.
This reference is to most of 6 and 2 meters except for a small part at
the lower end of each band.
If the new ARRL proposal for changing the emission rules goes through,
the maximum BW on 6 and 2 meters will expand to 100 KHz.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Paul L Schmidt wrote:
Can you cite the regulation making
.
If Linux became more popular, it might be possible to see more PSKmail
connections that use ARQ PSK63, but I don't see that happening any time
soon. Even though very slow, it is dramatically narrower than the Pactor
modes and would cause much less interference to other hams.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL
for
operating the sound card modes and make the connection to one channel
and thus to the monoral connections at the device on the other end.
73,
Rick, KV9U
ROBERT DICKERSON wrote:
Sound card inputs are stereo, cables for interfaces are usually stated to be stereo (dont know why )
Need
takes one
brilliant programmer, who has an interest in ARQ modes to change everything.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NO Sir.The AEA is a vey old AEA Multimode Terminal Unit
that can handle PACTOR I only insofar as PACTOR is concerned.
I got mine in 1991, in California
Although it is not in the same category in terms of the necessary speed,
this is something to point in the right direction.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Kevin O'Rorke wrote:
PAX2 in Multipsk??
VK5OA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest
are reasonably fast for many typing speeds
and are often more robust than the pactor modes when conditions get
difficult.
73,
Rick, KV9U
doc wrote:
Is then the protocol that unless one specifies
Pactor II or Pactor III that one always means
Pactor I?
That would be helpful for me to know. I
register to place and read any data being
transferred between the programs. So changing parameters is slow. The
ICOM is very rapid and to a human, seems instantaneous.
Good luck and hope to see you on the bands sometime.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Hi, Rick.
I just joined this group and did a search
programming for HF ARQ sound card
modes so if anyone does this or knows anything about it, please let us
know.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I'm not debating PACTOR operations or the utility of the mode, just
wondering why they chose PACTOR as the mode for emergency
communications on HF via WL2K
having RF issues,
but that was mostly on the higher bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mel wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to have an offline discussion with someone who is using a
vertical, and if they solved RF problems into the PC soundcard on the
higher bands.
Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
Need a Digital
watering hole around 14064 actual frequency.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
There is a second Olivia Yahoo eGroup at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/olivia_mfsk .There is no heavy handed
moderator control in this eGroup, as the 1st amendment is respected. BTW
most Olivia activity
, N1MM
logger, WinDRM, Hampal, MMTY, driver for Ten Tec Pegasus rig, etc.).
73,
Rick, KV9U
lynnmonsanto wrote:
Hi all,
Any good Macintosh software for digital radio? I found a darwin port
of Xaster, but that was about it. Black Cat Software has a few things,
but MultiMode doesn't look very
to
the programmers who have built amateur radio software, whether on *nix
or MS Win OS or especially for those who have written cross platform
software.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus PA0R wrote:
This is a bit of a one-sided Micro$oft plug... depends what you want to
call 'good' software...
What
is that I tend not to value older stuff that becomes
obsolete.
Imagine how much different it would be today in taking a course in
Quantitative Analysis (Chemistry) compared to the 1960's!
KV9U
AA0OI wrote:
I have a Texas Insterment TI99-4a ( boy is that going back aways)!! or my
abacus
, KV9U
Funny thing is, here I sit in north-central PA, and I could hear both you
and the Texas station loud and clear. Followed you over to Domino, but then
had to shut down.
73!
Dave
KB3MOW
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest
generally
outperforms inverted vee dipoles at 30 feet at the apex for bands 40
meters and higher. The exception is the upper bands, particularly 6 and
10 meters which do not work that well on the vertical.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave wrote:
I know this is not an antenna forum, but hoping that all
folks suggest for these kind of condx on the lower bands as
the best choice.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Doc Corio wrote:
Thanks! I also have a vertical that works well on 40 meters and up, but my
antenna for 160 and 80 is pathetic! Was planning to put up a 135 foot dipole
fed with 100 feet of ladderline
at it with a waterfall, such as in Multipsk, it is clearly
a series of ~ 200 Hz wide modulation with perhaps 100 Hz guard band.
Anyone else notice this?
73,
Rick, KV9U
SW Wisconsin, USA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector
on the bubbler but it may be
some kind of jamming device?
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
It is the well known Cuban bubbler.
Bonnie KQ6XA
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just noticed a very unusual signal that may be frequency hopping
spread
the ALC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mel wrote:
Hello,
Operating PSK with a Cushcraft R5 and an Icom 746 on 20 metres and as
happens in the UK at this time of the year we have heavy rain which
comes very quickly.
