Hi Skip,
Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I
am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells,
WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere
with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS
that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia?
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM
Hi Warren,
I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and
posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed
frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is
sent (in the "seared" middle part). I have not combined that on one
uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily
compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16.
I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same
signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping,
as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique
characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I
could find.
Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison
examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide
modes.
Thanks in advance,
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the
FCC believed
you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to
reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will
probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let
the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the
bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not
used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the
band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is
as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.
Look at the spectral comparison
http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am
sending data by MFSK16 (the letters "N"), and you can see that the
frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not
FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the
same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being
transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the
data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This
definitely implies ROS is FHSS.
If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the
FCC to allow it.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i
think you
are not trying help.
De:
KH6TY
<kh...@comcast. net>
Para:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado:
vie,26
febrero, 2010 14:36
Asunto: Re:
[digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
> jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
> I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue
saying stupid things in this group.
Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!
Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS
really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.
This picture does not lie: http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG
Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF.
I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be
an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.
73, Skip KH6TY SK
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other
different is
what ROS is.
If recommend you waste your time in doing something
by Ham
Radio, instead of criticism ROS.
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you
continue
saying stupid things in this group.
De:
KH6TY <kh...@comcast.
net>
Para:
digitalradio@
yahoogroups. com
Enviado:
vie,26
febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto:
Re:
[digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
> If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically
become
spread-spectrum?
Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question.
The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL
met (from the ROS documentation) :
1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum
bandwidth necessary to send the information.
2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often
called a code signal, which is independent of the data.
3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is
accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a
synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the
information.
Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code
modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they
do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all
the conditions outlined above.
Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.
comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG,
it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is.
Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS
only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data
segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS
is so wide.
BTW, this same issue came up during the "regulation by bandwidth"
debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to
allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument
that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do
not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a
multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can
ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31.
The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of
one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same
space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by
both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a
crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home
relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC
must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has
already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and
the strongest try to take over the frequencies.
upper
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
