RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
The table in §97.305 (Authorized emission types) indicates that §97.307(f)(3) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types in the amateur bands below 28 mhz. §97.307(f)(3) says Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz. The table in §97.305 indicates that §97.307(f)(4) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types on the 10 meter band; it expands the upper limit on symbol rate to 1200 baud, but retains the maximum FSK frequency shift of 1 kHz. See http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Frank k2ncc wrote: I think the confusion I have with quality phone transmission comment is the part that says ...of the same modulation type. Hi Frank, The FCC rule about HF signal bandwidth limit related to a phone emission of the same modulation type, applies mainly to Image signals within the HF Phone/Image sub-bands. That limit DOES NOT APPLY to Data/RTTY signals in the Data/RTTY sub-bands. Beware, there are a few narrow-minded hams continuing to spread disinformation about digital bandwidth limits. What motivates them to do so? Are they trying to scare us into self-inhibiting our freedoms? Or a desire to retard the advancement of radio technology? Whatever their reason is for using the Big Lie technique, it won't work in this case, because it is too easy now for USA hams to go to the source of true facts about bandwidth limits. That source is: the FCC rules on the web. The best way to understand the FCC rules about ham radio is to read the FCC rules, footnotes, tables, orders, definitions, specifications, and FCC opinions. I acknowledge that not everyone is quite as enthusiastic about reading this exciting material as I am. So, perhaps it will help to point out the parts of the tome that are pertinent to this discussion. Turn your hymnals to Part 97 :) - The FCC rules contain a table of frequency bands in paragraph (c) of §97.305 Authorized emission types. - In that §97.305 table, one can see Standards that apply to each sub-band or segment of a ham band. These little details are the key to understanding. Some Notes apply to certain sub-bands but not others. Here are the important things to look for: - Observe that Footnote (2) can be found in the Phone/Image sub-bands but Footnote(2) cannot be found in the Data/RTTY sub-bands! - The text of this important Standard (2) is found in: §97.307 Emission standards paragraph (f) . Here is the full text of §97.307 (f) (2) - No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. The main types of non-phone emissions this bandwidth limit applies to, only in the phone/image subbands are: 1. Image content (such as video or photo) 2. FAX image (such as drawings or documents) The FCC rules define what a Phone signal is. It includes speech and some other things, such as selective calling and controlling tones. The FCC definition of the word Phone can be found in §97.3(c)(5) Definitions of terms that are used in Part 97 to indicate emission types. So, everything in the Phone/Image sub-bands that is not Phone is considered Non-Phone. On an interesting side note, did you notice... there is no bandwidth limit for most common types of AM and SSB Phone signals in the HF bands? There is a non-specific limit for angle modulated signals such as FM voice... but that is a topic for another discussion. See you on 20 meters FM simplex! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
QRV - 14108.0 USB - Original Message - From: Tony d...@optonline.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
FCC say a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly I can't see that you've got any bandwidth restriction on HF subject to each individual carrier having a maximum symbol rate of 300 baud. That in itself is a pointless restriction but it doesn't stop you having wide B/W data transmission using multiple carriers. In the UK there are no restrictions on modulation techniques or the bandwidth subject to the transmission fitting within an Amateur band. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Wed, 25/03/09, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Dave Bernstein AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Date: Wednesday, 25 March, 2009, 2:09 AM The table in §97.305 (Authorized emission types) indicates that §97.307(f)(3) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types in the amateur bands below 28 mhz. §97.307(f)(3) says Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz. The table in §97.305 indicates that §97.307(f)(4) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types on the 10 meter band; it expands the upper limit on symbol rate to 1200 baud, but retains the maximum FSK frequency shift of 1 kHz. See http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Frank k2ncc wrote: I think the confusion I have with quality phone transmission comment is the part that says ...of the same modulation type. Hi Frank, The FCC rule about HF signal bandwidth limit related to a phone emission of the same modulation type, applies mainly to Image signals within the HF Phone/Image sub-bands. That limit DOES NOT APPLY to Data/RTTY signals in the Data/RTTY sub-bands. Beware, there are a few narrow-minded hams continuing to spread disinformation about digital bandwidth limits. What motivates them to do so? Are they trying to scare us into self-inhibiting our freedoms? Or a desire to retard the advancement of radio technology? Whatever their reason is for using the Big Lie technique, it won't work in this case, because it is too easy now for USA hams to go to the source of true facts about bandwidth limits. That source is: the FCC