I am aware that in this kind of weather the SWR of the R5 rises very
quickly so that when
with this burn effect and be much less effective.
It was many years later that I finally realized that this was in an
April edition of QST and that April had a significance to the article
that escaped me as a teen trying to understand all this new stuff.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew J. O'Brien wrote
,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Did you try the Generic setting in PC-ALE?
On 3/17/06, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the program on my computer, but have not figured out how to get
it to key up the ICOM Pro 2 via the CI-V port.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet
shifted basis and at no charge!
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
You might like this talk, which is available in audio and video
formats:
http://www.parc.com/cms/get_article.php?id=344
It covers Turbo, Tornado, and LDPC codes. The focus is on a FEC
mechanism for broadcast
what would happen if a developer speeded up some of the very
weak signal approaches such as WOLF:
http://www.scgroup.com/ham/wolf.html
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose Amador wrote:
Well, about what´s being done the wrong way, I think
I better pass it to the codesmiths. I am not
completely clear about
I have the program on my computer, but have not figured out how to get
it to key up the ICOM Pro 2 via the CI-V port.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I've been playing around again with PC-ALE for a few days , after a
few weeks away from it. I still need some practice with the tuning
In my operation, I run everything off the CI-V. MultiPSK works
flawlessly as does the DXLab suite all running through Commander. VOX is
not an option on ICOM rigs if you use the back panel connector and I
sure would not consider anything else.
KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio
don't use
particulary unusual modulation schemes either and 100 or 200 baud rates,
which while a bit fast for certain kinds of conditions, seems to work
better than one would expect.
So what are we doing wrong with existing sound card modes?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose Amador wrote:
Block coding
speeds.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Understand that I have used MIL-STD-188-110a and FS-1052(?) modems (modes)
when I was in the AF Reserve. I used MIL-STD-188-110a and c (I think) in
February of 1990 in US Air Force test, then in California during joint
services test
on the lower bands, but can work for higher HF bands with good conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I have played around with PAX2 for 24 hours now. Does anyone here
think it is of any real use? Patrick has designed a useful program in
terms of the mailbox, beacon, and connect mode
it may be
used for some niche purposes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
With the interest in some of PAX2's capabilities, I wonder if folks
here have forgotten about ALE? It seems to me that it offers link
abilities, message exchanges , signal information, and much more. I
still think
Walt,
What you are describing sounds very close to MT-63.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
There has been some discussion about what mode does what and what is
needed/desired.
We have had a little discussion on what the problems were during Katrina
with digital
anyone have any cases where the mode will work into the noise and
maintain a link?
73,
Rick, KV9U
SW Wisconsin
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
a bit more
KV9U DE VE5MU CAN U COPY ME
YOU HAVE 2 VE5'S ON HERE, VE5TLW, TERRY AND VE5MU JOHN
PLEASE TRY TO CONNECT TO ME USING THE CONNECT COMMAND, PUT MY CALL
Does anyone have a suggestion for a spot frequency for keyboard digital
modes?
The ARRL Band Plan calls for non-voice modes at 50.6 to 50.8. How about
50.7 for a digital calling frequency?
This would keep it off the 50.62 packet calling frequency.
73,
Rick, KV9U
N6CRR wrote:
All,
Anyone
it.
Signals were fairly good and we both were transmitting the waterfall ID
showing that we were using PAX2.
Are any of you folks having luck with at least being able to monitor and
see frames?
73,
Rick, KV9U
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
Wonder if you could put a time or a serial number in beacon
Except for a very expensive CW software reader program ($60), I have not
found a better CW reader software than Multipsk.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
MultiPSK does CW
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW
citizens to play around with as a hobby?
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
Rick,
But you can't change history. Amateur Radio was around long before
emcomms was considered an important item, and the rules and
regulations have been developed throughout the 20th century. Just
because you
the computational power
requirement to the background and pipeline it as in SCAMP. I wonder how
different this would be from the non ARQ (but later correctible) DRM
modes they use for SSTV?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose Amador wrote:
Actually, with bad S/N ratios, thruput suffers a lot.
I have been
time or another. Those who have a casual interest, will not acquire
the same knowlege and ability and the more active participants.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
As you can see from 97.1 below, there are 5 principles underlying
the amateur radio service, one of which is to provide
. JNOS2 has some potential with being able to operate
without a central server system and yet operate through both RF and wire
line paths.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing you have to do to allow PSKmail access is to open WINLINK
for POP3. By the way, PSKmail works also
operators (especially CW operators) was of national security
importance. That is no longer the case in today's world.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
I'm sorry but you need to do a little more historical research.
