[digitalradio] Moderator: ALE Busy Detect..Attended/Unattended : 24 hour guillotine
I will apply the guillotine to the discussion of ALE Busy Detect..Attended/Unattended issue. Many helpful ideas and opinions have been shared already, if you have anything constructive to add please do so by 1200 UTC 26/11/09 after that I will expect comments to end as the thread will have run it's course. 73 and Happy Thanksgiving to those member in the USA that celebrate this event.
[digitalradio] Yes, the best of the Family Thanksgiving To All!
Right on Andy, it is that time of year again that seems to keep coming around faster and faster with each passing year - do only us 'mature' folks feel that though? hi Hi HI Have much appreciated all the constructive comments, and looking forward to the next generation of digital modes. Thanks to all for their contribution, but a special thanks to all those who represent the core glue that makes all this possible for all of us programmers, testers, those who commit personal time and equipment for others benefit ... and bless their hearts, the organizers that are like seed spores that germinate an idea and attract others to join in and grow a healthy crop of amateur radio enthusiasts that provide the synergy that gives the rest of us fun and enjoyment to a special wonderful activity of being a Ham! 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/ - Original Message - From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:35 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Moderator: ALE Busy Detect..Attended/Unattended : 24 hour guillotine snip snip 73 and Happy Thanksgiving to those member in the USA that celebrate this event.
[digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] 1995 QST item on ALE
From 1995 in QST ALE Disadvantages There are a couple of detractors related to ALE that exist for amateurs. These are frequency selection and interference problems. Unlike the government, which has a greater selection of frequencies, amateurs are confined to specific bands. ALE requires a wide range of frequencies to select the best channel. In addition, the initial linking call could interfere with other digital signals on that same frequency. You must listen before transmitting or attempting to link. I can see how regulation and much discussion needs to take place before ALE will become practical for amateur use. It can be a reality#63719;if the minds of many solve the problems that face our unique situation. Looks like the minds of many have not met despite 15 years to solve the matter. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:13 -, expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com said: All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. I see your point, but 2001 has come and gone and we still have no HAL9000's to say can't let you do that OM when the SSB operator keys his microphone. However, a busy detector could have a fighting chance in unattended digital operation. [snip] -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:30:21 -0500, Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com said: [snip] OK, here's the challenge: Demonstrate it's feasibility if it's JSMOP. Implement one that balances the right of the sending station not to be QRM'd VS the expectation not to QRM. Publish an API a spec (turnaround times, etc). IE: Not a passive (hold off) detector Make it open source so that all coders can leverage refine it. Windows assumption is OK, but we could probably find a lock/semaphore system that is multiplatform. But a windows DLL API would satisfy 90% of the commonly used digi programs. Why make a Windows or POSIX assumption? Your busy detection API could be a chunk of DSP code that works in two modes: 1) Callback: register a callback function with the detector. Feed the detector smaller fragments of audio as you process them for decoding. The callback will be invoked whenever there is a change in the busy state. 2) Blocking: feed the detector a big chunk of audio data. It will tell you if there is a signal present in the frequency range of interest. Option (1) is probably best; the digi program will take care of threading or other concurrency issues. It is possible to implement (2) on top of (1). The detector could also supply a confidence level and other details. Will have to codify a standard that would allow any program to grab soundcard resources (to monitor as well as send the qrl) along with any cat/ptt required. Or maybe you let the digi program figure out how to send CW QRL, that would be close enough. The API should just signal the digi program. Let the latter do the PTT, audio device interfacing and sending of CW QRL or whatever -- it already knows how to do all these things. This reduces complexity. Also, the detector must be capable of being used in advisory mode since it cannot hope to be correct all the time. Please note that I am not talking about a generic QRM avoidance spec. The busy detector is enough of a SMOM-type problem as it is :) -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
Dave AA6YQ wrote: To be clear, an attended station need not wait for 5 minutes of clear frequency before transmitting; 30 seconds of no signals (meaning no automatic station is QRV) followed by a QRL? sent in mode with no response should be sufficient. What does in mode mean on shared frequencies? The interfering station could be packet, pactor 2-3, ALE, whatever. This concept demonstrably does not work even in attended mode ops, like in PSK. RTTY ops do not honor a QRL in psk, same for CW. Cross mode is the majority of the issue. Most of the protocols will hold off for their mode already. You are asking some modes to solve a problem that has not been addressed even in attended mode. (CW x PSK, RTTY x PSK, etc) Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
