nciples at
one 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 o
nding
that packet not be used on 160?
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> Isn't CW a narrow digital mode?
>
> Jim
> WA0LYK
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The absence of "and we checked th
ct 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 Go
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
ast few decades
with improved technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Mel, I have always considered the presentation , in the USA, of
> amateur radio as a public service to be a smoke screen. Yes, many
> hams help when there are emergency communication needs, but I wil
I compared the ability to copy CW by simultaneously watching the print
of both Multipsk and AGND's program and was surprised how much better
the Multipsk algorithm works.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The
of it is that they are not set up for it or feel
uncomfortable with having to learn something new.
73,
Rick, KV9U
doc wrote:
> Is it your perspective that a single HF Net frequency
> combining multiple modes is preferred or a set of
> frequencies close by each using a specified mode?
,
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
ppropriate 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
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
> pictur
primarily
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
concerns me. Also, considering the
huge 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
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: De
40 for RTTY and 10.140 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, "
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
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
that we have to send
traffic via 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
>
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 then.
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 "L
are supportive of using
amateur radio as a possible alternate pathway. At this time there really
is no system that does this, but I have heard that the Winlink 2000
owners are planning to add this capability at some future time.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am intereste
ho were in positions of authority.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 February 2006 18:45, KV9U wrote:
> > With the unfolding technologies we won't be needing subbands. For the
> > older technology such as PK-232 equipment the stop gap is to keep the
> > au
ewhat more 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,
t would be very 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
T
ould be
monitoring 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 c
ateur 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 f
too, and they were spread out 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 Mo
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 s
31 station is operating and go 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
K31 is the easiest, even
with very weak signals. Of course Olivia and MFSK16 will still print on
the screen even though it is nearly impossible to discern the signal in
the waterfall. At that S/N ratio, PSK31 would not even be printing:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
> Could s
under typical 80 meter conditions based
on my past experience.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
> huge difference between MFSK and Olivia, especially on the lower
> bands.. If you want to set up a sked sor some weeknight we can
> fool around with this on 80M.. I'm good
t you 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.
>
I then took 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 t
r know of your position.
Rick, KV9U
Dr. Howard S. White wrote:
> We tried Part 15 many variations of 802.11 type solutions and they
> just do not work ... Our terrain is far too mountainous and varied for
> reliable line of sight..
>
> We cannot reliably provide communi
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
interesting to see 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
10 MHz at times? I don't think this is
some kind of image rejection problem with my Pro II.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals
> down around 3590 and 7040.
>
> Besides that wasn't the point I attempted
n use what
was once 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 wh
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 vo
ncidence that the current SSTV
frequencies 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,
ital 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 h
og or digital)/ and image 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 an
ctors 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
&g
times more efficient 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
rcuits 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
t yet really available for
sound cards as the ARQ version of PSK63 is not adaptive. Pactor type
modes come closest.
3. A casual chat mode that is still pretty good and has narrow BW.
Probably the man reason for PSK31.
73,
Rick, KV9U
obrienaj wrote:
> What if you could have only 3 digit
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 car
lly have long distance
communication either.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tim Gorman wrote:
> Is anyone else on here concerned that the ARRL bandwidth regulation
> proposal
> removes all baud rate limitations on signals in the HF bands and 2
> meters?
> The only limitation will be the bandwidth
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
te?
Since I 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 b
,
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
>
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
hat anyone 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:
>
&
.
73,
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 Digi
receiver and decode DRM? Or is it
simply mandatory that you have to take it from a low frequency IF as is
currently done?
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
> Could it be that we need to look at a compression
> protocol that would allow full-range audio to travel
> via noise-resisten
uch more robust
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 Link
They may
still 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 t
ver again in the new 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 an
d for different purposes. Before that I
was constantly having to tweak the sound card settings every time I
wanted to operate a digital mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Richard wrote:
>
> I am interested in verifying that I am not over-driving PSK31. Is
> there a simple signal conditioning i
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" <
or Pactor but it
is very challenging to do this with a sound card mode and have the kinds
of speeds that Pactor has.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kd4e wrote:
> > Even though it has been said before, based on the comment below, it
> > needs to be said again ... Winlink and Winlink 2000 and any other
>
modulation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
>
> And just how would listen to every digital mode
> known to man?
>
>
>
>
>
> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Other areas of interest:
>
> The MixW Reflector : http://groups.
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,
a is not necessarily a wide bandwidth mode. It does have
narrower BW's since it can be adapted to conditions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> The problem is not with PSK, the problem is with OLIVIA, whose users
> have incorrectly determined that because their stations use
eive was pretty much 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
sion. 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
ar 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
tection 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 ob
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 u
ested be developed. While very 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
10 db S/N), and is not useful 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
needed for pipelined ARQ modes, it
seems that it could be done.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
> My ONLY digital operation now is a weekly net of about 30 minutes
> which has been on MT63 on 40. We basically copy the NCS and list our
> traffic. Then the N
out of Katrina
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) th
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:
>
> "W
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
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
&
ators.
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 network
Hi Jason,
I am not all that impressed by Rigblaster interafaces (not always
totally isolated), it might be better to buy interfacing equipment that
directly connects to USB. Newer desktops no longer have COM ports
anymore either. I have a high end HP laptop but have to use a USB to COM
port to
tions 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
501 - 578 of 578 matches
Mail list logo