Amateur Radio was/is primarily authorized because of items 97.1
(b)(c)(d
the Pactor modes fail. On the other
hand, I recall SCS making the claim that it could operate much lower in
the noise than that.
Real world testing like some others have been doing with DominoEX et al
would be very helpful.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Cheapest foray in to Pactor?
IF I
that packet not be used on 160?
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
Isn't CW a narrow digital mode? grin
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The absence of and we checked the bandplan from the process you
describe
below is both glaring
and let us know if your experience parallels mine.
Maybe others will comment on their experiences.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard wrote:
Hello to all,
There is an additional piece of CW decoding software that I haven't
seen mentioned yet. It is the very fine work of AG4ND and includes DSP
software
of losing a key node in a
highly fragile VHF/UHF network. They could also do some cross banding
from HF to VHF/UHF too. I am always looking for any information from
other states that have had some luck with setting up this kind of
network but maybe there aren't any.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote
numbers of VHF only hams, and the proliferation of rigs with
multimode/VHF/UHF capabilities, how can it be that there is almost no
activities on these frequencies?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jerry W wrote:
In QST March 2006, pages 129 to 136 Icom is promoting their new
radios. The ad starts on page
uses the internet to handle traffic and connects to amateur radio via
various HF and VHF portals.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jason Hsu wrote:
There is at least one official ARRL Skipnet operation on 10.147, but
it is fair to say that few use the band for digital links other than
Winlink 2000.
What
it 100%, but it is better. I would ask that more
stations use the waterfall ID when calling CQ so that we can more easily
tell what mode you are using. This is available in Multipsk.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mel wrote:
I did ask the group if anyone knew of a site where I could see some
pictures
recommendations. This really needs to be
addressed by ARRL.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
Bob et all,
One of the issues concerns band plans. The ARRL proposed a 160 meter
bandplan a few years ago which included 1800-1810 kc for digital
modes. Just
a few nights ago W3UR
,
Rick, KV9U
Howard wrote:
Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to have regulation by bandwidth like
most of the rest of the world and not have to be concerned with
regulatory barriers to your net?
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest
multiple transfers to finally get it delivered locally seems
to me to be obsolete except in desperate emergency conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
What do you think? Would you be interested in being net control? I
can't be net control every day, because I
to fail.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jason Hsu wrote:
What makes RTTY so inappropriate for passing traffic? (I have no
experience with this mode so far. In fact, I'm currently brand new to
digital modes. So far, I've only used PSK-31.)
In addition to PSK-31, what other modes should the net use
are using.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jason Hsu wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very few current sound card modes are ARQ. My experience says that
only ARQ modes should be used for serious traffic handling.
Why should only ARQ modes be used for traffic
to 10.150 for packet. This leaves
10.100 to 10.150 for CW which normally can operate anyplace on any band
with the exception of the new 60 meter band which unfortunately
prohibits CW and digital.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brad wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL
to operate these different modes?
73,
Rick, KV9U
doc wrote:
Here is a Net I think would be both interesting to
join and valuable to multiple causes, especially
demonstrating the diverse HF resources via Amateur
Radio.
Analog-Digital Emergency Net
Goal: Demonstrate the capability
way is to have a dedicated system.
While the Live disks are OK to get a feel for the program, they are way
too slow to be practical and can be counterproductive to demonstrate to
others due to the slow operation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jerry W wrote:
Andy,
Harv's CD is a Live Linux OS a few
for other things and now it is my main program.
Say, anyone want to try out PAX2? I would like to see how this new ARQ
sound card mode works.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
I tried to listen weekly when I was overseas, 20 years ago. It was
the ONLY news on ham radio, back
their transmissions, and that they would be blocked from
using the system if they were caught, the amount of improper activity
would be greatly reduced.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Pactor is not the problem, Roger. Ops running keyboard-to-keyboard
Pactor can determine that the frequency
difficult
(not impossible, but very difficult) for anyone to even monitor the
transmission content. Since the content is not transparent to the
amateur community, unlike almost any other amateur mode, this is a root
problem that we have not come to grips with.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote
difficult to use
as a keyboard mode.
I am very much looking forward to when SCAMP might have multiple fall
back positions so that even with the worst possible conditions, you
could still get some throughput and as conditions improved the
modulation schemes would adjust accordingly.
73,
Rick, KV9U
just
above that and start calling with whatever mode de jour I happen to be
using at that time.
Comments from others?
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
Olivia is now popular for digital keyboarding.