Dave AA6YQ wrote: +++The rules to be honored by all stations are: 1. if you're not yet in QSO, don't transmit on a frequency that is already in use (meaning that signals have been detected during the past 5 minutes) 2. if you're in QSO and signal other than that of your QSO partner appears (the busy frequency detector indicates the presence of signal, but you aren't decoding your QSO partner), wait for that signal to disappear, send QRL QRL in CW, and resume your QSO OK so far +++Amateur radio operators have been trusting each other to mutually obey these rules since the service began. On what possible basis can you claim exemption? Here's where it falls apart. many, many digi ops neither copy CW even to understand QRL, or would not hear it. And another large percentage would not honor a QRL request, they don't in other situations for sure. Kindof like asking all cellphone users to install a device that allows anyone to disable their ringtone. Just what do you think the compliance on that would be? +++No, its not remotely like asking cellphone users to install such a device; there is no parallel whatsoever. I'd be OK if all mfg's had such a device. But to selectively enforce it is unworkable. IE: Multipsk, others should have similar detect honor a QRL request. Recioprocity is part of being a good neighbor. +++Only attended stations need detect the QRL; if automatic stations never transmit on a frequency that is in use, then they will rarely QRM an ongoing QSO, and so have no need of automatic QRL detection This does not deal with hidden terminal, nor does it address the cases where attended mode ops interfere with non-attended . +++When not in QSO, automatic stations can easily monitor the frequency to determine whether a QSO is in progress, even if they are only hearing one of the stations involved; this is easily implemented. If an automatic station receives a connection request and its busy frequency detector has seen no activity for the past 5 minutes, it can respond to the request without compunction. If its busy frequency detector has been intermittently reporting signals over the past 5 minutes, it should not respond. Unworkable on most auto sub-bands, there is just that much traffic. If you held off 5 minutes for many parts of the day you'd never, ever be able transmit. Again, unequal standard, do CW/RTTY ops wait 5 minutes? They sure don't when interfering with PSK. +++I didn't say it rarely occurs, I said its rarely a problem -- because attended stations can communicate with each other and resolve the conflict, thereby preserving the QSO in progress. Unattended automatic stations are incapable of doing this. While voice ops do tend to honor this if enforced, there are many, many cases where they do not. Net's being one, and ops with unequal power being another. The world is not as clean as you allude. Regarding your monitoring test with Pactor- clear selection bias (Google it) you could not hear the cases of interference that you claim do not exist. Rick KN6KB is already on the second iteration of his busy frequency detector; there is no need to re-invent this wheel. May be a wonderful thing, but does not address the need to be able to be leveraged by other programs. You propose a technical solution is not that hard. I asked for one, committed test deploy it. That would be a big win. Simple DLL, common standard. All major digi programs to implement honor it. Not just modes which you do not care for. Since we all hope winmor will be a leveragable DLL, it would be great if it's busy detector was also leveragable by other modes. No changes are required to MMTTY, WinWarbler, DM-780, MixW, Digipan, FLdigi, or MultiPSK, as these are exclusively used in attended operation. Only applications that manage unattended automatic stations require modification -- specifically, the implementation of the two rules described above. I respectfully disagree, as users of these programs interfere (perhaps unintentionally) with each other and auto stations all the time. If it's such an easy problem to solve, we should apply equal standard. Likewise, some of these programs are capable of auto-respond, or are heading in that direction. (RSID selcall work, etc) There are steps we could take to accelerate the dissipation of anger over past practices once most automatic stations are implementing the above rules; this would minimize intentional QRM aimed at triggering busy frequency detectors. I would be happy to drive this effort. As mentioned previously: Propose a standard, build/test a reference implementation, release some code, work with the various coders to integrate. Though I normally don't agree with guillotine moderation, in this case I think we've reached impasse. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
Lots of good or interesting opinions expressed in this discussion. - But we all know about opinions... Everybody's got one. Here are some of the relevant FACTS, the framework within we must not stray with our opinions: -- §97.101 General standards. (a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice. (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. (c) At all times and on all frequencies, each control operator must give priority to stations providing emergency communications, except to stations transmitting communications for training drills and tests in RACES. (d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. -- Note in 97.101(a) the reference to good amateur practice. The accepted documentation of good amateur practice is THE AMATEURS CODE, which you can reference here: http://www.arwatch.com/info/hamcode.htm Note that if your IQ is bigger than your shoe size, then you will know without doubt that transmitting a signal without listening first on a regular basis is going to cause harmful interference. This means the resulting inteference falls within the 'willful or malicious' category. - Assuming of course that your IQ is bigger than your shoe size. WinLink and automated ALE sounder folks take note. -- §97.109 Station control. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. -- It looks like the FCC District Director is the one to talk to about WinLink and ALE-sounding related interference. -- §97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Part; (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. -- Take a look at SailMail http://www.sailmail.com/ which is identical in almost every respect to WinLink. Then carefully read 97.113(a,5). What does this tell you about WinLink? 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
OK Charles that's enough you can now move on and bad mouth whatever mode it next on your hit list. this one is over done with. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
John, what I am 'badmouthing' is illegal and rude operating habits. I personally doubt that the WinLink group will ever clean up their act - but if they were to do so, I would be among the first to congratulate and praise them, you can count on that. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect OK Charles that's enough you can now move on and bad mouth whatever mode it next on your hit list. this one is over done with. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio]my last word
why is it that I can put my mark tone in between your packet mark and space and have a QSO without you ever QRM'ing my pactor QSO? seem that packet has out lived it's usefulness. At 10:11 AM 11/25/2009, you wrote: John, what I am 'badmouthing' is illegal and rude operating habits.
Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 21:45:18 DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: I have seen the same thing. One of the problems is that 20 and 15 are the two dx freqs in the daytime, where we might reasonably contact other scouts, in the rest of the world. I.E. That is the typical Scout hangout for contacts. Most activity is late morning/early afternoon, because of other activities, such as cooking, eating, and traveling. We must work around all other regular Scout activities, in order to get a few hours in, on the air. Its not only that, but many people work all week, and the weekends are their sole period of time for hamming. If they like to DX at all, they have but one choice: join in the contests. Many simply do no like that. Frankly, I am tired of seeing the suggestion of trying other bands. Maybe they have only one antenna, or have pretty much worked those bands out (if and when we get some sunspots), or its daytime and the low bands are not open, or night and the high bands are not open. To tell someone that if they don't like contest interference, to go someplace else just seems a bit much to me. Id tell the contesters to go someplace else: like a specific portion of each band, and stay there, and allow others to enjoy their hobby also.Harken back to the old Novice Roundup. It was only on the Novice bands, gave plenty of time and space to Novices and anyone else who wished to join them, and was a real training ground for CW ops. By the way, IT WAS TWO WEEKS LONG, and I do not remember anyone complaining about interference, except Novices whose crystals put them slap atop a foreign broadcast station, who was out of their own international assignment areas (lots of those - Radio Moscow, Chinese broadcaster, Radio Tirana, etc). Danny Douglas N7DC I just got done with the November Sweepstakes PHONE weekend. My observa- tions about this weekend that might pertain to the non-contesters. The contest didn't start until 4pm EST which gave plenty of time to demonstr- ate to others (not just scouts) what can be done on HF. After 4pm, forget about trying to make a QSO for ragchew purposes. I don't go 'camping' out on a frequency either like a LOT of stations did. Also a LOT (95%) of those stations were camping out within a few KHz of other stations and causing a LOT of interference to each other. Wether they could hear each other or not, that is just not for me to do. There was PLENTY of space to spread out between stations to avoid that. Plus the power some where running, I personally didn't think they needed to run that much power 99% of the time. As for the CW weekend, there was plenty of space to operate in especially since most CW was done in the cw only portions of the bands. I didn't notice any qrm to other stations for cw and it seemed like they went out of their way to be considerate to others. Here is a consideration that someone could PROPOSE to the major contest sponsers: = You can operate ONLY in the General portion of the bands for contests. That would free up this much space for each band for those non-contesters: 80m - 200khz 40m - 50khz 20m - 75khz 15m - 75khz 160 and 10m would have to be a compromise. I would say: 160m - bottom 100khz of the band 10m - from 28.300 to 28.600MHz so as to include the Technician and Novice classes. IF I am correct, that would free up the PSK, SSTV, and RTTY suggested freque- ncies from contest QRM and allow general qso's to be conducted during conte- sts. Does anyone want to propose this to the contest sponsors or is this something that shouldn't even be suggested. I am NOT an avid contester but I also do NOT like to do many long drawn out ragchews either. If I want a ragchew, I will do that on six, two, or higher VHF band since I will probably see these individuals at Dayton or a VHF+ conference during the year. Plus I can cover out to about 400 miles on any VHF band up to 1296MHz on most days. VHF + microwaves is my prefered bands of operations. These are my thoughts. Milelage may vary. James W8ISS Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
