Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there are very few restrictions on image transmission. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone So sorry John . of course you are right . we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 . I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it could you remind me again about where that rule was located? HiHi In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out is quite untrue . Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) Thanks again
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:43 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there are very few restrictions on image transmission. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone So sorry John . of course you are right . we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 . I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it could you remind me again about where that rule was located? HiHi In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out is quite untrue . Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) Thanks again
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge
What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used. I have finally installed mutlipsk which offers this mode. I would sure like to get some hands on with ALE-400. Oh yeah, I second the motion on Feld Hell. Thanks KT. philw de ka1gmn On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Kurt Tuttle k8...@yahoo.com wrote: I would recommend FeldHell also. KT K8YZK --- On *Thu, 10/29/09, Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 7:13 PM What? No THOR?! ;-) philw de ka1gmn On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. comhttp://us.mc558.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: We have had few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID. Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31... I thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31 or RTTY to try a task this weekend. Three QSOs in three different modes. To keep is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes Olivia Feld Hell Domninoex MFSK16 MT63 If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get you started. Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can help set up.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge
If people want to use those other modes ...go for it. I did not include THOR or ALE400 because they are not common to all three software packages. Andy K3UK On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com wrote: What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used. I have finally installed mutlipsk which offers this mode. I would sure like to get some hands on with ALE-400. Oh yeah, I second the motion on Feld Hell. Thanks KT. philw de ka1gmn On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Kurt Tuttle k8...@yahoo.com wrote: I would recommend FeldHell also. KT K8YZK --- On *Thu, 10/29/09, Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 7:13 PM What? No THOR?! ;-) philw de ka1gmn On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail. comhttp://us.mc558.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: We have had few new people join this group after the QST article on RS ID. Since many of them are NEW to digital modes other than RTTY or PSK31... I thought I would challenge the people who have not ventured away from PSK31 or RTTY to try a task this weekend. Three QSOs in three different modes. To keep is focused, I suggest you choose from these 5 modes Olivia Feld Hell Domninoex MFSK16 MT63 If you have NO clue about these modes, great... just ask and we will get you started. Choose Multipsk, Fldigi, or DM780 as your software and we can help set up.
[digitalradio] Re: FLARQ outperforms WINMOR
Definitely apples to oranges, Andy. One doesn't even need to get into a discussion of speed (although I've finally tweaked things so that I reliably get ~1Kbyte/min on a 1.6KHz mode S9 connection with 1-5K payload). The most important difference is that there is no promise of FLARQ being supported by a network of hundreds of radio mail server stations. k*b*l*0*0*q --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Well, not an apples to apples test.. but Ron NY3J and I played for quite a while with FLARQ tonight on 80M and 40. 80M was was in poor shape with QRN and weak signals but we managed a few slow MFSK16 email transfers. We then switched to 40M and I received Ron about S5, he was 200 miles away. We really had NO problems transferring email and text files using PSK250. I sent one big file that averaged 800 bytes per minute . On Winmor I have not had more than 300 bytes per minute although some have reported 1000 bytes per minute. My sound card was a $1.50 USB sound adapter. After an hour or so, we tried PSK500 but were not able to get a connect perhaps the band was changing. So, while we are having fun seeing the good progress of WINMOR ... don't forget FLARQ. It is simple and it works well. My next step is to see if I can run both FLARQ and PSKMAIL at the same time. While in the shack until about 0600 UTC, I will have my FLARQ beacon beaconing every 15 minutes. I have RS ID on , so you can switch me over if you need to change modes. Drop me an email on 7083 (7082 dial, plus 1000 hz on waterfall) When it is sleep time, I will close since we do not run this unattended. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FLARQ outperforms WINMOR
