,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
AT 02:30 Z listening on VFO 1806.5 (actual 1807.5) DEX and anything else that
shows up. Nothing heard so far.
anybody on 80 tonite?
John
VE5MU
No virus found in this incoming message
rules.
This is a vanity call for the club station of the Society of Contest
Operators and Radio Experimenters of NY.
The trustee is W2EV.
Maybe they have some kind of a STA?
73,
Rick, KV9U
W1OER was on 14.073 just now so worked him and chatted a bit. He was
calling in DEX11/FEC and I was set up for DEX11 w/o FEC. And then
realized that I was actually on FEC because I had the RS ID Detect
turned on.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
at 1800Z 20 seems to be open into the mid
the Ten
Tec product, but then you would expect it to considering the price
difference.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
Is anyone on the list using a Ten-Tec Juliter?
If so, I would be interested in its performance on sound card digital modes.
Tnx 73,
Walt/K5YFW
would not likely work many
other stations unless you were going for the really weak signals buried
in noise and next to strong signals. Then a rig with a much better
receiver would be needed such as the Ten Tec Orion or even Omni's.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
I work digital
FT9000 series and ICOM 7800.
But do you really need this kind of superior receiver? Most of us don't.
Other factors have to be factored in as well.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
As they used to say about Leica, get a K2 for backup so when one of your
rigs breaks you can use the K2
with S5 to S-9 on peaks. I
see that there are Tstorms just south of us a few hundred miles. 80
meters is also noisy too with S7 to S9 QRN.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
at 0315 Z K9NP, VE5MU, and K3GAU on 500/16 olivia
ve5mu , John
will get much more adept at knowing the mode and
maybe the speed, but sometimes you will not be able to decode something
because you have not matched the speed, mode, and even sometimes whether
it might be reversed tones.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Kevin wrote:
I am starting to get back into digital modes
to use the FEC or not. The FEC of
course cuts whatever speed you were using in half to handle the overhead.
Anyone else doing anything with DEX lately and can report on how it
performs on various bands?
73,
Rick, KV9U
difference when it comes to
that one program that we need. One person can make (and they have made)
a sea change in the digital world. Some are on this group.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
But that still doesn't preclude amateur radio operators from have a place to
store compiled
kind of digital capabilities on each end so needs
to be completely worked out in advance and practiced regularly to ensure
that operators have working equipment and how to use it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
pcooke2002 wrote:
I am a fairly inexpeirenced ham, and wanting to experiment with
digital.
Can
can't you use a
program from the multiverse. Even converting it from one of the package
managers to another package manager that fits your Linux distribution?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
Thanks for the encouragement Frank.
For over 2 years now Gerald had been telling me that Oh yes
and high performance way, it could impact the end
users in a very positive way. But I am not sure if this will be anything
for the desktop, since it seems geared mostly for the server.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
This is just what package managers do.
There are two main package
I wasn't going to put this URL up, but it is such a clever one:
http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/
If you don't have a funny bone or two, don't take a look.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
Please check out windows Vista Ultimate at http://www.degredo.net/
You may find that you want
with DominoEX, especially with FEC, but
it has not been easy to find anyone else. Calling on DEX11 seems to not
be successful on bring up anyone on 160, even with RSID enabled.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Right now I'm copying a QSO where the stations are using Olivia
16/500 on 80M. I'm in NW Arkansas
,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
So is 1200 baud = 1200 bps and 1200 bps (1200 / 8) = 120 cps?
If so then 120 cps (120 / 6) = 20 wps X 60 sec. or 1200 WPM.
That's over 1.5 pages per minute. (Page = 72-76 characters X 60 - 66 lines
per
page.)
Walt/K5YFW
Chris Jewell wrote:
Walt DuBose
back upon
someday. And now MS is going to be at the Asian Linux Conference. What
is the world coming to:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
7. While Microsoft made a passing attempt at retrofitting security
into its early operating systems, they didn't get any money for
this. So, we should
This may be a dumb question, but is there any way to do real time
communication with WSJT, in other words, have a keyboard to keyboard
conversation?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill McLaughlin wrote:
Hi David,
Have only worked WSJT modes on vhf on usbno reason JT6M (for
example) would not work
to run most things on
13.8 VDC. I won't buy any rigs that can not run directly on this voltage.
I see some late model HT's that can not run on 13.8 VDC such as the ICOM
D-Star HT's and I won't buy that kind of equipment anymore.
73,
Rick, KV9U
James Wilson wrote:
Is there a noise free 12 volt
them on the waterfall.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote:
kd4e wrote:
Anyone familiar with NBFM Packet activity on 10M,
29,100 - 29,300MHz ?