Since Olivia has so many possible modes in it,
there is a search for a 500Hz starting
Considering all the talk about how some countries have moved or are
moving to bandwidth specified allocations on the amateur frequencies, it
seems to me that we also have to make some adjustments in the way we
view digital modes. If you have a narrow bandwidth mode (CW, PSK31,
PSK63) and then
some.
I am thankful, very thankful, for the computer based sound card modes.
Even though I used a Model 15 green key teleprinter some decades ago
with homebrew and commercial TU's, I would never want to go back.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
On Monday 20 February 2006 08:40, KV9U
radio bands.
That is a very reasonable position to take considering the available
software technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your
ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to)
listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask
just don't hear much MFSK16 anymore as most have moved to Oliva
for now.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
I'm with Bill: the standard could be 500/8 , but the difference
between 500/8 and 1000/32 under poor conditions on 80M has to be seen
to be believed.
If we confine ourselves
an Amidon rod and wrapped a few turns around it and did
notice a reduction in the problem. So I wrapped about 20 turns on the
core and the RFI appears to be completely gone.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Interesting. Anyone care to explain why RF would cause this ALC issue?
On 2/13
is an
open, transparent, self-policing service. Encryption makes that
impossible and that fact alone, should give us pause.
So the final question is, do the benefits really outweigh the
disadvantages? Either way, it may be helpful to let your Division
Director know of your position.
Rick, KV9U
to read the data like we do from most other modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
I said a fraction, not a few.
I'm assuming that only a fraction of automatic station operators
would flaunt the CW identification rule or fail to enforce the no
commercial content rule; thus it would
how many
stay with it at all or at least have some activities that they find
fulfilling.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
What is going to happen when and if the HF bands are
opened up for SSB to the no-coders ? Pick a number
for your turn on a band or just a 27Mhz free-for-all
that
technology as they could afford it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
At 09:47 PM 2/5/06, Peter Viscarola wrote:
Today, I agree that it'd be really tough to do digital voice in 3KHz.
Peter,
Please get your facts right.
I and others have been using digital voice on the HF bands for
the last 3
considered exclusive portions of the band.
Won't we still have some segregation by class though? Otherwise there
would be no incentive to upgrade.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
I think most members are not going to be all that upset with what is in
effect a shrinking of the CW exclusive
modes to improve, such as digital
data, however the new proposals do not address my biggest concern of
finally being able to intermix analog voice (and digital voice) with
both data and image. Again that does not require huge changes either.
73,
Rick, KV9U
N6CRR wrote:
. I just wonder how many
were selected to fall in the Advanced Class portions of the
bands.
No one wants to lose priveleges that they have had. This is the one
lesson that we should have all learned from the Incentive Licensing
disaster that was such an expensive lesson.
73,
Rick, KV9U
N6CRR wrote:
Rick you make
to make a change, it is
not unreasonable that they might at least replace 110 baud ASCII with a
much more robust mode such as Olivia for difficult HF conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
Anyone like to answer this one?
John, W0JAB
06:30 AM 2/2/06
First, thanks to you and Andy
on one frequency. Based
upon ARRL statements and looking at the overall plan, I am not sure if
this will be allowed under new band plans.
Rick, KV9U
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
JIm:
You have made a very good case as to why we need to experiment and
come up with new technologies
are
much wider than anything we currently have on HF. It can work on VHF, of
course, and we are seeing some movement toward that direction with
D-Star. But it does not seem to be useable on HF.
KV9U
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
I did not call the majority stupid - you did... I said
for 2400 baud vs 300 baud, do you
mean it is more robust or that the speed is that much faster?
If Chip 64 was the bandwidth of MT-63 (either 1 or 2 KHz) and could have
any baud rate, how would it compare with speed and robustness?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Nino Porcino (IZ8BLY) wrote:
while
card voice mode was not very good. I would still like to hear it though.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
Jim,
I strongly belive that *ANY* mode that does not
require a $300 to $500 TNC or other hardware will
be eaten up by the masses like PSK has.
Till a sound card program came out
condx
vs. some kind of speed that will get through really difficult conditions
such as the kind of conditions that stops Pactor signals from working,
but still allows some of the digital sound card modes to keep working
even though they are magnitudes slower under good condx.
73,
Rick, KV9U
,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Put in a software that handles all three, for instance the DXLab suite of
software contains WinWarbler that will handle all that, plus do CW and
Voice
keying. Great number of users who are very helpful in getting
newbies, and
some of us oldies straightened
think K4CJX is on this group, he should be able to explain what
was meant by his inquiry to the ARRL.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
You would think so but the proposal specifically states:
potential to test a new mode with a symbol rate of nearly 5600 baud
and a
bandwidth of 2.4khz
require analog and digital to be kept in separate areas with
bandplans. This really concerns me.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
I for one want to start experimenting with digital voice technologies
on HF... There is a lot of really cool stuff out there to try that
could give us
performance.