rules on the web. The best way to understand the FCC rules about ham radio is to read the FCC rules, footnotes, tables, orders, definitions, specifications, and FCC opinions. I acknowledge that not everyone is quite as enthusiastic about reading this exciting material as I am. So, perhaps it will help to point out the parts of the tome that are pertinent to this discussion. Turn your hymnals to Part 97 :) - The FCC rules contain a table of frequency bands in paragraph (c) of §97.305 Authorized emission types. - In that §97.305 table, one can see Standards that apply to each sub-band or segment of a ham band. These little details are the key to understanding. Some Notes apply to certain sub-bands but not others. Here are the important things to look for: - Observe that Footnote (2) can be found in the Phone/Image sub-bands but Footnote(2) cannot be found in the Data/RTTY sub-bands! - The text of this important Standard (2) is found in: §97.307 Emission standards paragraph (f) . Here is the full text of §97.307 (f) (2) - No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. The main types of non-phone emissions this bandwidth limit applies to, only in the phone/image subbands are: 1. Image content (such as video or photo) 2. FAX image (such as drawings or documents) The FCC rules define what a Phone signal is. It includes speech and some other things, such as selective calling and controlling tones. The FCC definition of the word Phone can be found in §97.3(c)(5) Definitions of terms that are used in Part 97 to indicate emission types. So, everything in the Phone/Image sub-bands that is not Phone is considered Non-Phone. On an interesting side note, did you notice... there is no bandwidth limit for most
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction on HF for frequency-shift keying, though there could be debate about what mark and space mean for FSK modes with more than 2 tones; the intent, however, seems clear enough. Consuming 150 kHz of HF spectrum to convey 300 baud using something other than FSK is not precluded by §97.307(f)(3), but would we be happy if everyone started doing it? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Trevor Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules FCC say a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly I can't see that you've got any bandwidth restriction on HF subject to each individual carrier having a maximum symbol rate of 300 baud. That in itself is a pointless restriction but it doesn't stop you having wide B/W data transmission using multiple carriers. In the UK there are no restrictions on modulation techniques or the bandwidth subject to the transmission fitting within an Amateur band. 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Wed, 25/03/09, Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Dave Bernstein AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Date: Wednesday, 25 March, 2009, 2:09 AM The table in §97.305 (Authorized emission types) indicates that §97.307(f)(3) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types in the amateur bands below 28 mhz. §97.307(f)(3) says Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this Part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz. The table in §97.305 indicates that §97.307(f)(4) applies to all use of RTTY or data emission types on the 10 meter band; it expands the upper limit on symbol rate to 1200 baud, but retains the maximum FSK frequency shift of 1 kHz. See http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html #307 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Frank k2ncc wrote: I think the confusion I have with quality phone transmission comment is the part that says ...of the same modulation type. Hi Frank, The FCC rule about HF signal bandwidth limit related to a phone emission of the same modulation type, applies mainly to Image signals within the HF Phone/Image sub-bands. That limit DOES NOT APPLY to Data/RTTY signals in the Data/RTTY sub-bands. Beware, there are a few narrow-minded hams continuing to spread disinformation about digital bandwidth limits. What motivates them to do so? Are they trying to scare us into self-inhibiting our freedoms? Or a desire to retard the advancement of radio technology? Whatever their reason is for using the Big Lie technique, it won't work in this case, because it is too easy now for USA hams to go to the source of true facts about bandwidth limits. That source is: the FCC rules on the web. The best way to understand the FCC rules about ham radio is to read the FCC rules, footnotes, tables, orders, definitions, specifications, and FCC opinions. I acknowledge that not everyone is quite as enthusiastic about reading this exciting material as I am. So, perhaps it will help to point out the parts of the tome that are pertinent to this discussion. Turn your hymnals to Part 97 :) - The FCC rules contain a table of frequency bands in paragraph (c) of §97.305 Authorized emission types. - In that §97.305 table, one can see Standards that apply to each sub-band or segment of a ham band. These little details are the key to understanding. Some Notes apply to certain sub-bands but not others. Here are the important things to look for: - Observe that Footnote (2) can be found in the Phone/Image sub-bands but Footnote(2) cannot be found in the Data/RTTY sub-bands! - The text of this important Standard (2) is found in:
[digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
Usually , every week,we get at least one new member that indicates they are new to PSK. So, what advice would you give to those hams that are about to embark on the digital frontier ? Your top three things ??