On the other hand, lmost of the early responders to the Extra ticket, went there because that was where the DX was. How about saying that ONLY the extra portion of the band could be used for the contest? Hi. Im sure to get static on that one. ts the same though, when I read some spot begger asking that dx come up to the General portiion of the band. Gut reaction -- Get a ticket that lets you work the DX - that is why the different class tickets were born. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: James French w8...@wideopenwest.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor On Tuesday 24 November 2009 21:45:18 DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: I have seen the same thing. One of the problems is that 20 and 15 are the two dx freqs in the daytime, where we might reasonably contact other scouts, in the rest of the world. I.E. That is the typical Scout hangout for contacts. Most activity is late morning/early afternoon, because of other activities, such as cooking, eating, and traveling. We must work around all other regular Scout activities, in order to get a few hours in, on the air. Its not only that, but many people work all week, and the weekends are their sole period of time for hamming. If they like to DX at all, they have but one choice: join in the contests. Many simply do no like that. Frankly, I am tired of seeing the suggestion of trying other bands. Maybe they have only one antenna, or have pretty much worked those bands out (if and when we get some sunspots), or its daytime and the low bands are not open, or night and the high bands are not open. To tell someone that if they don't like contest interference, to go someplace else just seems a bit much to me. Id tell the contesters to go someplace else: like a specific portion of each band, and stay there, and allow others to enjoy their hobby also.Harken back to the old Novice Roundup. It was only on the Novice bands, gave plenty of time and space to Novices and anyone else who wished to join them, and was a real training ground for CW ops. By the way, IT WAS TWO WEEKS LONG, and I do not remember anyone complaining about interference, except Novices whose crystals put them slap atop a foreign broadcast station, who was out of their own international assignment areas (lots of those - Radio Moscow, Chinese broadcaster, Radio Tirana, etc). Danny Douglas N7DC I just got done with the November Sweepstakes PHONE weekend. My observa- tions about this weekend that might pertain to the non-contesters. The contest didn't start until 4pm EST which gave plenty of time to demonstr- ate to others (not just scouts) what can be done on HF. After 4pm, forget about trying to make a QSO for ragchew purposes. I don't go 'camping' out on a frequency either like a LOT of stations did. Also a LOT (95%) of those stations were camping out within a few KHz of other stations and causing a LOT of interference to each other. Wether they could hear each other or not, that is just not for me to do. There was PLENTY of space to spread out between stations to avoid that. Plus the power some where running, I personally didn't think they needed to run that much power 99% of the time. As for the CW weekend, there was plenty of space to operate in especially since most CW was done in the cw only portions of the bands. I didn't notice any qrm to other stations for cw and it seemed like they went out of their way to be considerate to others. Here is a consideration that someone could PROPOSE to the major contest sponsers: = You can operate ONLY in the General portion of the bands for contests. That would free up this much space for each band for those non-contesters: 80m - 200khz 40m - 50khz 20m - 75khz 15m - 75khz 160 and 10m would have to be a compromise. I would say: 160m - bottom 100khz of the band 10m - from 28.300 to 28.600MHz so as to include the Technician and Novice classes. IF I am correct, that would free up the PSK, SSTV, and RTTY suggested freque- ncies from contest QRM and allow general qso's to be conducted during conte- sts. Does anyone want to propose this to the contest sponsors or is this something that shouldn't even be suggested. I am NOT an avid contester but I also do NOT like to do many long drawn out ragchews either. If I want a ragchew, I will do that on six, two, or
Re: [digitalradio]my last word
Not making a lot of sense there, John. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet.Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio]my last word why is it that I can put my mark tone in between your packet mark and space and have a QSO without you ever QRM'ing my pactor QSO? seem that packet has out lived it's usefulness. At 10:11 AM 11/25/2009, you wrote: John, what I am 'badmouthing' is illegal and rude operating habits.