Quite true, but there is a network of ARES and RACES groups slowly beginning to see that FLARQ is quite effective. When WINMOR moves to peer-to-server operations, it will be interesting to see what happens. WINMOR also has the Telnet and packet capabilities. Andy K3UK On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:55 AM, aa777888athotmaildotcom aa777...@hotmail.com wrote: Definitely apples to oranges, Andy. One doesn't even need to get into a discussion of speed (although I've finally tweaked things so that I reliably get ~1Kbyte/min on a 1.6KHz mode S9 connection with 1-5K payload). The most important difference is that there is no promise of FLARQ being supported by a network of hundreds of radio mail server stations. k*b*l*0*0*q --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Well, not an apples to apples test.. but Ron NY3J and I played for quite a while with FLARQ tonight on 80M and 40. 80M was was in poor shape with QRN and weak signals but we managed a few slow MFSK16 email transfers. We then switched to 40M and I received Ron about S5, he was 200 miles away. We really had NO problems transferring email and text files using PSK250. I sent one big file that averaged 800 bytes per minute . On Winmor I have not had more than 300 bytes per minute although some have reported 1000 bytes per minute. My sound card was a $1.50 USB sound adapter. After an hour or so, we tried PSK500 but were not able to get a connect perhaps the band was changing. So, while we are having fun seeing the good progress of WINMOR ... don't forget FLARQ. It is simple and it works well. My next step is to see if I can run both FLARQ and PSKMAIL at the same time. While in the shack until about 0600 UTC, I will have my FLARQ beacon beaconing every 15 minutes. I have RS ID on , so you can switch me over if you need to change modes. Drop me an email on 7083 (7082 dial, plus 1000 hz on waterfall) When it is sleep time, I will close since we do not run this unattended. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] FLARQ outperforms WINMOR
Andy, Thanks for the Flarq tests last night. That was really fun. I can see how useful this can be in emergency communications in addition to a program like Winmor. Winmor with its capabilities to send email through the Winlink network and NBEMS with its peer to peer capabilities to send error free digital data. I like Flarq's capability to use a simple setup like a low power radio, simple antenna and especially that $1.50 USB sound card that you were using :-) 73, Ron ny3j Andy obrien wrote: Well, not an apples to apples test.. but Ron NY3J and I played for quite a while with FLARQ tonight on 80M and 40. 80M was was in poor shape with QRN and weak signals but we managed a few slow MFSK16 email transfers. We then switched to 40M and I received Ron about S5, he was 200 miles away. We really had NO problems transferring email and text files using PSK250. I sent one big file that averaged 800 bytes per minute . On Winmor I have not had more than 300 bytes per minute although some have reported 1000 bytes per minute. My sound card was a $1.50 USB sound adapter. After an hour or so, we tried PSK500 but were not able to get a connect perhaps the band was changing. So, while we are having fun seeing the good progress of WINMOR ... don't forget FLARQ. It is simple and it works well. My next step is to see if I can run both FLARQ and PSKMAIL at the same time. While in the shack until about 0600 UTC, I will have my FLARQ beacon beaconing every 15 minutes. I have RS ID on , so you can switch me over if you need to change modes. Drop me an email on 7083 (7082 dial, plus 1000 hz on waterfall) When it is sleep time, I will close since we do not run this unattended. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments. However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic stations up in frequency and out of the areas where people were complaining of interference to narrowband RTTY/data QSOs. They also allowed RTTY/data QSOs to occur anywhere in the band which would seem to provide even more flexibility to avoid interference. I liked this feature of the proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 08:54 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
