Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Julian, The "other side of the coin" is that we must share frequencies (because there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum …….. All that said, I&

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Alan, Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply! Remembering what happens during a contest with overcrowding made me wonder. The problem is that, with stations operating all independently, it is difficult to determine when throughput drops to the point it is not worth the effort. I

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

KH6TY wrote: > > > Alan, > > What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same > time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone > assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? > > Will they interfere with each other, or will they co

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere wit

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

W2XJ wrote: > > > It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum > necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS > worthwhile. Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading facto

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

g4ilo wrote: > I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC & processor gain in the case of SS need to be included. So it's not as s

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Very well stated, separate questions. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "J. Moen" >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >This question of bandwidth for various m

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd ho

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Julian I apologize up front, but I do not believe you monitor the bands even the CW sections with a sdr ( wide waterfall ) display. If do did this, your monitor is defective, I am sorry! Watching 40 meter or 30 m or 20 m from a spot in the Eastern part of the Netherlands: http://websdr.e

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: W2XJ >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwi

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

gt;> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum >> >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> Why did you wait so long with contributing here? >> Ple

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules. On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, "Dave Wright" wrote: > > > > > > I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread > Spectrum here in the US. > > The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Why did you wait so long with contributing here? > Please explain. Hello Rein, I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU & IEEE references as well. It does seem to get lost in the noise at times. It does not help at all that the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

y, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ " Spread Spectrum Fundam

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread Spectrum here in the US. The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing it to FSK144 (or whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in relationsh

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

w mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com>> >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >graham787 wrote: >> So, if bits are added to the transmit wavefo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

row >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >graham787 wrote: >> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a >> function of helping to re-create an error fre

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

graham787 wrote: > So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a > function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data, > it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform > cannot be predicted by the previous sequenc

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

So the question I closed with; Where did I QSB into the noise. How could I improve. I think understanding the fundamentals will take out a lot of the hocus pocus about some systems, and if we had more open source systems, let the community mind advance the state of the art. Lester B Veenstra M

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Well I started out life as a Physicist, but had to specialize to find real work HI Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal A

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

teve, what does this really has to do with this case? I am sorry. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "Ford, Steve, WB8IMY" >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:42 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >I no

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

I normally just lurk on this list, but I wanted to jump in and make an important clarification. >Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) >Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the >FCC. >He communicates, does not ask questions Dan Hen