I came upon an old Sonar VFX 680 NBFM/CW exciter
that covers 160-2M and it got me wondering why
NBFM is not included across the Ham HF
phase information of the tones.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
I was exchanging E-mails with one of the individuals who was initially
involved
in writing the MIL-STD that created multine tone modems and the use of a
single
tone with no modulation in PSK modes to track and correct
something
like +8 db S/N to function. This means it is about the same or slightly
worse than the OFDM mode used in digital SSTV programs.
Anyone else have more real world numbers?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
Here is an interesting question...
What is the user throughput in WPM or CPS (what
proposals seem like things that have either already been
invented )Activity detection), or need further explaining as to what
they have done (Digital Multimedia Above 50 MHz group with a scalable
OFDM system on 6 meters).
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Please see
value such as your 120 cps.
Seem reasonable?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
How can 1200 baud = 1320 WPM? In the case of AX.25 baud=bps since a
mark-space=one bit.
An 8 bit ASCII character with start and stop bits would be 10 bps so 1200
bps=120 CPS.
If a word is 6 characters
the portability desires, it surprises me that
we don't have a number of products like that.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Rick,
A friend found an old P-II or maybe it was a P-III laptop with a bad
screen and keyboard at a swapfest for $100 and it really did work. Had
the idea of the product being sent, rather than any money, which
is often syphoned off by corrupt regimes.
The one problem with this particular laptop is that it would be too
underpowered for amateur digital programs. Of course it would be OK as a
modest terminal.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Per wrote
be slow. Compared to what they have now, it is quite an
improvement.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Maybe I am blind, but dont see the internet connectivity. My understanding
is they are wireless. The plan, as I read it earlier, is to make them by
the millions, and have private
competition for new kind of sound
card data. Did I just miss it? I did a search for anything with digital
in the name and did not find much.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Walt DuBose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone tell me about FNPSK
available.
73,
Rick, KV9U
, they are also fairly small and to me it is
impractical compared to a computer screen.
As Bob says, the decoding is very good for the ICOM, but once you push
the RTTY button you are forced to use FSK.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
Andy,
In my opinion, that feature is in a gray area
to compare directly, and apparently the combination
is better.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
KV9U wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the raised cosine pulses tend to be
more efficient with power, reduce the crest factor (Pactor 2 is under
1.5), and perhaps make it easier
multitone modems, perhaps a 2 tone and an 8 tone (similar to pactor 2
and 3) and have one with R-S and one with Viterbi and see if there is
any difference on various circuits.
Does anyone have information on this already?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose_Angel Amador Fundora wrote:
We know from Pactor 2
OS.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
Yes, you need one of the proprietary MS versions of
windows. Windows is *not* the only OS out there --
millions of people use Apple or Linux.
When, not if, the proprietary MS windows OS goes down
and you find yourself in a non-MS windows environment
. But for starters, maybe just a simple
packet size.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
One solution suggested to me was that each tone be individually
shaped/filtered
before transmitting and then each tone have an individual brick wall filter
before it is decoded.
I believe
and with our relatively low power
levels.
DV may become popular in the VHF and higher spectrum, but even then the
price has to come way down and the current codecs are not impressive
with voice quality compared with analog FM.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack McSpadden wrote:
I am a little behind the curve
that the lower bands will get better too with more
sunspots?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Roger J. Buffington wrote:
Keep in mind that we are near or at the bottom of the 11 year sunspot
cycle. While it is possible to work anywhere during any time in the
cycle, openings will become better and far more common
and can even compete with CW.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack McSpadden wrote:
Hi Rick and thanks for helping me to understand some of the finer points of
data vs digital voice. When PSK31 first got started a few years ago, I got a
rig interface for my Kenwood 570DG I owned at the time and worked it very
and long distance.
You would think that there would be several alternative paths but I
suppose for smaller sized communities, that is not possible.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Gee Rick, you mean the whole telephone system, inclulding cells were out for
one cut? Sounds like they need
ready
for the test and did not want to take the chance of getting stale by the
time of the next VE test session. Like most things, she is probably
right about that:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
James M Punderson IV wrote:
Hi Rick,
I work as a VE for some clubs here in NJ. We just had a session last
as well as P modes?
Or is it because it has no coding such as Reed-Solomon block coding or
Viterbi convolutional coding?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose_Angel Amador Fundora wrote:
Nino:
I have not had luck with Chip...not a single QSO so far.
On 40 meters local NVIS test it did not work.
Maybe the 300
hopeful that we can
expect an increase in digital operators.
73,
Rick, KV9U
larry allen wrote:
Hi Danny..
