Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
Not exactly. You must add the upper and lower keying sidebands spacing to the upper and lower tones to get an aproximate idea of the occupied bandwidth. The sidebands lie at half the signalling speed around the carriers, and the keying harmonics, whose level and width depends on the modulation index, which is quite large with 1 kHz shift. The Carson Rule gives an approximate answer. The exact answer could be found by Fourier analysis. A simple way to get an answer may be using PSpice or LTSpice, for those willing to use a simulation package. The simplistic answer is at least 1300 Hz: 150 + 1000 + 150, disregarding higher order sidebands. With such a large shift to keying rate, the occupied bandwidth will be larger than the simplistic, on the fky answer. Maybe some people won't bother with Fourier analysis, Bessel coefficients, simulation software or even simple math and just mimic it with MixW and a loopback to some PC based spectrum analyzer. I would use Spectran. Spectrum Lab should be OK too. The carriers should be as high as possible to avoid the lower sideband spectrum foldover. For those that would like to give it a try with a radio, I would use a SDR and not a transceiver with an IF crystal filter to find a true answer. Beware of nonlinearities that might broaden the signal. It would be interesting to read about some practical replies to that question. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Dave Bernstein wrote: In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum magnitudes, then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be identical that of binary (2-tone) FSK with a shift whose value is difference in frequency between the highest and lowest tones in the ensemble? VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
[digitalradio] Factual information on SCAMP
I don't think anyone was more of a promoter of SCAMP, and certainly supporting the FCC rules of not intentionally interfering with others, than I was. I found the protocol to be brilliant and it worked extremely well with good signals, especially close to the MUF as we expected it would since it used the RDFT protocol which at the time won a major award for technical prowess. It also did not work much below +8 or so dB SNR as we expected, since this was well known from its main use as a protocol for SSTV. Reducing the baud rate from 122 might have helped, but instead, the organization completely abandoned everyone and shut down the discussion group and the software was designed for self destruction, so others could not do any further development or more likely, could not use it for other high speed amateur radio purposes. Almost no one cared, so it does suggest to me that the main purpose of these technologies will continue to be RF e-mail. And it, forever (I had thought anyway) ended the absurd claim that it was technically too difficult to design a detection system that could respond to all modes and modulations. The fact is that it just plain worked. Anyone who claims otherwise has either never actually used it, or more likely has some kind of agenda. As Bill, WD8ARZ points out, this system, and for that matter, any other system that has detection of a busy frequency, would of course not operate if the frequency was busy. In fact, it would not operate if there was a steady carrier caused by a birdie or other spur from perhaps your own computer, HI. I pointed this out to the group at the time and this could have been easily adjusted for by having a timer that ignored steady carriers after x time period. One thing that it did not do was cause the throughput to drop back once it was operating. Once SCAMP had the frequency, it ignored further signals. After all, if the frequency is not in use and you begin transmitting, the frequency is now your frequency until you decide to quit operating. All unintentional or even intentional interference would do would be to require a longer time to get the message through or in extreme cases time out the ARQ sequence. SCAMP also had a variable setting to manually adjust the trigger point at when it would consider something to be a bona fide signal that could be interfered with. If you set it too high, it could false from just background noise, so it did require human intervention to tweak it. No system is perfect (just like imperfect human operators) but would likely work better than many humans since it does not involve the emotional component of humans. The administrator at Winlink 2000 does not support busy frequency detection of their existing system and has publicly stated this with the rationale that malicious operators would shut down their e-mail system. It does seem a bit difficult to believe that there are that many individuals spending their time interfering in this manner. 73, Rick, KV9U HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) WD8ARZ wrote: Hello Dave, I was there during those scamp beta testing adventures too . and I remember that part of the evaluation. Various levels were played with, akin to a sensitivity level. Bottom line to me was that when the level made it 'work' ie, not transmit when the frequency was 'active', throughput dropped way back Remember those that would intentionally put 'activity' on the frequency to kick in the transmit control system so we had zero activity with scamp No cynicism involved at all, just the real world. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ (Grateful for those who are doing for all of us what they do, giving us what we have today hi) - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules re The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled. I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic when he agreed to give it a shot, and thrilled by the effectiveness demonstrated during the SCAMP beta; even Rick was surprised by the results. When SCAMP disappeared and WinLink failed to upgrade its PMBOs with the SCAMP busy frequency detector, cynicism returned. Many concluded that the WinLink organization simply prefers to keep its PMBO frequencies clear by QRMing trespassers, rather than having to wait for the frequency to become available. snip snip 73, Dave, AA6YQ Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Although Easypal is currently the primary digital SSTV program , it also can be used to transmit any kind of data. A very experienced