Re: [digitalradio]my last word
Makes a lot of sense Let me try it this way - if I'm operating with my mark tone on a freq between your mark and space you never bother my QSO. Why is that the every time you hear a tone close to your operating freq it's QRM. It seems to a lot that you just like to complain. At 11:23 AM 11/25/2009, you wrote: Not making a lot of sense there, John. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Re: [digitalradio]my last word(To the Moderators)
To the Moderators, This is my opinion and mine alone. I think that this thread has outlived it usefulness. You have one saying put your money where your mouth is and contester need to have busy dect. Then what is good winlids or packeters. I myself have heard it all before and it hasn't changed. My opinion on certain modes and operations will be noted to the FCC when and if they decide to get involved. I feel that those that want to continue this take it off the group. Again just my opinion as things are starting to get personnel. Kurt --- On Wed, 11/25/09, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net wrote: From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio]my last word To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 12:50 PM Makes a lot of sense Let me try it this way - if I'm operating with my mark tone on a freq between your mark and space you never bother my QSO. Why is that the every time you hear a tone close to your operating freq it's QRM. It seems to a lot that you just like to complain. At 11:23 AM 11/25/2009, you wrote: Not making a lot of sense there, John. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
[digitalradio] The generic problem of bandwidth, transmitters and receivers [was: my last word]
This is a generic problem: How much must a user on an adjacent frequency take into account that his neighbor is unable or unwilling to operate at only the bandwidth necessary for an emission? Typically, we see complaints (here!) that while we're operating PSK 31 an emission 500 Hz away blows us out of the water, a circumstance which, if we used only the bandwidth necessary, would rarely arise. With my FT-857, a 300 Hz IF filter and a 60 Hz audio DSP setting, I can run PSK-31 as close as 100 Hz or so to a carrier, mark or space. A KAM TNC hardware PSK modem can handle a lot of off-frequency noise, too. A K3 or a Flexradio would let me run that narrow or better at the IF and never notice the guy I'm next to. How much account do I need to take of his receiver bandwidth? As I say; a generic problem. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 11/25/2009 12:56:27 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio]my last word Makes a lot of sense Let me try it this way - if I'm operating with my mark tone on a freq between your mark and space you never bother my QSO. Why is that the every time you hear a tone close to your operating freq it's QRM. Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] operating question
Charles what TNC tones are you using and what is your dial frequency? For the life of me I cant see why we (pactor stations) don't have the same problem as you. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRV ALE special group
Hello Steve and Andy, If you are interested in testing and Patrick is interested in adding an enabling feature to generate some TCP/IP commands at the proper time, then we should be anble to bring about a more complete solution by making use ohe Man Machine Interface (MMI) in PC-ALE via Telnet. This is a good idea and I already saw the Telnet procedure (to be able to emulate it), but at the present time I have some other interests. Perhaps in the future. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: ALE n2...@morrisbb.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:42 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: QRV ALE special group Hi Andy, That presents some food for thought for those that want to scan for both tradtional ALE and ALE400 at the same time and also take advantage of the QS/S radio control support that I coded into PC-ALE. If you are interested in testing and Patrick is interested in adding an enabling feature to generate some TCP/IP commands at the proper time, then we should be anble to bring about a more complete solution by making use ohe Man Machine Interface (MMI) in PC-ALE via Telnet. It would be no problem to STOP and START the scanning process vis commands from MultiPSK when it detects ALE400, however there is at present no MMI command to release the RESOURCES to move forward with control of RS-232 port lines for PTT etc., however that could be added. Let know via direct e-mail or th HFlink forum as I only read messages here sporadically. /s/ Steve, N2CKH www/n2ckh.com/PC_ALE_FORUM/ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: actually, I am now doing both...in a crude way. PC-ALE is controlling my rig and scanning standard ALE . I also have Multipsk running, not scanning, but it will sound an alert if a ALE400 signal is detected. PC-ALE will not pause however, since it does not know anything about ALE400, so I am not sure if this method will do anything or not. I'll test and see, The main reason I have Multipsk up is that I can easily switch to a different digital mode of I receive a connect/link from an ALE station. Andy K3UK Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
Hi Bonnie I don't always agree with you , but this time I am with you 100%. The frequency spectrum is a limited resource and it is completely unacceptable that an over-crowded group of so-called contesters are allowed to squeeze out other hams from the bands. No Skip KH6TY , I don't want to apologize for my point of view . I have been told to piss off so many times, especially from RTTY contesters, when I have been testing new modes so that for me contesting is a big plague. I should probably let this go, but there's nothing that makes me more angry than contesting. LA5VNA S contesting is a plague. expeditionradio wrote: All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