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New amazing JT65-HF
I think it is a few weeks away from being released. I should make it clear it is NOT a NEW MODE, just new software that makes JT65A on HF a lot easier. Andy K3UK 2009/3/25 Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey Rochelle spar...@gmail.com: Andrew, Any news when this digital mode might be out to use? Regards Kevin, ZL1KFM. - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:56 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New amazing JT65-HF and of course the modes works well, here is my brief 80M monitoring around 0400 today Call #Times heard N9GUE 3 W7YES 7 ZS6WN 3 N9DSJ 10 Notice that South African was heard, Abdy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien k3uka...@... wrote: I was able to see JT65-HF V1.0 in action tonight. This software is so well designed that I expect it to become the app of choice for HF JT65 operators, especially new operators . It makes my Bozo's Guide to JT65A totally obsolete ! This software is by Joe W6CQZ , check for information about public releases (hopefully soon) at w6cqz.org Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
No ALC. No Linear amps. Lowercase much faster and less error-prone that uppercase. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien k3uka...@gmail.com Usually , every week,we get at least one new member that indicates they are new to PSK. So, what advice would you give to those hams that are about to embark on the digital frontier ? Your top three things ??
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
1. Start with PSK31 and transceiver turned to 14.070, USB 2. Start with DigiPan 3. Read the DigiPan Help (http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/DigiPan.pdf) if you are using VISTA ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ? Usually , every week,we get at least one new member that indicates they are new to PSK. So, what advice would you give to those hams that are about to embark on the digital frontier ? Your top three things ??
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Hello to all, Here is what I noted on my help file. In fact I found Contestia is a very good compromise (a small loss in S/N compared to Olivia with a double speed, but without small letters). However, I don't like RTTYM due to the fact that you have the same problem as in RTTY: you can swich randomly from characters to figures or reversely. That's a problem. 73 Patrick SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTESTIA AND RTTYM COMPARED TO OLIVIA * CONTESTIA is a bit less sensitive than Olivia (+1.5 dB on minimum S/N). It is a also a bit less robust (due to a smaller block size) but it is twice more rapid (with a reduce set of characters). This mode is an excellent chat mode (because sensitive and rapid). * RTTYM is a less sensitive than Olivia (+ 3 dB on minimum S/N). It is also less robust (due to a small block size and due to the RTTY problem of random shift from letters to figures or reversely, on an error) but it is almost four times more rapid (with the RTTY set of characters). This mode is interesting for very quick QSO. - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
1. Make sure you are putting out a pure signal. Don't overdrive the rig (make sure ALC is showing 0) and check the output of your soundcard on an oscilloscope. Have your software generate a sine wave and make sure it looks like one on the scope. Stairsteps, excessive FM or sawtooth/triangle-like waveforms mean your signal will probably not be decodable, and may even trash the band for others. Sometimes decreasing (or increasing) the audio volume can clean up a bad output. 2. Don't type in all caps. This slows down your transmission, makes it more prone to errors, and is just annoying. 3. There is more to HF digital operation than PSK31. Tune a little above the PSK activity and call with Hell or MFSK16. You can use the sked page to arrange experiments with new or more esoteric modes. -Joe, N8FQ On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:38:59 - Andrew O'Brien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: Usually , every week,we get at least one new member that indicates they are new to PSK. So, what advice would you give to those hams that are about to embark on the digital frontier ? Your top three things ??
[digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
Then once they get their feet wet, move on the HRD and DM780!!! Randy
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
*1. Watch my PSK videos.* I have five videos posted.. The first video show you hoe to get receiving in a few minutes. http://www.youtube.com/user/K7AGE 2. Install Digipan 3. Become radio active! Thousands have watched these videos and I receive email almost daily from guys getting on PSK. When I get on the air using PSK, in about 1 out of 4 QSOs the operator has seen my videos. I have just recently posted my 6th PSK video of me operating QRP PSK in the UK. Randy K7AGE
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Skip, The band is in great shape this evening (as of 23:30 utc) but there doesn't seem to be any Contestia / MT63 ops around. I'll be QRV on 14108.0 USB for while. Glad to help out and I'll be sure to switch between modes quickly to avoid band changes. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: kh6ty kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Hello Skip! There are too many choices, which is one reason I lurk here picking the brains of people who have evaluated a lot of them. Which of the many digital modes ends up as MARS standards must be decided by the State, Region and Service MARS directors. I have heard MT63 2000 Hz, 1000 Hz and 500 Hz (all long interleave), Olivia 32, 16 and 8 tone, and MFSK 8 and 16 (IIRC) tone -- at different center audio settings for different Service's MARS. Some months ago I heard a MARS net running AMTOR. Tonight in Michigan we were experimenting with Domino EX 11 tone. I will say that we here in Michigan Army MARS are presently using MT63 1000 at 100 Hz center, with 2000 Hz (1500 Hz center) for especially large messages or files, and for weak signal work, Olivia 32 and 16 tone at 1 KHz center frequency. It seems most of us, MARS or Amateur, don't put the harmonics of our tones outside the IF filter passband. On the other hand, modern rigs don't seem (from my waterfall) to produce much. Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT ex AAR9UT, AAR6QC (1990's) and other calls - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/25/2009 5:41:56 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Patrick, Thanks for that information. Is it safe to say that the SNR difference between Contestia and Olivia stays the same as long as the tone and bandwidth configurations are the same? Can you also tell us what the approximate peak-to-average output is for MT63? I understand it's near 10db? Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Hello to all, Here is what I noted on my help file. In fact I found Contestia is a very good compromise (a small loss in S/N compared to Olivia with a double speed, but without small letters). However, I don't like RTTYM due to the fact that you have the same problem as in RTTY: you can swich randomly from characters to figures or reversely. That's a problem. 73 Patrick SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTESTIA AND RTTYM COMPARED TO OLIVIA * CONTESTIA is a bit less sensitive than Olivia (+1.5 dB on minimum S/N). It is a also a bit less robust (due to a smaller block size) but it is twice more rapid (with a reduce set of characters). This mode is an excellent chat mode (because sensitive and rapid). * RTTYM is a less sensitive than Olivia (+ 3 dB on minimum S/N). It is also less robust (due to a small block size and due to the RTTY problem of random shift from letters to figures or reversely, on an error) but it is almost four times more rapid (with the RTTY set of characters). This mode is interesting for very quick QSO. - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
Yes, Randy... they are very good videos. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Randy Hall listk7...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Watch my PSK videos.
Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair russell_blai...@yahoo.com wrote: I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Hello Tony, Thanks for that information. Is it safe to say that the SNR difference between Contestia and Olivia stays the same as long as the tone and bandwidth configurations are the same? Yes it is always about 1.5 dB as long as the tone and bandwidth configurations are the same. Can you also tell us what the approximate peak-to-average output is for MT63? I understand it's near 10db? I measured also 10 dB (Pmean/Ppeak: 0.1 for MT63 versus Pmean/Ppeak: 0.76 for Olivia and clones as Contestia). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Patrick, Thanks for that information. Is it safe to say that the SNR difference between Contestia and Olivia stays the same as long as the tone and bandwidth configurations are the same? Can you also tell us what the approximate peak-to-average output is for MT63? I understand it's near 10db? Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Hello to all, Here is what I noted on my help file. In fact I found Contestia is a very good compromise (a small loss in S/N compared to Olivia with a double speed, but without small letters). However, I don't like RTTYM due to the fact that you have the same problem as in RTTY: you can swich randomly from characters to figures or reversely. That's a problem. 73 Patrick SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTESTIA AND RTTYM COMPARED TO OLIVIA * CONTESTIA is a bit less sensitive than Olivia (+1.5 dB on minimum S/N). It is a also a bit less robust (due to a smaller block size) but it is twice more rapid (with a reduce set of characters). This mode is an excellent chat mode (because sensitive and rapid). * RTTYM is a less sensitive than Olivia (+ 3 dB on minimum S/N). It is also less robust (due to a small block size and due to the RTTY problem of random shift from letters to figures or reversely, on an error) but it is almost four times more rapid (with the RTTY set of characters). This mode is interesting for very quick QSO. - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
Hi Andy, well I cant seem to get to work here with my TS450s, The radio works Commander, HRD, MMTTY, and a few others. I just dont know what to do next, So I need some information about what to change in the rig scrip to get to talk to the raadio. Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair russell_blair86@ yahoo.com wrote: I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tried calling CQ with Contestia 16/1000 when I first saw your e-mail post. Right now at ~ 0050Z I heard you and could only copy bits and pieces with Contestia. Switched to MFSK16 but probably not fully locked in with Multipsk which I have not used as much and more familiar with fldigi's way of teaking that mode, so tried to switch to fldigi but using new alpha software and for some reason can not get the new version to do PTT:( Can hear the signal now, but very weak (not moving the S-meter) but probably would work OK for Olivia 16/500 and maybe MFSK16 if I had HRD/DM780 up. Maybe you could try Contestia 500/16 which is about 3 dB better sensitivity. The problem with the wider Contestia is that it is not as sensitive, maybe -9 dB SNR so will not work as well with weak signals as other modes. Also, nearly impossible to tune in since you have to guesstimate where to put the cursors even though you are close to 14108 +1000 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: Skip, The band is in great shape this evening (as of 23:30 utc) but there doesn't seem to be any Contestia / MT63 ops around. I'll be QRV on 14108.0 USB for while. Glad to help out and I'll be sure to switch between modes quickly to avoid band changes. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
Andy where do you edit the port configuration (Speed=4800, Bits=N81, RTS=1 or Hi). I looked in that rig scrip and did see it anywhere ? Is there a ANI file some where? Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair russell_blair86@ yahoo.com wrote: I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Rick, Same here; copied some of your signal on both Olivia and MFSK16. Also, nearly impossible to tune in since you have to guesstimate where to put the cursors even though you are close to 14108 +1000 Hz. Seems to tolorate some off-tuning -- about +/- 150Hz or so. I should have mentioned where the signal was centered. I'll be sure to mention that next time - I usually stick with +1000Hz. Thanks for trying Rick... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Rick W mrf...@frontiernet.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Tried calling CQ with Contestia 16/1000 when I first saw your e-mail post. Right now at ~ 0050Z I heard you and could only copy bits and pieces with Contestia. Switched to MFSK16 but probably not fully locked in with Multipsk which I have not used as much and more familiar with fldigi's way of teaking that mode, so tried to switch to fldigi but using new alpha software and for some reason can not get the new version to do PTT:( Can hear the signal now, but very weak (not moving the S-meter) but probably would work OK for Olivia 16/500 and maybe MFSK16 if I had HRD/DM780 up. Maybe you could try Contestia 500/16 which is about 3 dB better sensitivity. The problem with the wider Contestia is that it is not as sensitive, maybe -9 dB SNR so will not work as well with weak signals as other modes. Also, nearly impossible to tune in since you have to guesstimate where to put the cursors even though you are close to 14108 +1000 Hz. 