digital ham took me to task a while back for making this claim since he understood it to always compress data with a lossy characteristic and could not be used for something that could not tolerate any loss. Of course he did not realize that the program provides for both kinds of data. The current digital SSTV programs moved hams (almost overnight) from RDFT to what must be DRM QAM and seems to be the most successful scheme for the minimum speed needed for a reasonable time in transmitting images of the size and resolution that has become common. In fact, as I was writing this, the SSTV group on 7.173, which is very active here in the U.S., was sending a text message in the past minute or so, discussing the coming April Fool's computer virus. Ironically, they are probably operating illegally since text data is not legal to send on the phone/image portions of the bands. But then again maybe it can be called a Fax transmission? If that is true though, then why could not any other multitone digital mode be considered fax? Why not a two tone mode? Why not a single tone mode? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: - As an aside, if you really want to see something that is slick, give Easy Pal a shot for sending text. Also ultra high resolution pictures with no scan lines that occupy 20KB of data on each end. 90 seconds to send or receive, with the ability to only request the individual blocks that weren't received properly to be sent again. We are also utilizing it in MARS. As I said, I am still optimistic, David KD4NUE David, I am interested to learn of this. Rick , myself , and several others in this group played around with EasyPal a year or so ago, we also thought it had interesting uses for file transfers. How it are MARS folks accepting EasyPal? Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast. All the other functions of the BSR and FIX apply to the text function. If you were tasked with sending the participants of a net a rather intricate set of instructions, taskings, or specifications, and had to be sure each member had received it properly, you could spend a major part of an hour with requests for fills or repetitions, words phonetically, groups, or numbers. With easypal, you get what you get on the original transmission, and you send the BSR (Bad Segment Request) and the sending station sends the FIX file containing only those segments. Each member receives benefit of any bad block that they missed in a FIX file sent to another member, since it is a broadcast (non-connected) protocol. If you were involved in dial-up file transfer in the 80s, when text files were captured you will remember that it took as much time to capture a space as it did a letter. Transfer protocols were created the compressed ASCII on the fly to improve through put, I seem to remember J-modem, I-modem, y-modem and others that had the compression routines built in. I remember using a shell on ProComm Plus to allow choosing up to 14 different transfer protocols, dependent on the type of file you were transferring. I had at least 9 options available on the BBS I ran from the late 80s to the mid 90s. If Easypal can send a perfect high resolution picture in a 20K Wave file, you can imagine how small a 2 page document would be when converted to binary, data digitized into a wave file then sent in this manner to assure error-free reception. The repeater function allows the file to be sent to a central repository then retrieved individually by the members who could retrieve the file list. The program is getting very polished, and has great potential. I don't know if it is getting much exposure in all regions, but it is a valuable tool for the toolbox. As far as acceptance, MARS is a fairly diverse group of folks. Some are up in age, some are retired and homebound, some are fit and ready for deployment at the drop of a hat. Since there are requirements for continued membership, participation requirements, reporting requirements, requirements for pulling NCS and ANCS, requirements for NIMS compliance, now the requirement for a General or higher license Then you can see that the members have to meet certain obligations and benchmarks to continue to be a member. With this in mind, the program has some fairly receptive members, who wanted to go further in their service in, and understanding of the art of communications.. Most of them are quite willing to try something new. We haven't spent the degree of time on Easypal as we have with MT-63. But with each region having up to 10 one hour long nets scheduled each day, and each net has the requirement for some sort of training, and many members are uniquely qualified in one aspect of the training or another, it becomes fairly easy to see how a new mode can be introduced, explained, setup and operation help given, and results seen within the course of an hour and in an interactive manner in a disciplined net structure. Is MARS the silver bullet? Hardly. It has it's growing pains as much as any organization. In Amateur Radio, if there is a community that has 3 Amateur Radio operators, there will be 4 opinions on every subject and pretty soon there will be the need for 5 repeaters to be established so they can communicate with their group. We all can key the Mic, but many times, as communicators we show that we can send out a signal, but actual communication is not often what results. The organized format of MARS, the requirements, continuous training, forward looking (not driving the car by only looking through the rear-view mirror), the disciplined net structure. All of these things help form a group that is dedicated to the art of emergency communications. Once that subset is created, most of the QRM is left behind, and they can concentrate on the task at hand. Overall, I am usually fairly happy to be associated with MARS. BTW, the General class or higher requirement was recently introduced, with the main purpose to allow interoperability with ARES, RACES and other Amateur radio groups. So we would sure like to see some organized effort for both groups to start working together. As usual, far more of an answer than you requested, but maybe some extra content slipped in that makes the big picture more visible. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:01 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
RE: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way.