I agree that there were positive aspects to the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal. However, expanding the range of frequencies available to unattended stations without including a requirement that they verify their frequency to be clear before transmitting was a showstopper, in my opinion. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:47 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments. However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic stations up in frequency and out of the areas where people were complaining of interference to narrowband RTTY/data QSOs. They also allowed RTTY/data QSOs to occur anywhere in the band which would seem to provide even more flexibility to avoid interference. I liked this feature of the proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 08:54 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See §97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are authorized. With a bandwidth of more than 500 hz, such stations are limited to the sub-bands enumerated in §97.221(b). 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:30 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that only responds to queries by a manually-controlled station to operate on any frequency and that was unchanged in the ARRL proposal. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 07:48 UTC Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
Hello Tony, What are the numbers that you get? In fact, from my measures, the first decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and -16 dB in Call ID (but respectively -16 and -13 dB for almost 100 % success). SNR tests I think it must be a bit difficult to measure S/N for bursts. What I do, on my side, in to mix signal and noise (just noise without paths delays...) at digital level before the analogical transform and then I see at what level I can decode. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Patrick, Thanks for adding the messaging feature. Andy, K3UK, and I were able to copy Sholto's, RS messages some 3700km away on 20 meters. Sholto, K7TMG, was running 5 watts and a vertical antenna. We found the high sensitivity of the message mode useful as signals fell below the decode threshold of the chat modes we were using at the time. The RS ID is detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still better than PSK31). Very sensitive, more than most sound card chat-modes. I'm not sure why Patrick, but my SNR tests indicate that the RSID used for mode detection has a 6db advantage over the CALL ID. I ran both modes through the path simulator 10 times each and established a minimum SNR when they decoded 10 out-of 10 times or 100%. I'll check all levels and try again. Thanks Patrick. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Hello Tony, The Call ID that I just have slightly modified is based on a specific RS ID code (it was the most simple, but it is not a mode ID, just a borrowing) on which is implemented a more conventional frame (56 bits + CRC). The RS ID is detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still better than PSK31). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Steinar, I am testing the Message ID in Patrick's latest beta of the MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074. I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge - ALE400
Hello Phil, Tony (K2MO) is preparing a paper about the way to use ALE400. Here is a first draft that Tony sent to Digital radio some time ago. I added some modifications. 73 Patrick From Tony: All, Received several emails asking how to setup Multipsk and work ALE-400 ARQ chat mode so here's my feeble attempt at a quick start guide. Multipsk download site : http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm The last Multipsk test version is: http://f6cte.free.fr/MULTIPSK_TEST_27_10_2009.ZIP Paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or equivalent. Download the file. Create a tempory folder (C:\TEST, for example), unzip the file in it and start C:\TEST\Multipsk.exe (the auxiliary files will be created automatically). For ALE and ALE400, see: http://f6cte.free.fr/ALE_and_ALE400_easy_with_Multipsk.doc http://f6cte.free.fr/The_ARQ_FAE_beacon_easy_with_Multipsk.doc Do not install the program from the desktop. Copy the Multipsk folder to your program file folder and click the INSTALL.EXE file. Configuration: The program should open the configuration screen on the first installation. If not, click CONFIGURATION menu located in the upper left corner of the main window and click CONFIGURATION SCREEN. In the CONFIGURATION SCREEN... Click SERIAL PORT to select your PTT COMPORT Click OPTIONS FOR SERIAL PORTS if additional settings are needed Click SOUND CARD INPUT / OUTPUT to configure your sound card Click RX/TX SCREEN button to return to main window Personal Data: In the upper left corner of the main window, click CONFIGURATION menu / PERSONAL DATA. Enter your call sign, name, locator etc - click save. ID Management: Click CONFIGURATION menu / MANAGEMENT OF THE IDENTIFIERS. Click TRANSMISSION OF YOUR CALL SIGN + LOCATOR in the popup window* Click QUIT on the bottom of this window to return to the main window. * Your locator / call sign will be taken from the information you entered in the PERSONAL DATA window. Reed Solomon Identifiers: The RS ID's are located in the upper