73,
Rick, KV9U
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
* To visit
,
Rick, KV9U
Jerry W wrote:
Rick,
One problem with 10.130 in the evening, a very strong FSK signal
(foreign government or commercial origin?) difficult to filter it out
at least in South St Paul, MN.
Jerry - K0HZI
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
says about wide HF modes that are a lot wider than
an SSB BW, there is simply no support for such modes. If DSB AM was
invented tomorrow, we all know it would never be allowed and is only
being grandfathered in because so few ever use it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
Don't fall
In the Midwest U.S. there is a active group on 7.173 that does most all
of the digital image modes.
obrienaj wrote:
I finally acquired hampal and have it loaded. I did manage to
see hampal and end in the waterfall (how they do that ? ! ) but no
picture received yet. Seems that 14233 is
higher definition format:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
SHERMON HALL, JR. wrote:
Danny
Yes you cable company will say this so will the satellite companies,
because the FCC has mandated that they must provide converter. But
this will only be for a few years and then they are to go away.
I have worked
the 5 letter (probably
a spy station sending crytographic CW code) right in the middle of the
30 meter band? Very solid copy here at times around 10.125. Logged one
at around 0300 Z.
73,
Rick, KV9U
mulveyraa2 wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
with good signals and fairly
good speeds with lessor signals due to their adaptability within their
channel space.
73,
Rick, KV9U
I don't fault anyone for wanting to make a living off
their creativity -- but when the product is OS-specific,
hardware specific, and the code hidden
. They are
perhaps not quite as useful for casual contacts and obviously not for
net type operations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
F.R. Ashley wrote:
John,
Is the reason for wanting to operate AMTOR just for the novelty of an
old mode? I could understand using it if it was possible to do it as a
sound
out of my price
range then.
Today, while I would not really care to have the equipment in my shack,
I admit that it can be interesting to look at them at collector's
shacks, or even sometimes turning the knobs at a hamfest:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
No, because I can.
When Peter
to (and sometimes even better than) CW which made it
possible to have keyboard chats even under some difficult condx.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
No not a one.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http
to
the requirements for both automatic and semi-automatic stations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
So, I am correct that the requirement to not QRM has
not been waived, that all stations that QRM are in
violation of FCC regs, and that busy freq. detection
is an obvious solution with tons of history
kind of thing to me. Perhaps others would view it
differently, but my preference would be to at least have the same
bandplans for a given continent.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
That is exactly the type of problem we have, with individual
governments arbitrairly coming up
few hams care about
building an amateur radio network, there thankfully are a few. There is
always the hope that amateur radio will not become totally irrelevant in
the coming years.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but why are we trying to use 14105 to 14110
for
weak signals or when there are difficult conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
I am concerned about the feasiblity of using FEC modes for sending
record type
traffic. This has always been a problem on RTTY, I don't see why it
would be
any better on newer sound card modes
and they did not know what to make of it. I know they are very concerned
about this.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
The ARRL folks should not be shocked at what has happened. When they
negotiate
agreements with other agencies (e.g. the American Red Cross) that prevent
amateurs from
baud rate. I did try out the faster baud rates to see how it sounds
and noticed that the speed is quite fast at the higher baud rates. It
will be interesting to see the effects of FEC in terms of throughput and
robustness.
73,
Rick, KV9U
zl1bpu wrote:
Rick KV9U wrote:
Without the FEC
it is done in MultiPSK where you move the cursors with their
preset bandwidth via the mouse.
73,
Rick, KV9U
SW Wisconsin
Jerry wrote:
I was on MixW PSK31, seen what looked like MFSK up the band, tried to
decode the signal, no go, then figured it must be DOMINOEX, by the
time I shut down MixW
them inoperative after a few
months time and I have not heard of any new SCAMP releases (yet) from
the SCAMPprotocol group.
The most recent discussions were about the DominoEX mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Scamp is wide and if your look on your waterfall, looks like a series
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Bob DeHaney wrote:
I've been following the list now for some months. I'm an OOT first
licensed
in 1960. And I am really interested in digital communication as I've
earned
my living up to now (retiring) as an EE working with networks.
My question is: Does anyone ever
could be used
with cell phone digital messaging to key personnel when cellular was
available. So there are lots of ways to do this. But some work better
than others and it depends upon the situation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Unfortunately, I think its a waste
401 - 500 of 500 matches
Mail list logo