Dave, It is a good start, but I am afraid the lines were drawn long ago, and the opponents are so emotionally involved that nothing would appease them. I would really expect the only thing that will satisfy would be the total abandonment from the amateur bands and 100% move to NTIA spectrum. All the restrictions that were in place so the software could be freely given to Amateur Radio operators to alllow them to better meet their emergency service obligations required to justify the spectrum they enjoy could be removed, and the Winlink Transport Layer could be allowed to operate flat out and no longer be impeded to meet the Amateur Radio requirements. It is looking ore and more like a win win situation. The end result, less Pactor on Amateur Bands, and far less need for amateur radio operators to assist served agencies in any kind of emergency, unless it is meals on wheels, or another support NGO that only services the emergency responders. I have tried many times in softer ways to hint at this dynamic in the past. Only the future will reveal the outcome. It would be a real shame to see the WINMOR protocol be releases and be a cost-efficient for any amateur operator to send data in the form of choice for those whom they serve in emergency, only to see that the Transport Layer had been taken away from Amateur Radio so it could be fully developed for the served agencies. As you know, you see less and less need for folks who make wood-spoked wheels for wagons, since rubber and steel became the norm for enclosing circular mobility enhancers. Contrary to the opinion many have on my comments, I am basically a voice guy. My involvement in digital modes is secondary, as I know that there is nothing to send until the intel can be gathered to send it,. Also the digital infrastructure has to be put in place in any disaster. The first 48 to 96 hours is usually a knuckle-graggers domain. By Knuckle-Dragger, I refer to what the voice guys are consider to be by the digital guys. I am a knuckle-dragger, who knows the importance of digital, and when it will come into play and what it is capable of. Are there any digital guys or gals out there that know the similar importance of the voice operations. This is were co-operation and interoperability are born. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:18 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way. It is true that the long history of WinLink PMBOs QRMing in-progress QSOs has generated more than a little frustration and anger. Some small percentage of those so affected are alleged to have stooped to similar misconduct -- intentionally QRMing WinLink transmissions in revenge. Over the years, more than one WinLink proponent has stated here that given the anti-WinLink sentiment, that busy frequency detectors should not be incorporated in PMBOs because opponents would exploit them to impede WinLink operation. We must put an end to this situation, which means installing an effective busy frequency detector in each WinLink PMBO. Might this be exploited by WinLink opponents? Possibly, but only for a short while. An automatic station is far more patient than any human QRMer, and the elimination of perceived provocation will soon remove the motivation required to spend hours intermittently QRMing a frequency. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of WD8ARZ Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] SCAMP and Cynicism? - Nope, no way. Hello Dave, I was there during those scamp beta testing adventures too . and I remember that part of the evaluation. Various levels were played with, akin to a sensitivity level. Bottom line to me was that when the level made it 'work' ie, not transmit when the frequency was 'active', throughput dropped way back Remember those that would intentionally put 'activity' on the frequency to kick in the transmit control system so we had zero activity with scamp No cynicism involved at all, just the real world. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ (Grateful for those who are doing for all of us what they do, giving us what we have today hi) - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. mailto:aa6yq%40ambersoft.com com To: digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules re The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled. I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic
[digitalradio] NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2009-09
The NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2009-09 has been published on Friday 03/27/2009 at 1400 UTC, valid UTC Saturday 03/28/2009 through 2359 UTC Friday 04/03/2009 at http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm . 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@arrl.net NZ4O Daily Solar Space Weather Geomagnetic Data Archive: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast Archive: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm NZ4O 160 Meter Radio Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm NZ4O LF/MF/HF/VHF Frequency Radiowave Propagation Email Reflector: http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/spaceweather NZ4O Harmful Man Induced Climate Change (Global Warming) Refuted: http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