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: Skip, The band is in great shape this evening (as of 23:30 utc) but there doesn't seem to be any Contestia / MT63 ops around. I'll be QRV on 14108.0 USB for while. Glad to help out and I'll be sure to switch between modes quickly to avoid band changes. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave AA6YQ wrote: There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction on HF for frequency-shift keying, Hi Dave, Sorry, old friend, but you are incorrect. In the USA data/RTTY bands 160meters-10meters, the FSK rule is a shift restriction. It is not a bandwidth restriction. The attempt to equate or change the shift restriction into a bandwidth restriction was denied one year ago by FCC (May 2008). In the Digital Stone Age Petition denial FCC Order [paragraph 10] FCC said: Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands. Plain and simple: FCC has conscientiously chosen to set no specific bandwidth limit for RTTY/data or phone emissions on HF/MF bands. For those who want bandwidth limits, perhaps it is time to reconsider a new bandwidth-based spectrum managagement petition to FCC? I have been a proponent of bandwidth-based spectrum management for ham radio. I don't believe that content-based spectrum management is conducive to advancement of RF digital technology, and I don't believe it is advantageous for hams. However, The Law of Unintended Consequences often applies to FCC rulings... and the petitioner may be severely disappointed by the outcome. A good example of unintended petition results was the one that reduced our freedom by making the 40 and 80 meter RTTY/data sub-bands get smaller! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Under the present content-based rules for hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't really a specific bandwidth limit for most types of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the maximum limit of the RTTY/data subband segment... for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal (14000kHz to 14150kHz). See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the Digital Stone Age petition: http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petition.PDF FCC explained further [in paragraph 11 of the order] : We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees' operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands are reallocated. DATA SIGNAL BANDWIDTH LIMIT CHART HF/VHF/MF BandData Signal Bandwidth Limit 160 meters = 200 kHz 80 meters = 100 kHz 60 meters = 0 kHz (Data Not Authorized) 40 meters = 125 kHz 30 meters = 50 kHz 20 meters = 150 kHz 17 meters = 42 kHz 15 meters = 200 kHz 12 meters = 40 kHz 10 meters = 300 kHz 6 meters = 20 kHz 2 meters = 20 kHz 1.25 meters = 100 kHz Note1: Amateur Extra License, USA Amateur Radio Service Note2: current as of 03-2009 More information and sources: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg FCC, Subpart D--Technical Standards §97.301 Authorized frequency bands. §97.307 Emission standards. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
I have it set up to use HAMLIB and have the TS2000 chosen in the drop down list. I have that tiny diamond filled in that says PTT VIA HAMLIB COMMAND . Rig control and PTT is thus on the same comm port. What interface are you using ? Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Russell Blair russell_blai...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Andy, well I cant seem to get to work here with my TS450s, The radio works Commander, HRD, MMTTY, and a few others. I just dont know what to do next, So I need some information about what to change in the rig scrip to get to talk to the raadio. Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair russell_blair86@ yahoo.com wrote: I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O
Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
I never did any editing, I just used the file that I downloaded from the web site. Andy On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Russell Blair russell_blai...@yahoo.com wrote: Andy where do you edit the port configuration (Speed=4800, Bits=N81, RTS=1 or Hi). I looked in that rig scrip and did see it anywhere ? Is there a ANI file some where? Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair russell_blair86@ yahoo.com wrote: I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is using Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s using Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the rig file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout on connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. Thanks for any help Russell NC5O
[digitalradio] Re: Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: I never did any editing, I just used the file that I downloaded from the web site. Andy I get confused about the diffefrence , in FLDIGI, between CAT control and HAMLIB. I simply used the HAMLIB and then chose a TS-2000 from the drop down list. Did you try the same and choose the 450 ? It is there in the list. Andy.