left of the main program window above the waterfall. Click the following ID's: RSID - sends Reed Solomon mode identifier on transmit RX RSID - allows Multipsk to automatically switch modes upon RSID mode reception RX CALL ID - allows CALL and PROP ID of the other station to appear in your waterfall. Clicking the CALL ID button located on the far left of side of the main window will SEND your call sign and locator (CALL ID / PROP ID) which will appear in the waterfall of the receiving station. It will also activate the map screen showing the other station where you're located on the Multipsk map. See ID management for details on CALL ID / PROP ID. Waterfall: Waterfall controls are located on the right side of the main window. Make sure WATERFALL / HIGH is clicked for best results. Adjust the waterfall color / contrast using the up/down COLOR buttons. Appearance: Font type, color and window size buttons are located on the bottom left of the main window. Click FONTS and HEIGHT to adjust to your preference. Macros: Patrick has already configured the macros. The information for each macro is taken from the PERSONAL DATA where your call sign, name and locator are stored. If you'd like to customize the macros, right click on the macro button. Remember to click SAVE AND CLOSE when finished. ALE-400 ARQ FAE CHAT MODE Operation: Calling CQ / Connecting In the main window: 1. Click on ALE-400 mode (not 141ALE) 2. Click ARQ FAE button located in the middle of the window (button stays pushed in). 3. Click the CQ button next to ARQ FAE button to send a CQ. The CQ will go out as soon as the button is pressed; transmitting 5 seconds and listening for 5 seconds. To end the call, click the END button next to the CQ button (the CQ must finish before you can end the call). Multipsk will connect automatically once the ALE-400 signal is detected by another station. The stations call sign will appear in the RX window along with a connect confirmation. Your PC speaker will BEEP to confirm connection as well. The ALE-400 ARQ Chat Mode QSO: The top window is where you type; hitting enter will send the text in that window, but not while the other station is sending. There is a short wait period for TX/RX change-over. The middle window shows the text that has been received by the other station. It is normal to see the same text repeated on occasion if signals are weak; this is where the ARQ comes into play requesting repeats for missing data. You can chose not to have the double TX window by clicking DOUBLE at the bottom of the main program window. It's best to leave it on to monitor throughput. Receive text appears in the bottom window. The ALE-400 / ARQ / FAE mode works like a semi-duplex chat mode so there is no waiting for the station to stop transmitting to send. Print will go out both ways as the mode switches from TX/RX every few seconds. To end the QSO, hit END next to the CQ button. We have found
[digitalradio] FLARQing fun
Anyone want to test FLARQ with varying modes this weekend, please consider the following dial frequencies. 10147, 7082, 3583, and 14073 USB (all dial frequencies ). 2 years ago I met with Skip KH6TY (or was it three years ?) and he gave me a beta copy of NBEMS FLARQ. I thought it would become one of the mostly widely used digital application for emcomm work. I was wrong, it kinda fizzled . However, slowly but surely the application has impressed ARES and RACES groups in the USA . I think we will gradually see even more use of FLARQ. Winmor has not fully impressed me yet. I am impressed by the effort Winmor programmers have made and impressed that overall the application works. However the state of the science at this moment is that FLARQ with a variety of modes to choose from, and modes less fussy about sound card timing, is likely to be more effcient during emergencies. This is perhaps an unfair comparison for WINMOR since FLARQ is a few years old and WINMOR just a few months. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Packet Question
Hi, I thought that I would try help Brian out but I don't know the answer my self, so I am passing this along. Thanks. 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3W) Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48N) EN61HL Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA ;-) --- On Fri, 10/30/09, KB9BVN kb9...@gmail.com wrote: From: KB9BVN kb9...