I understand, Jose. My question is whether the inner tones -- the ones between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones -- contribute to the bandwidth if their magnitudes are identical to those of the lowest and highest tones. Asked another way, is the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 4-tone FSK greater than the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 2-tone FSK? (where the 1 khz is the frequency difference between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones). Based on the superposition approach suggested by an earlier poster, one would suspect that the inner tones make little contribution to bandwidth unless the tones are spaced quite closely. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador ama...@... wrote: Not exactly. You must add the upper and lower keying sidebands spacing to the upper and lower tones to get an aproximate idea of the occupied bandwidth. The sidebands lie at half the signalling speed around the carriers, and the keying harmonics, whose level and width depends on the modulation index, which is quite large with 1 kHz shift. The Carson Rule gives an approximate answer. The exact answer could be found by Fourier analysis. A simple way to get an answer may be using PSpice or LTSpice, for those willing to use a simulation package. The simplistic answer is at least 1300 Hz: 150 + 1000 + 150, disregarding higher order sidebands. With such a large shift to keying rate, the occupied bandwidth will be larger than the simplistic, on the fky answer. Maybe some people won't bother with Fourier analysis, Bessel coefficients, simulation software or even simple math and just mimic it with MixW and a loopback to some PC based spectrum analyzer. I would use Spectran. Spectrum Lab should be OK too. The carriers should be as high as possible to avoid the lower sideband spectrum foldover. For those that would like to give it a try with a radio, I would use a SDR and not a transceiver with an IF crystal filter to find a true answer. Beware of nonlinearities that might broaden the signal. It would be interesting to read about some practical replies to that question. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Dave Bernstein wrote: In n-ary FSK, if all tones in the ensemble have identical maximum magnitudes, then isn't it true that the maximum bandwidth will be identical that of binary (2-tone) FSK with a shift whose value is difference in frequency between the highest and lowest tones in the ensemble? VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
[digitalradio] Re: Factual information on SCAMP
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote: snip The administrator at Winlink 2000 does not support busy frequency detection of their existing system and has publicly stated this with the rationale that malicious operators would shut down their e-mail system. It does seem a bit difficult to believe that there are that many individuals spending their time interfering in this manner. Any operator who intentionally QRMs another signal is violating the fundamental spirit of amateur radio, and likely the regulations governing amateur radio in his or her country; there is simply no excuse for this kind of behavior. Deploying a system of PMBOs that are guaranteed to QRM in-progress QSOs, and then refusing to install busy frequency detectors to eliminate this interference on the grounds that those angered by the QRM would retaliate is ridiculous. It translates to we're going to keep QRMing because if we stop, we'll be QRM'd by those we offended. This approach guarantees that the problem will not only continue, but get worse. Recent reports indicate that that the ranks of radio amateurs worldwide are increasing; my guess is that the ranks of digital mode operators are increasing disproportionately with respect to more traditional modes. Busy frequency detectors can and should be disabled during emergencies, so even if there were some unfortunate anti-Winlink QRM after busy-detectors were deployed, it would not interfere with WinLink's avowed primary mission. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
