> would not that run at a similar rate of t
--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used to operate Amtor, Pactor I (and Clover II) a
> decade or two ago,
> when we had the old Aplink and later Winlink
> systems. But at the time I
> did not have a good idea of how deep into the noise
> these modes could
> work. Is it possible for some
Maybe most countries, but certainly not all...
Jose, CO2JA
--- Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since most, if not all Central and South American
> countries have no
> subbands, they go where they want, when they want.
> Our SSB moving down any
> bit at all, with simply cause them to
Yes, 16QAM or 8PSK, if possible. QPSK with its
sidebands would be broader than 2400 Hz.
Jose, CO2JA
--- Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the
> content. That won't help
> with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz
> bandwidth. It migh
--- Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pactor & Amtor required percise timming. I have
> tried a software program years ago without any
> success.
> The best way to run these 2 modes is with a TNC ie
> PK232
>
> Lew
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROT
I asked directly to SCS several months ago and they
charge 48 euro for the memory upgrade.
Mine is still "as it came from the factory".
73 de Jose, CO2JA
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.farallon.us/webstore/
>
> Farallon Electronics hooked me up with my memory
> upgrade with ease!
--- Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
> 8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem, only the
> algorihm used or the hardware
> processing makes the difference. One of the problem
> is the automatic
> determination of the speed. Did the old Pakrat
> determines the CW speed
--- Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to go to the geocities site but my Firefox
> browser put up a
> message saying a popup window was blocked. I'm
> guessing it is a
> geocities ad. Is there an alternate site to pick up
> Chip64/chip128?
> Thanks and 73,
> Paul
It wouldn´t harm to IGN
--- Danny Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The best target for these guys are the people who
> leave their computers up
> 24 hours a day. Unless you have some overriding
> reason to do that, its best
> to turn it off at night. Its a tempting target at
> night here, and daytime
> in Europe/
No, once and again. It is someone that has YOUR
address and is sending infected mails using your
address.
A clue can be had checking the mail headers and
looking for the ISP IP address if message
authentication is used. If it is your machine, the
headers will carry your computer's or your ISP
ad
--- Kevin der Kinderen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm geeking here, so don't say I'm wasting my time.
> I already know that. ;-)
>
> How much does the quality of the soundcard affect
> the quality of the
> transmitted (or even received) signal?
Sampling clock frequency may be critical with
--- Rick Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something to consider is that if many radio amateurs
> are using low power or
> medium power and you chose to use much higher power,
> while it may be
> possible for them to print you, you will likely not
> be able to print them
> and the QSO will no
--- Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Operating
> at my station more
> than 25 watts the RFI gets back into my computer and
> locks it up. I
> have no choice, as my antenna is indoors, can not
> put any antenna
> outside, or fear eviction. I am eight floors above
> the ground, no
> balcony so
I think it is a matter of signal cleanlinessuse
the lowest power that allows the communication, with a
clean signal.
In PSK, as well as in SSB voice, and many digital
modes with an envelope (I am not referring to constant
envelope modes as RTTY) a clean signal is a must to
conserve bandwidth.
--- Francois Rochon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ham radio is not an American radio service limited
> to the borders of the lower 48s
Certainly not
> Canadian regulation
> (I know third world countries don't count) but...
What do you know? Seems you really don´t know what you
are sayin
I had opted not to participate in this thread so far,
but it seems once again that the hidden station case
is not seen, and it is very common on HF, even DXers
know about it to their frustration
Anyone that does not hear any other station may
trigger a Winlink PMBO response. This may respond
--- John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do I understand this right that the sound card
> programs
> don't care what the freq of the tones are, just as
> long
> as the shift is right?
Not only programs, but hardware tooI built a modem
with 2000-2200 Hz tones that worked very well on
pa
For "narrow modes" like PSK31 there is no doubt...for
pactor I or II some use the fictitious "Center
Frequency", halfway between the two tones...but it is
still unclear for me how to spot wide modes like MT63
or Olivia in a "standard" way.
Would it be just "dial frequency", if the software
dete
--- Paul L Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> S! Don't tell anyone!
>
> Danny Douglas wrote:
> > Forward error correction cannot correct spelling,
> or mistyping.
Actually, FEC P R E S E R V E S mistypingsLOL,
8-)
Jose, CO2JA
__
66 matches
Mail list logo