The problem we are having is that most of our new hams don't seem to get
on the air...
We have more hams now than ever before yet our bands are quieter than they
have ever been, since
,
threatening out existence. And you would lose the technical folks, the
young folks, and lower income folks, who would be unwilling or unable to
jump through the hoops that we used to have to jump through.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brad wrote:
Whatever next Danny? Should we be able to read punched paper
priveleges get on the CW bands, they will find other slower speed
Technicians calling CQ.
Maybe it will be like in the old days when you would often hear 5 wpm
(at most) signals on 80 and 40 meters calling CQ in what was then the
Novice portion of the bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Yes Rick, I am positive that the ARRL did exactly that. They published the
results, and made written statements in QST that they would fight for a
continuation of the standing rules at the IARU/ITU level, then turned right
around an voted with the rest of them
some interest in APRS, even some packet
clusters for DXers, but emergency use would seem to be the main
compelling interest and even there it is a very small subset of hams.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Harv Nelson wrote:
my view is that, while we were screwing around trying to make an HF
packet
companies with their own fiber, you might be able to access
another ISP if you have a bridge such as Winlink 2000. But I would not
build my emergency communications system based on that and would want to
focus on what amateur radio has to offer and that is RF.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill McLaughlin
as they can help. Cavities may not be the right size
though.
Ten meters is the only HF band that can legally operate 1200 baud packet
but it is rarely used. There were some 6 meter packet links used in our
state but I am not sure if they are still in operation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
Do you
this waveform could go down to? And
what is the thruput?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick,
No.
The only similarity between PACTOR would be PACTOR I and that would
be that both are FSK, actually 2FSK vs. 8FSK and that is about it.
The similarities between ALE, particularly DBM ARQ
it the frequency, mode,
etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Phelps wrote:
KU4A
Yes I have the new Signalink USB,and found it pretty easy to setup and get
working.I was used to another interface that used my computer's soundcard.
The signalink's built in sound card is low noise
gone from one
extreme to another with no balanced approach that I think is needed so
we have access to the best of both worlds.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Milburn wrote:
Hi Rick..
You understand it exactly right. There are a few HF
users, but most of the product of our efforts are VHF
stations
Well, the internet was reality and there was no way to stop it. The only
way that radio amateurs could have prevented the linking to the internet
would have been to making it illegal and I don't think many would
support you on that.
Radio by itself has a benefit. Primarily an emergency
this be useful in areas where many do
not have internet access?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
KV9U wrote:
E-mail is tremendously more useful than the hierarchical packet
system because it works not just for hams, but for anyone with
e-mail, which is ubiquitous in countries
. This really should be detailed on the ARRL web site along with
the many other digital specs, don't you think?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Andy,
A system that implemented the ALE Data Block Message (DBM) ARQ
protocol using the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) which at a raw 125
baud
was it the primary purpose of the HF part of packet to
forward to the VHF BBS's or were (are) there stations who get this
directly off of the HF connection?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Milburn wrote:
I think so, but probably none of the ones I am
involved with unless there are prior arrangements. I
it is not the vendors
who write the drivers as the Linux developers sometimes have reverse
engineered them if they really want a particular device to work with
their OS. Probably true with other OS's.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
It's not anti-competitive, and it's not sponsored or driven
than
an ARQ mode.
Since any modulation scheme you can do in a discrete box should be able
to be done with computer DSP/soundcards why is there such a discrepancy?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
I am afraid it is as Rein says.
FBB, which uses B1F compression (hope I remember right) does
?
On a separate note, how feasible is it to incorporate L-Z/Huffman
combined compression in any data mode, including keyboard mode?
73,
Rick, KV9U
N2QZ wrote:
B2F compression is a misnomer. B2F is the message structure and
message exchange proposal protocol used for email messages in Winlink
2000
this with
the rest of us.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Simon Brown wrote:
I bang my head against a large lump of concrete while supporting /
developing for all of 'Windows / VMS / OS400 / Linux / UNIX (6 flavours)'
for my company, I am *not* going to do it for a hobby! (I sometimes doubt my
sanity in programming as I
development
on *NIX OS's and that includes amateur radio programs too.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Peter G. Viscarola wrote:
Windows preeminence on the desktop has nothing to do with the operating
system itself, or it's cost 20 years back. Windows command of the
desktop stems directly from Microsoft's
in
readibility, then you would not have any problems using the lower
quality fonts.
For detailed information, see:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html
73,
Rick, KV9U
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main criticism
this still
work reasonably well with a throughput faster than most can keyboard?