Dave Bernstein escribió: I understand, Jose. My question is whether the inner tones -- the ones between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones -- contribute to the bandwidth if their magnitudes are identical to those of the lowest and highest tones. I expect little contribution from them to occupied bandwidth. The significant ones are the extreme tones. Asked another way, is the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 4-tone FSK greater than the bandwidth of 300 baud 1 khz 2-tone FSK? (where the 1 khz is the frequency difference between the ensemble's highest and lowest tones). Based on the superposition approach suggested by an earlier poster, one would suspect that the inner tones make little contribution to bandwidth unless the tones are spaced quite closely. Without the backing of any simulations or calculations, this makes sense at first sight. 73, Jose, CO2JA VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
The FCC rules are antiquated. Sending anything other than voice or image is illegal there if you use only one sideband. However, if you use both sidebands (B7W, B8W or B9W), any content is legal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rick W To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 13:56 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS Although Easypal is currently the primary digital SSTV program , it also can be used to transmit any kind of data. A very experienced digital ham took me to task a while back for making this claim since he understood it to always compress data with a lossy characteristic and could not be used for something that could not tolerate any loss. Of course he did not realize that the program provides for both kinds of data. The current digital SSTV programs moved hams (almost overnight) from RDFT to what must be DRM QAM and seems to be the most successful scheme for the minimum speed needed for a reasonable time in transmitting images of the size and resolution that has become common. In fact, as I was writing this, the SSTV group on 7.173, which is very active here in the U.S., was sending a text message in the past minute or so, discussing the coming April Fool's computer virus. Ironically, they are probably operating illegally since text data is not legal to send on the phone/image portions of the bands. But then again maybe it can be called a Fax transmission? If that is true though, then why could not any other multitone digital mode be considered fax? Why not a two tone mode? Why not a single tone mode? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: - As an aside, if you really want to see something that is slick, give Easy Pal a shot for sending text. Also ultra high resolution pictures with no scan lines that occupy 20KB of data on each end. 90 seconds to send or receive, with the ability to only request the individual blocks that weren't received properly to be sent again. We are also utilizing it in MARS. As I said, I am still optimistic, David KD4NUE David, I am interested to learn of this. Rick , myself , and several others in this group played around with EasyPal a year or so ago, we also thought it had interesting uses for file transfers. How it are MARS folks accepting EasyPal? Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] QRV Contestia / MT63 14106.5
All, I'll be QRV on Contestia / MT63 this evening. 14106.5 USB + 1000Hz. It's 22:00 utc, March 27. Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] WSPR power levels
What is it with some of the WSPR folks these days? Looking at the WSPRnet DB recently and I see guys running 50W, 100W, 500W and even 1000W??? I thought the WS part of WSPR meant Weak Signal? Sholto K7TMG
Re: [Fwd: Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS]
Les Keppie wrote: I have forwarded your email on to Erik VK4AES for information and got this reply Hi Les, Well, that is a surprise. I made a few changes from the MARS group requests, but never hear any reply to see if it is what they want. The missing FileOK in the waterfall is still a mystery. I have seen it miss on a few occasions but the code seems OK. Well it isn't, just that I cannot see why at present. It is probably some weird interaction in the most unexpected spot. Erik Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS From: David Little dalit...@bellsouth.net Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:23:03 -0400 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast. All the other functions of the BSR and FIX apply to the text function. If you were tasked with sending the participants of a net a rather intricate set of instructions, taskings, or specifications, and had to be sure each member had received it properly, you could spend a major part of an hour with requests for fills or repetitions, words phonetically, groups, or numbers. With easypal, you get what you get on the original transmission, and you send the BSR (Bad Segment Request) and the sending station sends the FIX file containing only those segments. Each member receives benefit of any bad block that they missed in a FIX file sent to another member, since it is a broadcast (non-connected) protocol. If you were involved in dial-up file transfer in the 80s, when text files were captured you will remember that it took as much time to capture a space as it