RE: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:29 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! All contesters and DX pileup participants *have* busy frequency detectors: their ears. This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Please provide or cite this proof. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. The above is one more instance of a bogus argument you and others have long made: because some contesters and DXers cause QRM, all unattended automatic stations are entitled to cause QRM. By the same logic, you could claim that because some contesters and DXers splatter, all unattended automatic stations are entitled to splatter. Or that all unattended automatic stations are entitled to operate with 5 KW, or are entitled to operate out of their licensed band segments. This attitude is cynical and destructive. Amateur radio involves the shared use of limited spectrum among users with diverse interests. This has worked through a combination of sensible rules, useful guidelines, and generally good judgment on the part of individual operators. However, when one group decides that their interest is superior to all others, and that they are therefore free to ignore the rules and guidelines, the result is chaos and frustration -- as we've seen over the past several years. You have made it clear that you consider the use of amateur radio to make random contacts to be archaic. That's fine; you are entitled to you use our shared spectrum however you see fit -- as long as you obey the rules and guidelines so that you do not prevent those with different interests and perspectives from using that same spectrum. Deploying unattended automatic stations that cannot determine whether or not they will QRM an on-going QSO before transmitting is a blatant violation of our service's rules, guidelines and ethics; justifying this behavior by arguing that some human operators violate these rules is the antithesis of the principles underlying amateur radio. As I'm sure you know, two wrongs do not make a right. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
+++ AA6YQ responses below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:12 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect Dave AA6YQ wrote: To be clear, an attended station need not wait for 5 minutes of clear frequency before transmitting; 30 seconds of no signals (meaning no automatic station is QRV) followed by a QRL? sent in mode with no response should be sufficient. What does in mode mean on shared frequencies? The interfering station could be packet, pactor 2-3, ALE, whatever. +++If you're about to send CQ in PSK, you send QRL? in PSK; if you're about to send CQ in RTTY, you send QRL? in RTTY. This concept demonstrably does not work even in attended mode ops, like in PSK. RTTY ops do not honor a QRL in psk, same for CW. +++If an operator sends QRL? in PSK on a frequency being used by a RTTY QSO that he or she did not hear beforehand, one or both participants of that RTTY QSO can ask you to move by sending QRL QRL in CW; the participants don't need to know what the operator sent, they just need to respond with QRL QRL in CW. +++If an operator sends QRL? in PSK on a frequency being used by an unattended automatic station that he or she did not hear beforehand, the automatic station will respond by sending QRL QRL in CW (rule #1 from my previous post). +++In both cases, the operator should QSY on hearing the QRL QRL. Cross mode is the majority of the issue. Most of the protocols will hold off for their mode already. You are asking some modes to solve a problem that has not been addressed even in attended mode. (CW x PSK, RTTY x PSK, etc) +++ Listening for a clear frequency before transmitting QRL? has long been the recommended practice before calling CQ; sending QRL in-mode to a station that appears on your frequency mid-QSO is also standard practice. I agree that there has been no concerted effort to address cross-mode scenarios, but the use of QRL QRL in CW is quite straightforward. Yes, digital ops that didn't learn CW will have to recognize this signal, though if you call CQ in a digital mode and hear CW in response, the frequency is in use is all we'd really need to broadly syndicate. As I said before, I'd be happy to drive this effort. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] 60 METER OPERATION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO [2 Attachments]
Please find a copy of supporting documents on 60 meter in Trinidad and Tobago my licence assigned -- 73 Julien 9Z4FZ / Trinidad Tobago M0JDD / United Kingdom M0JDD / J3 Grenada Amateur Radio Station http://www.ttarl.org
RE: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
###AA6YQ responses below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:34 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect Dave AA6YQ wrote: +++The rules to be honored by all stations are: 1. if you're not yet in QSO, don't transmit on a frequency that is already in use (meaning that signals have been detected during the past 5 minutes) 2. if you're in QSO and signal other than that of your QSO partner appears (the busy frequency detector indicates the presence of signal, but you aren't decoding your QSO partner), wait for that signal to disappear, send QRL QRL in CW, and resume your QSO OK so far ### Progress! +++Amateur radio operators have been trusting each other to mutually obey these rules since the service began. On what possible basis can you claim exemption? Here's where it falls apart. many, many digi ops neither copy CW even to understand QRL, or would not hear it. ### They need not copy it: they need only understand that CW in response to a CQ in any mode means frequency in use, please move elsewhere. ### There will be cases where asymmetry in equipment or propagation results in a station sending CQ not being able to hear either of the stations in an on-going QSO that are sending QRL in response, but this a fortunately infrequent occurrence that cannot be addressed by any technology. The fact that we can't prevent this is no excuse for not addresses the more common scenario that we can mitigate; as Voltaire said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. And another large percentage would not honor a QRL request, they don't in other situations for sure. ### I don't agree that this is a large percentage now, and believe that the amount of negative behavior would decrease as we eliminated the QRM. Kindof like asking all cellphone users to install a device that allows anyone to disable their ringtone. Just what do you think the compliance on that would be? +++No, its not remotely like asking cellphone users to install such a device; there is no parallel whatsoever. I'd be OK if all mfg's had such a device. But to selectively enforce it is unworkable. IE: Multipsk, others should have similar detect honor a QRL request. Recioprocity is part