@gmail.com Subject: Packet Question Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 12:23 PM I have a KAM all mode TNC Version 5.0 I have the manuals. I have a Yaesu FT-2600. I have an IBM laptop. So let's say I want to get on 2m Packet. I see where I need essentially a modem cable from the 9 pin male serial port on the laptop to the 25 pin female port on the TNC. No problem, I have that cable. Now I need to connect the radio to the TNC. The FT 2600 has a 9 pin data port: Pin 1 - Squelch Signal Output Pin 2 - Packet RX data Output 9600 Pin 3 - Packet TX data Iutput 9600 Pin 4 - Packet RX data output 1200 Pin 5 - Ground Pin 6 - Nothing Pin 7 - External PTT Signal Input Pin 8 - DC Output (5v at 50ma for powering an external device) Pin 9 - Packet TX data input 1200 The KAM has a 9 pin male data port: Pin 1 - AFSK out - Carries tones to the audio input line of my radio. Pin 2 - XCD - Used to connect squelch line from radio, if desired. Pin 3 - PTT - Controls the PTT line in my radio. Switches rig between xmit and recv Pin 4 - Same as Pin 5 Pin 5 - Audio Signal input - use with external speaker jack, or pin 4 of the radio? Pin 6 - Ground Pin 7 - +12VDC input - can be powered here instead of a external powe rsupply. CUT OFF if not using. It is HOT when TNC is on. Pin 8 - Same as Pin 6 Pin 9 - Same as Pin 6. SO...do I have this right? I need a cable that has: KAM Pin 1 to Radio Pin 9 KAM Pin 2 to Radio Pin 1 KAM Pin 3 to Radio Pin 7 KAM Pin 4 to NOTHING KAM Pin 5 to Radio Pin 4 KAM Pin 6 to Radio Pin 6 KAM Pin 7 - Not Used KAM Pin 8 - Not Used KAM Pin 9 - Not Used I appreciate any help I can get. The KAM software is on 5.25 floppies. I do not have a computer that can read these... HOST MASTER 64 is one diskis that for a Commodore 64? Version 1.18 64/128 COMBO SIDE 1 and 2 - I have no idea what this is. 73 de KB9BVN Brian Murrey
Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk
Patrick, Hello Tony, What are the numbers that you get? In fact, from my measures, the first decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and -16 dB in Call ID (but respectively -16 and -13 dB for almost 100 % success). I get the following SNR figures for 100% decode: RS ID -20db Call ID -14db Figures are nearly the same for the Call ID, but the 4db discrepancy in the RSID seems odd. I believe this is the first time we've compared SNR figures for 100% throughput Patrick; our minimum SNR figures are usually identical. I think it must be a bit difficult to measure S/N for bursts. I mix signal and noise (just noise without paths delays...) at digital level before the analogical transform and then I see at what level I can decode. Sounds like an accurate way to test Patrick. Most of my digital mode testing is done with PathSim. The program gives the option of testing the signal-to-noise ratio using Gaussian white noise without any ionospheric path distortion. I'm always careful to make sure that the audio levels are the same for each mode before I run them through the simulator. If it's ok with you, I'll send a few audio clips so you can test the RSID and Call ID at different SNR levels measured with PathSim. I'll include the SNR in the clip title. Thanks Patrick, Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Patrick, Thanks for adding the messaging feature. Andy, K3UK, and I were able to copy Sholto's, RS messages some 3700km away on 20 meters. Sholto, K7TMG, was running 5 watts and a vertical antenna. We found the high sensitivity of the message mode useful as signals fell below the decode threshold of the chat modes we were using at the time. The RS ID is detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still better than PSK31). Very sensitive, more than most sound card chat-modes. I'm not sure why Patrick, but my SNR tests indicate that the RSID used for mode detection has a 6db advantage over the CALL ID. I ran both modes through the path simulator 10 times each and established a minimum SNR when they decoded 10 out-of 10 times or 100%. I'll check all levels and try again. Thanks Patrick. Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker f6...@free.fr To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Hello Tony, The Call ID that I just have slightly modified is based on a specific RS ID code (it was the most simple, but it is not a mode ID, just a borrowing) on which is implemented a more conventional frame (56 bits + CRC). The RS ID is detectable at -16 dB but the Call ID only at about -13 dB (however still better than PSK31). 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk Steinar, I am testing the Message ID in Patrick's latest beta of the MULTIPSK (VERSION 4.16 of 27/10/2009) on 14.074. I haven't had the opportunity to use the message ID on-the-air, but I did test the mode between two PC's and it seems to work fine. I would assume the Reed Solomon messaging will be just as sensitive and robust as RS ID; should work well. Hope to see you on the air Steinar... Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] Re: lpt to com port assignment?
Thank you all- my laptop does not have a 9 pin port. The 25 pin is the only available parallel port. Any Ideas? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kg4kri kg4...@... wrote: Hello all, I am trying to set up my computer to key my radio rather than the el cheapo way of using vox. I have built a circuit to use the 25 pin lpt jack, but I do not know how to assign this jack as a com port. Most of the digital programs I use only specify com ports, not lpt. I do have a 15 pin connection, but I am not sure what the proper connection would be. I am obviously not very knowledgeable about computers, so any help is appreciated. Thanks, Daniel KG4KRI --... ...--