did a letter. Transfer protocols were created the compressed ASCII on the fly to improve through put, I seem to remember J-modem, I-modem, y-modem and others that had the compression routines built in. I remember using a shell on ProComm Plus to allow choosing up to 14 different transfer protocols, dependent on the type of file you were transferring. I had at least 9 options available on the BBS I ran from the late 80s to the mid 90s. If Easypal can send a perfect high resolution picture in a 20K Wave file, you can imagine how small a 2 page document would be when converted to binary, data digitized into a wave file then sent in this manner to assure error-free reception. The repeater function allows the file to be sent to a central repository then retrieved individually by the members who could retrieve the file list. The program is getting very polished, and has great potential. I don't know if it is getting much exposure in all regions, but it is a valuable tool for the toolbox. As far as acceptance, MARS is a fairly diverse group of folks. Some are up in age, some are retired and homebound, some are fit and ready for deployment at the drop of a hat. Since there are requirements for continued membership, participation requirements, reporting requirements, requirements for pulling NCS and ANCS, requirements for NIMS compliance, now the requirement for a General or higher license Then you can see that the members have to meet certain obligations and benchmarks to continue to be a member. With this in mind, the program has some fairly receptive members, who wanted to go further in their service in, and understanding of the art of communications.. Most of them are quite willing to try something new. We haven't spent the degree of time on Easypal as we have with MT-63. But with each region having up to 10 one hour long nets scheduled each day, and each net has the requirement for some sort of training, and many members are uniquely qualified in one aspect of the training or another, it becomes fairly easy to see how a new mode can be introduced, explained, setup and operation help given, and results seen within the course of an hour and in an interactive manner in a disciplined net structure. Is MARS the silver bullet? Hardly. It has it's growing pains as much as any organization. In Amateur Radio, if there is a community that has 3 Amateur Radio operators, there will be 4 opinions on every subject and pretty soon there will be the need for 5 repeaters to be established so they can communicate with their group. We all can key the Mic, but many times, as communicators we show that we can send out a signal, but actual communication is not often what results. The organized format of MARS, the requirements, continuous training, forward looking (not driving the car by only looking through the rear-view mirror), the disciplined net structure. All of these things help form a group that is dedicated to the art of emergency
[digitalradio] Re: WSPR power levels
-Yes, I find it most annoying. Andy K3UK -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher sho...@... wrote: What is it with some of the WSPR folks these days? Looking at the WSPRnet DB recently and I see guys running 50W, 100W, 500W and even 1000W??? I thought the WS part of WSPR meant Weak Signal? Sholto K7TMG
[digitalradio] Re: WSPR power levels
Many moonbounce operators are running 1.5kW transmitters with more than 10kW ERP (effective radiated power with antenna gain). In that context, Weak Signal has traditionally meant that the signal at the receive end of the QSO is at or below the noise level. It doesn't mean weak transmitter :) Bonnie KQ6XA Sholto K7TMG wrote: Looking at the WSPRnet DB recently and I see guys running 50W, 100W, 500W and even 1000W??? I thought the WS part of WSPR meant Weak Signal? Sholto
Re: [digitalradio] Re: WSPR power levels
I understand that Bonnie but I meant in context of using WSPR on HF. I have used WSPR at the mW level and been spotted all around the US, surely there's no need to be running 50 or 100W (or higher) with this mode on HF? 73 K7TMG expeditionradio wrote: Many moonbounce operators are running 1.5kW transmitters with more than 10kW ERP (effective radiated power with antenna gain). In that context, Weak Signal has traditionally meant that the signal at the receive end of the QSO is at or below the noise level. It doesn't mean weak transmitter :) Bonnie KQ6XA Sholto K7TMG wrote: Looking at the WSPRnet DB recently and I see guys running 50W, 100W, 500W and even 1000W??? I thought the WS part of WSPR meant Weak Signal? Sholto
[digitalradio] Polar Paths and Digital Modes