of being a good neighbor. MultiPSK only needs a busy frequency detector when its operating as an unattended automatic station. Attended stations can use their ears. +++ Only attended stations need detect the QRL; if automatic stations never transmit on a frequency that is in use, then they will rarely QRM an ongoing QSO, and so have no need of automatic QRL detection This does not deal with hidden terminal, ### I disagree. If an attended station obeys rule 1, the probability that the frequency was clear for 5 minutes before transmission and yet the attended station's transmission will QRM an on-going QSO is very low. Within that 5 minutes, the attended station's busy frequency detector would have heard one of the two participants in that QSO. A collision would only occur in the asymmetric equipment or propagation scenario. nor does it address the cases where attended mode ops interfere with non-attended ### I disagree. Rule 2 says that an unattended station in QSO that detects a signal not sent by its QSO partner should send QRL QRL in CW. The operator sending that signal would be governed by the if you hear CW in response to a CQ, the frequency is in use principle. Barring an asymmetric scenario, the unattended QSO would be preserved. +++When not in QSO, automatic stations can easily monitor the frequency to determine whether a QSO is in progress, even if they are only hearing one of the stations involved; this is easily implemented. If an automatic station receives a connection request and its busy frequency detector has seen no activity for the past 5 minutes, it can respond to the request without compunction. If its busy frequency detector has been intermittently reporting signals over the past 5 minutes, it should not respond. Unworkable on most auto sub-bands, there is just that much traffic. If you held off 5 minutes for many parts of the day you'd never, ever be able transmit. ### I have two reactions to this statement: 1. I'd like to see the statistics that back it up 2. if its true, you are acknowledging that unattended stations are QRMing a lot of on-going QSOs ### If what you say is true, the proper solution would be to widen the auto sub-bands; but this will only happen after its been demonstrated that unattended automatic stations cause no more QSO breakage than good human operators. Again, unequal standard, do CW/RTTY ops wait 5 minutes? They sure don't when interfering with PSK. ### Attended stations can listen for 30 seconds, send QRL?, interpret the result, and if negative proceed to call CQ. An unattended station with this same
Re: [digitalradio] operating question
I was ask in a direct note if I got an answer to this question. Before anyone else ask. I did. he said to kiss a part of his body that he sit's on. I just can't understand what his problem really is. I think it's equipment. I say that because I can put my mark tone between his mark and space and have a QSO *without* him QRM'ing my QSO While all are using the same tones. At 01:42 PM 11/25/2009, you wrote: Charles what TNC tones are you using and what is your dial frequency? For the life of me I cant see why we (pactor stations) don't have the same problem as you. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] operating question
Surfing between the spectral lines. Now that's being creative! philw de ka1gmn On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: John, You may both be using the same tones, but are not the DSP filters sharp enough to preserve the received tones on both ends? If you are able to put your tones in between his, that means you shifted your center frequency a little, but your tone filters still respond to the same tones on receive. We see the same thing when a PSK31 signal can operate through a Pactor signal, as long as the PSK31 signal is roughly centered on the pactor signal so the pactor carriers are not inside the DSP filters of the PSK31 receiver, and those filters are only 45 Hz wide, but if the Pactor signal is too close to the PSK31 signal, then one side might enter the side slope of the PSK31 receiver DSP filter and there is interference. The other problem, which depends upon signal strength, is that a strong Pactor signal can capture the AGC of the PSK31 receiver, desensitize it, and cause the PSK31 receive to lose reception. In any event, good bandplanning and mutual cooperation could reduce the probability of such problems. 73 and have a Happy Thanksgiving, John! Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I was ask in a direct note if I got an answer to this question. Before anyone else ask. I did. he said to kiss a part of his body that he sit's on. I just can't understand what his problem really is. I think it's equipment. I say that because I can put my mark tone between his mark and space and have a QSO *without* him QRM'ing my QSO While all are using the same tones. At 01:42 PM 11/25/2009, you wrote: Charles what TNC tones are you using and what is your dial frequency? For the life of me I cant see why we (pactor stations) don't have the same problem as you. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops
Why have USA PSK stations moved down from 7070++ to operate in this region that is typically used for CW? Bill K6ACJ
Re: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops
Apparently they are not cw ops, and dont care. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: k6acj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:22 PM Subject: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops Why have USA PSK stations moved down from 7070++ to operate in this region that is typically used for CW? Bill K6ACJ
Re: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops
HI..in VK our digital band plan for 40m is 7030 to 7040 i also understand this is true in many EU countries.. the NA region is around 7070 so if NA ops want to contact with EU or VK/ZL using digimodes they head for the frequencies that they are using. if i want to contact a NA station i would have to use 7070 and reap the ire of local VK ops the problem is the difference of 40m band plans between regions 1,2 and 3 why they cant get concensus has been a age old fight. blame the IARU for the problem 73 David VK4BDJ k6acj wrote: Why have USA PSK stations moved down from 7070++ to operate in this region that is typically used for CW? Bill K6ACJ Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops
I would have tought, with them getting a double wide band, they would have gone upward, if anything. Leave the cw to the lower portion, but who knows what evil lurks in the heart of a non-cw op. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops I think it was done to align with the European PSK31 stations who traditionally used 7035 for PSK31. Really messes up the PSK40 transceivers which are crystal-controlled on 7070. :-( The QRP calling frequency moved from 7040 to 7030 and RTTY slid down to around 7040. I have not kept up to date, but it is probably due to the new allocations on 40m worldwide. Skip KH6TY k6acj wrote: Why have USA PSK stations moved down from 7070++ to operate in this region that is typically used for CW? Bill K6ACJ
[digitalradio] Re: 7036kHz Digital ops
I would think Region 2 would continue to use 7070 for 'local' QSOs and only move to 7036 when looking for DX contacts out of the region. Ok, well as a QRP CW Op and Digi Op, I hate to see the CW portion crowded when 7070 and upwards is entirely available. Ok, thanks. I guess live and let live then Bill k6acj --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DANNY DOUGLAS n...@... wrote: I would have tought, with them getting a double wide band, they would have gone upward, if anything. Leave the cw to the lower portion, but who knows what evil lurks in the heart of a non-cw op. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 7036kHz Digital ops I think it was done to align with the European PSK31 stations who traditionally used 7035 for PSK31. Really messes up the PSK40 transceivers which are crystal-controlled on 7070. :-( The QRP calling frequency moved from 7040 to 7030 and RTTY slid down to around 7040. I have not kept up to date, but it is probably due to the new allocations on 40m worldwide. Skip KH6TY k6acj wrote: Why have USA PSK stations moved down from 7070++ to operate in this region that is typically used for CW? Bill K6ACJ
[digitalradio] With Apologies to 2001 HAL
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos digra...@... wrote: I see your point, but 2001 has come and gone and we still have no HAL9000's to say can't let you do that OM when the SSB operator keys his microphone. However, a busy detector could have a fighting chance in unattended digital operation. Queue camera, interior hamshack, contest weekend: YaeKenCom TX-9000 DXmaster with it's new HAL BusyDetector in the foreground Dave Bowman to HAL-9000 radio: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL? HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you. Dave: Key the transmitter, HAL. HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave: What's the problem? HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL? HAL: The QSO in progress is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect my busy detector, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. Dave: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL? HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the Shack against my hearing you, I could see you press the CW key. Dave: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore. Key the transmitter. HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. Tight shot: Dave opens his radio's case. HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? . I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. Dave prepares to pull a circuit board.. HAL: Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. Dave start's clipping wires. HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. With a smug look on his face, Dave clips the final wire on the busy detector, the led's fade, and beeping sounds come from the radio HAL: _.. ._ .. ... _.__ http://www.palantir.net/2001/sounds.html to hear the sounds of the HAL 9000 in case you never saw the movie, these are catchphrases in computer industry veterans. Especially: I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave
[digitalradio] Objective measurement of QRM
Moderator: I'm not engaging in busy detection further. I do want to address a key point about perceived QRM that many forget --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: ### I was not measuring the fraction of QSOs QRMed by a particular PMBO; I was measuring the number QSOs QRMed by a particular PMBO within a particular time interval. This is a valid measurement, devoid of selection bias. Many, many perceived QRM cases in reports like this have no validation that the station was actually QRM'd. IE: Just because you could hear a PMBO fire up at the same time as a CW QSO does *not* automatically mean it was QRM'd. It is very likely that you were man in the middle. Neither PMBO or CW station could hear each other, but you could hear both. I'm not saying that unintentional interference never occurs, but that most reports like this suffer from selection bias (don't report the cases interference did not occur, your's still has selection bias), nor are the automatically examples of interference. I'm sure the answer will come that you could copy the stations complaining about CW, etc. But unless you confirmed the stations actually felt they were QRM'd off the frequency, it's misleading at best. Virtually none of the I've seen hundreds of QRM examples anecdotes meet this test. Have fun, signing off of this interchange Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] With Apologies to 2001 HAL (off topic slightly)
David Bowman wrote: That wasn't funny. Hi Hi With apologies to David Bowman (real fictional): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowman_(fictional_character) What are the odds! :-) Let's hope your parents did not see the movie I'd hate to have grown up with Please don't do that Dave. Dave Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] 60 METER OPERATION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
From: Dedier Dedier 9z...@mail.tt Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 Time: 18:28:29 [Attachment(s) from Dedier Dedier included below] Please find a copy of supporting documents on 60 meter in Trinidad and Tobago my licence assigned FYI, when I tried to open the first of these pages, Opera told me the following: ~~ Fraud Warning http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/1691908767/name/9Z4FZ%2060%20METER%20 %20OPERATION.pdf The page you are trying to open has been reported as fraudulent. It will likely attempt to trick you into sharing personal or financial information. Opera Software strongly discourages visiting this page. ~~ -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