And by using the B2F compression, and doubling the throughput, get
further enhancements?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
Unfortunately this won't work. BZ2 compression is based on 'redundancy' in a
message
in recent days are doing that right now and I think
we can see that this will increase the movement toward FOSS.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
The efforts I am seeing might indicate that we are attempting to bite a
bit too large
On one side, the reports that Q15X25 works better at 2300
, etc.), are also the hams who are moving toward Linux
OS. It also appears that this could be drastically accelerated in the
coming years.
73,
Rick, KV9U
o. wrote:
Dear Rick;
I am trying to go into LINUX. I very well understand your idea of using a
cross platform interoperability
more throughput for more
users than one large bandwidth user at a time.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
If you looked at the PDF document of KN6KB's measurements, that is what is
showes.
The only difference between Pactor I, II and III is the throughput
(NetByte/minute
never been used for nearly a 2:1
compression for improved throughput. This could be applied to any
system, including keyboarding.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Well I can't hear a CW signal at a -5 dB SNR. Can you? But I don't think
minus teens...but that is what
.
That is the main thing, having enough turn around time so the computer
can control the PTT in a timely manner.
When I observe how fast my computer can control my ICOM rig through the
CI-V, I would have to say that it is quite fast but probably not able to
key CW.
73,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000 wrote:
I
World momentum. If UNIX had been available for $50 instead of $1000 back
20 years ago I doubt that MS would have succeeded in the marketplace.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
That is one of the reasons I dont get into Linux. I watched others,
stressed out at school, trying to get
be times of doppler, bit
smearing, multipath, etc., that would make pactor modes completely
unusable even though low baud rate modes would work quite well.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rich Mulvey wrote:
What BW/tones were you using for the Olivia comparison?
The thing about Pactor 1 is that it's adequate
a really bad design for HF and could not possibly
compete with much older TU's. And they were right. I borrowed an old
tube TU and found it so much better performing since it used both tones
with a comparator, etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Ralph Mowery wrote:
...from watching many hours of RTTY
,
what would you call them?
73.
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Probably some of our new upgraded people who have no idea that contesting is
disallowed on the WARC bands. They will find out in one of two ways: They
will give a nice letter from the FCC, or the sponsor will disallow their
entry
other software, I have
not been very interested in trying to adapt to programs that do not have
this capability.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Are you using a Rigblaster pro, plus, or plug and play ? I found this
reference, not sure if it helps.
*RIGblaster plug play Operational
,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Bob did not suggest a docking station, Sal, he suggested a second
hard drive. I have used his recommended solution with my IBM T42P
laptop, and it works extremely well; one can swap identities in the
time required to terminate Windows and reboot; the physical
, the sound card modes are going to be the best
way from a cost and operational standpoint since there continue to be
new modes created.
73,
Rick, KV9U
AD5VJ Bob wrote:
I have had an AEA 232MBX, in fact two of them, for quite some time now.
I used to use them all the time for RTTY and packet
for you.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave wrote:
Would anyone have a CW keying interface they would be willing to sell?
I'd like to be able to send CW from my PC to my IC-746 (non-Pro). I
have a RIGblaster already hooked up, but that's no good for CW. I'm
not too concerned with copying CW on the PC, just
to try PC-ALE, so I plan to download the latest version and
see if I can then make it work with my CI-V control for my ICOM rig. I
have not been able to do that with previous versions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
7L4IOU wrote:
Hi Rick and All
I will QRV (with RSID) from 1300 to 1500z (ur sunrise
with another station.
This is one time that break-in CW totally blows away other digital mode.
We really don't have any other QSK digital modes, do we?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bill Aycock wrote:
Andy- My recommendation would be 6M. We have a local net thatcovers a
radius of over 50 miles, at night
modes. I could even go to CW:)
I would like to know if there are other stations that call on 30 meters
and what frequency/modes they use.
Can anyone help with that?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mel wrote:
Hello everyone,
The posting by Paul K9PS was very interesting. I have a fascinated
interest in 30
know that often by the time a person reads this, it could be
hours later so they won't have time get to this frequency, even if we
could work.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
I have 1882 QSOs logged on 30 meters, and 253 countries and have found it an
excellent DX Band. That is two more
would
have to exceed 60+ feet to be too high on 80 meters. Double that for
160 meters and half it for 40 meters. Needless to say, many of us have
NVIS dipoles on the low bands without even trying:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote:
Follow-up -- forgot 160m antennas. While a full
if the
interpretation was what most would consider to be reasonable.
I supppose amateur radio issues can be considered by some to be of very
little value in life compared to other CFR's with their rules, but they
work exactly the same way under 47 CFR 97.
KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Steinar,
I
an opening occurs, or better yet, move up
a hundred Hz and operate with the digital mode of your choice.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
So it seems that just by suggesting a particular frequency for
calling someone has stirred up a bunch of digital modes
activity.
One thing I'll suggest
and
that will enter even a narrow 100 Hz passband when using a narrow mode
like CW.
For many of us, CW in a voice area is not a problem since we just hit
the ANF or MNF as the case may be.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
The way I read this, it was not because they were on a band plan for CW
, but I suspect that most
will be around 1000 to 1500 Hz higher than their dial frequency.
Are there any hams who find that they prefer other center frequencies
due to some reason or due to their rigs filtering requirements?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew J. O'Brien wrote:
Just to clarify my original
of digital operating is much lower than even
CW, much less phone.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about operating
digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and there is
NO force of law in them as far as I know
that can compete, I would appreciate knowing.
I have not tried this program with transmitting but perhaps others can
critique that feature. It appears to be similar to programs that inject
an audio tone to transmit.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Meuser wrote:
Speaking of keyboards and the like
It is possible that I misread Andy's suggestion, but what you wrote
below should be in agreement with what I wrote. My position is that the
frequency should be the actual frequency and not the dial frequency.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Very basic math of course, but unless
everyone
a rather large price.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
sake?!
Not I, dear sir. Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that
crash was (HI).
Here
kind of remote operation, that would allow them to continue to
operate in a similar manner to what they had been doing. But it will
likely mean a lot fewer P3 stations on the 80 meter band.
73,
Rick, KV9U
David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote:
with all the translations of the new 80m rules, i
in the past. And there is no longer a 20 wpm code test
either. So upgrading from Advanced to Extra is relatively easy today and
new Extra privileges seem pretty worthwhile now.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bert Morton wrote:
General Class ops have lost all privileges from 3600 to 3800.
Advanced Class ops have
of operators will be able to work CW in the same area instead of
being segregated as it once was where the higher classes could move to
the Novice area, but the Novices could not operate in the main CW area.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leslie Elliott wrote:
I'm pretty sure that anyone who is a technician
that does get the bulletins and there are probably
a few who use the practice.
A reasonable accomodation would have been to only allow such stations to
operate in the automatic sub bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Salomao Fresco wrote:
Hi!
Bear in mind that W1AW transmissions are scheduled!
The ARRL
station can hear.
And going to VHF or more doesn't make any difference. In fact, the
hidden transmitter effect has been a problem with packet radio for decades.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
If A and B can hear each other but can't hear C or D then if A or B transmits
experience.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Roger J. Buffington wrote:
KV9U wrote:
They also have claimed that the W1AW operator listens on each
frequency and can tweak the frequency if necessary. I am not sure if
this is true or not and it would be very difficult to do this since
they simulcast on some
to PSKmail.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
Now this is a truly exciting Web site!
http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/
Will have to contact the developer and ask about
plans for PAX 2 or other apps. I see that he is
working on APRS integration.
Is there a PAX 2 app for Linux yet?
Maybe operate SSTV or FAX on 3605 if you have an extra class license?
OK, OK just kidding.. Well, sort of just kidding:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew J. O'Brien wrote:
I assume the new regs go in to effect at midnight Eastern time, 0500 UTC DEC
15, 2006. Does anyone have a suggestion
have some spot frequencies
to call on each of the HF bands?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Skip Teller wrote:
Thanks, Bonnie, for granting us a PSK31 watering hole from 3580 to 3583. ;-)
That is large enough to accomodate ALL PSK31 users on 80m in the whole world!
In fact, if you monitored the recent
.
Sincerely,
Rick, KV9U
***I know that companies do pay MS something under $100 for the OS, but
they get a huge amount of support and other perks that they feel make it
a no brainer. That is why Linux OS has no traction with OEM's. And why
the price of some of the Linux OS loaded computers
for digital transmissions that would work when packet would be hopeless.
Thanks for the suggestion.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Alex Flinsch wrote:
On Dec 8, 2006, at 3:36 PM, KV9U wrote:
If there are any of you who do operate digital 6 meters, do you find
specific spot frequencies are common for casual
, tactical type communications that actually work without long skip
interference. But this was only possible due to the much lower cost of
developing and manufacturing equipment for these frequencies with more
recent technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
larry allen wrote:
We lost 11 meters because we were
other
purposes. Narrower modes in a similar situation have a much smaller
footprint that allows many more users over a wide bandwidth footprint.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
97.221 limits 80m automatic operation with more than 500 hz bandwidth
to 3.620-3.635; for verification, see
101 - 200 of 500 matches
Mail list logo