All, It's always interesting to see how different modes perform under adverse conditions. The polar ionosphere can be especially brutal on throughput and choosing the right mode can make all the difference. To illustrate this, I recorded a few QSO's I made this evening with JA1RZD, UA0QGG and RA0QW. All paths cut through the polar ionosphere from here in W2. The fluttery signals were easily recognizable by sight and sound. In a nutshell, JA1RZD's MFSK16 signal was near perfect copy. There was some obvious signal spreading that's typical on this path, but there were no garbled characters to speak of. That wasn't the case when I found him just a few minutes later working W9 on PSK31. Signal strength was the same but copy wasn't good. It would have been difficult to carry on a conversation as the text shows. I worked UA0QGG and RA0QW on PSK31 a few minutes later and the results were the same; difficult copy despite strong signals. A switch over to one of the MFSK modes would have improved things dramatically under those conditions. Low latitude paths (spread-F) show a similar kind of instability so this sort of thing is not just confined to the polar ionosphere. Thankfully, we have a number of modes that overcome this. BTW -- this is not to say that the PSK31 mode is no good; it is probably the best spectrum-friendly, user-friendly weak signal mode available and works just fine most of the time. It just goes to show that all modes can't do all things all the time. See text below... Tony -K2MO (JA1RZD on MFSK16) K2MO K2MO de JA1RZD JA1RZD Roger Tony. Tnx for the report. The WX here is fine and temp is 7 C. Here is my setup: Transceiver : IC-746 with IC-PW1 amp at 250 watts on PSK31 350 watts on MFSK 700 watts on RTTY Antenna: Five element tribander for 20, 15, 10 meter bands and add on rotary dipole for 40 m. Four element dual bander for 17 and 12 meter bands Software : MMVARI by JE3HHT Interface : Home brew PC : Celeron CPU 2GHz, RAM 1GB I would like to exchange QSL cards via the bureau. If you cannot use the bureau, send me your card durectly. I am OK on QRZ.com. BTU K2MO Tony de JA1RZD KN K2MO K2MO de JA1RZD JA1RZD Tnx for the Contact, Tony. I hope to see you soon on the air. Thank you very much for the QSO. Best 73 and Sayonara from Tokyo Japan. K2MO Tony de JA1RZD sk CQ CQ CQ CQ DX DE JA1RZD JA1RZD JA1RZD Q CQ CQ CQ DX DE JA1RZD JA1RZD JA1RZD CQ CQ CQ CQ DX DE JA1RZD JA1RZD JA1RZD Pse kkk (JA1RZD on PSK31) DX DE JA1RZD JyyRZD JA1RrtD CQ rCQ CQ a a D. JA1RZD fn yRZD JAs RZD CQ Ct CQ Cm 1X DE JA1CD JA1R= - JA1kZD Pseepkk anr n e kRe ea ti e -Vet: pis o o e = v,gnoto mi_ e.ee)nee…ht QR} zRZ QRZ7e J €RZa 1Rtel JeÉRZk k N W9NCQ de JA1RZD JA1R dD‰ Good a ternoon ‘a. lhank yqu ve msch fo your seply. Yout sigdl R-Q ns E49 u4949. Mame is ben Ken KeeKen. My QTH is Nisö Tok o City, Nisé Toky ity, Nishi ToFyo City, ×t 2) km west of central Tokyo. G etd Lonator is PM95sr wae9tesr BTU WVNCW de JA1ROV KNÄti eÏŽhe e on n Ae W9NCQ W9rQ de JA1OCD JA1RZD OK Roger. T for the report. r My age is C9 and I have three nailiren and one grandstn. I obtained mA -i ee license in 1964 an=p eavebne enj ctng DXing and chatte' I lso have FExtretnl9s lice e , N1s G. ethe WD hetbif clo dy now anddeeep is 7 i outs ae. herry nsomsare now vb bu 7 is rathD asld over ome last few t aysi Eo we e an enjod cherry blossoms longer than ordinary geth. Here is eetup: Transs iver : IC-74a with IC-PW1 am Eon 50 watts on PSK31 watts on MFSK iZg0 watts on RTTY Antenoe: e F f element tribander for 20, 5, 10 m= r bands ane add on rota=Edipol not *0 m. oKeure en ten al ‡nder for 17 ans Gleleter bands o seeeãhe t MA n JE3Ht _ (UA0QGG PSK31) ICQ CQ CQ DE UA0QGG U 0QGG UA0QGG CQ pse K CQ CQ DE UA0QGGþA0QpG UA0QGG CQ CQ CQDE UA0QGG UA0Q UA0QpG CQ e pse K iseenow ™m . KMO de UAgQGG Aood eveningDR Tony RSQ 5es9 599 et N E Vas¶y erasily,(1es56/ie2) QTH Yakutsk Yakut ek ,NE AI Russia LOC PPM2QA PP42QA Last QSO 09.10.m008 20M BPSK31 HW? K2MO de UA0QGG pek ehI sv vh natof o ...K2mO Tony de UA0QGG UA0QGG ...TNX FOR FB QSO BPSK31 ...+SL VIA BUREAU OR DIRECA 100URE ...ALL TttE BEST! WISHYOU GhOD LreCK! ...My RigÓIC-756PRO3 60w,Ant:2el Qu(15et 0m) K2MO de UA0QGG kn. r in ees* no e o eeert tat (RW0QW PSK31) ae e a tots wtA f0QW CQ CQ CQ Do nA0oiW RA0QW CA0QW CQ use J K2yO K2MO t e RA0toQ. xood eveoing DR OM SQ 599 599 , NAME: lentin -alentin (model c950y) m TH ot Peryungri Neta ungri , LO i : PO26 PO26HP RDA G YA-03Y -ae3 HW? K2M’d RAaeQW pse¸ o de t te e e.et t eeR g t K2y= % 0 L X eaOR A F JS’dr MM, CU´AND BeoST eiE K yte de RA0QW BYEte 7eo SK
Re: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS
MessageDavid, I didn't see what MARS program you're affiliated with. Interesting read. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79 - Original Message - From: David Little To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:23 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Easypal in MARS Andy, At leas one of our members has been in touch with the developer and made requests to simplify the cut and paste options of the text transfer. There have been numerous updates, and the text transfer has been updated to make it more adaptable for use to insert blocks of text for broadcast.