[digitalradio] Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
-Bonnie, can you explain to this bozo what the difference between a shift restriction and bandwidth restriction would be? My brain viewed them to be the same, that is that a 170Hz shift would be roughly that amount of Hz wide at the usual ham speed. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
Hi Andy, There is no simple universal relationship between the shift and the transmitted signal bandwidth, because there are so many factors other than shift that contribute to the bandwidth of an FSK signal: 1. Symbol rate 2. Shape of waveform 3. Symbol transition point 4. Filtering 5. Number of tone frequencies 6. Transmitter chain 7. Other factors related to modulation process 8. Noise 9. Transmitter oscillator spectral purity 10. Definition of bandwidth This is an especially complex calculation for multiple frequency FSK signals, commonly 4-ary FSK, 8-ary FSK, 16-ary FSK, 32-ary FSK etc. where the number of shift frequencies is greater than 2, or the number of carriers is greater than 1. The FCC rule says maximum frequency shift of 1 kilohertz between mark and space. But, that FCC rule was written in the old days when common ham RTTY was Frequency Shift Keyed between only 2 frequencies, technically described by mark and space. However, in modern multiple tone frequency shift techniques, with binary symbols there is no such thing as mark and space. Thus, the rule became inapplicable to the new multiple frequency shifting keying modes. When the FCC was asked to convert from shift limit to bandwidth limit, the FCC refused, and at the same time, FCC said it had chosen not to limit bandwidth because it is important for ham radio to have the freedom to innovate and develop new techniques. Thus, the mark and space shift limit became a mere footnote in history that largely does not affect most modern digital techniques used in ham radio today. If you wish to delve into the finer math points of relationship between bandwidth and shift, may I suggest reading Section 6 (starting on page 37) of this fine document: Necessary Bandwidth and Spectral Properties of Digital Modulation by David J. Cohen: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/ntia-rpt/84-168/84-168.pdf 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Andy K3UK wrote -Bonnie, can you explain to this bozo what the difference between a shift restriction and bandwidth restriction would be? My brain viewed them to be the same, that is that a 170Hz shift would be roughly that amount of Hz wide at the usual ham speed.
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave, AA6YQ wrote: Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? Hi Dave, Yes. There are certainly conditions now that would be perfectly fine for 150kHz bandwidth signals to be used at power levels that would not cause harmful interference. There is currently RF digital technology available that can enable 100kHz bandwidth signals on HF to provide many more simultaneous QSOs than our traditional mid-20th century methods are capable of. I predict that in the near future, there will be such advanced radio technologies being used more and more on the ham bands. Through cooperation, goodwill, and planning, new methods can co-exist with legacy modes. Certainly, we can take a lesson from mobile phone technology. As a cellphone RF design engineer, I witnessed significant advancements in spectrum efficiency in that field. It made possible many more users on the same frequency band or channel at the same time, than was ever thought viable when my first cellphone design went to production in 1986. Similar advancement could be forged in ham radio if we open our minds to it and encourage creative talent. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Thanks. To repeat my first question, What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Feel free to parametize as necessary. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:31 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Dave, AA6YQ wrote: Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? Hi Dave, Yes. There are certainly conditions now that would be perfectly fine for 150kHz bandwidth signals to be used at power levels that would not cause harmful interference. There is currently RF digital technology available that can enable 100kHz bandwidth signals on HF to provide many more simultaneous QSOs than our traditional mid-20th century methods are capable of. I predict that in the near future, there will be such advanced radio technologies being used more and more on the ham bands. Through cooperation, goodwill, and planning, new methods can co-exist with legacy modes. Certainly, we can take a lesson from mobile phone technology. As a cellphone RF design engineer, I witnessed significant advancements in spectrum efficiency in that field. It made possible many more users on the same frequency band or channel at the same time, than was ever thought viable when my first cellphone design went to production in 1986. Similar advancement could be forged in ham radio if we open our minds to it and encourage creative talent. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave AA6YQ wrote: What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Hi Dave, The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tony, I think I heard Contestia, but too weak to copy. Also, the frequency is pulled a lot by noise and static. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse QRV - 14108.0 USB - Original Message - From: Tony d...@optonline.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Re The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. That's why I suggested that you freely parametize. Please identify the significant factors, represent each with a variable, and state the bandwidth in terms of those variables as well as the maximum shift and symbol rate. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:27 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules Dave AA6YQ wrote: What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Hi Dave, The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. Bonnie KQ6XA
