Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Looking for P1 connect and Roger. You really need to grow up, John. If you have personal problems, solve them, but how about keeping them off the forum. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
w6ids wrote: Hi John At 0442Z the WD8DHF PMBO in Harker Hts, TX just started transmitting with an S9 signal. It is sending a Solar Flux Index accompanied by a cautionary request for users to LISTEN first before transmitting or losing privileges. I can hear a PACTOR signal underneath but obviously, cannot copy. I'm hearing now three total PACTOR signals. Still listening Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN Your post seems to indicate that the station that initiated the S-9 signal either did not listen, or could not hear, the other signals on the frequency. This is the inherent problem when there is no one listening *at the location of the transmitter.* de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] sitting on 7077.5
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 08:58 AM 1/24/2008, you wrote: You really need to grow up, John. If you have personal problems, solve them, but how about keeping them off the forum. Really Roger after this comment : I doubt you do much digital communications at all, John. I know that I never run across you on the air. I have made it a point to try and work you just to prove you wrong. John, W0JAB If you had the perspicacity to check, John, you would have noticed that the above comment, which is true, was private email and conspicuously marked as such. Again, if you have personal problems, solve them, but don't bore the rest of us with them on this forum. This forum is not a place for you to prove yourself. I am finished with this thread and with corresponding with you. de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Dave AA6YQ wrote: I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some programmer develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and prevents me from going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars and people. Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or onlookers will be disregarded as pot-stirring. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Great analogy. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Danny Douglas wrote: And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its continuance will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he isnt likely to go to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of venem. The subject IS the major discussion here, and this IS about digital radio. Without the discussion, it would not be a free discussion of what digital radio is doing today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who have no interest in the subject, must not really be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each and every one of us. Danny Douglas N7DC It appears as though those of us who do not favor, and do not appreciate, the practice of Winlink stations to transmit QRM indiscriminately are being told to either shut up or leave. I might point out that most of the discussions about Pactor originate when one of the Pactor advocates posts something to the effect that the rest of us must make way for robot Pactor stations whenever necessary, Pactor robot operations are more important than what the rest of us are doing, Pactor Winlink stations own certain frequencies, etc. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
Jack Chomley wrote: The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my hobby... 73s Jack VK4JRC We understand, Jack. But please remember the Three Laws of Robotics that govern the behavior of you Robots: 1. A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed. 2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order does not conflict with the First Law. 3. A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First Law. Can't do that. Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor. Some of my best friends are Robots. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with a waterfall display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) QRM that ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO? It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone that *only* knows that is a pactor signal to QRM it. John, W0JAB A complete non-sequitur, John. The problem is robots acting as low-budget email providers QRMing ordinary amateurs. Not the reverse. Ordinary non-Pactor digital mode ham ops never intentionally QRM anyone. Anyway, the number of Pactor QSOs is so small that I doubt it ever happens. By doing what they do, these Robots are violating Asimov's First Law of Robotics. [see generally I, Robot; see also The Robots of Dawn]. This is not permitted, John. It has to stop, John. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
kh6ty wrote: 97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. Excellent point. The above regulation, interpreted reasonably, would outlaw 99.9% of Winlink activity within FCC jurisdiction. All the discussion about how Winlink users trample others on the frequency is directly related to using the ham bands as a free email service, instead of for person-to-person, real-time, *hobby* communications. There is no second person in real-time, that can communicate the need to QSY when advised there is an ongoing QSO on the frequency, local to his station, but not detectable by the remote station, in an email delivery system. It is this capability that makes it possible for radio amateurs to *share* a limited amount of spectrum that one-way systems do not possess. Skip KH6TY Very well said. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Jose Amador wrote: For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. Indeed, Jose, this is always possible. Who among us has not on some erroneous occasion transmitted without listening long ENOUGH, and instead unintentionally QRMed an innocent QSO? But VERY few of us would ever do such a thing intentionally; I like to think that none of us would. Winlink, by contrast, transmits without first listening as a matter of *policy* by deliberately eschewing modest technical modifications, already in being but not in use, which would allow it to listen first. This is because its guiding lights have concluded that Winlink transmissions are more valuable than other forms of ham activity, and the latter must be made to give way to them. This explains the proposal on various Winlink websites of channelization whereby certain (many!) frequencies are argued to be Winlink priority frequencies, which the rest of us may use only on sufferance. If this were an upward trend, it would eventually have to result in an outright ban of Winlink, unless we want to see much of our bands comprised of nothing but over-the-air email dumps. Fortunately, Winlink is very inefficient compared to the conventional internet. The rise of Wi-Fi in RV parks and boat marinas, and the steady drop in the cost of boat satellite communications will likely result in its gradual, and I trust timely, demise. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
expeditionradio wrote: This is simply childish backlash directed at me personally because I opposed the Digital Stone Age Petition. It really has nothing at all to do with HFLINK or ALE. It will go away. Bonnie KQ6XA Actually, what is childish is the never-ending assertion by Winlink advocates that they can and should be allowed to operate in a fashion involving transmitting without listening. Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. (QRO can come in handy when it comes to Pactor.) But the Pactor station's actions were as illegal as heck. This sort of thing needs to be put down by the FCC and I trust that it will be. As boaters and RVers get Wi Fi access to the internet more and more, Pactor will die out. As it should. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war with HFlink
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 08:14 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote: Twice in the last seven days I have had QSOs disrupted by a Pactor Winlink station firing up on top of my QSO. Fortunately, both times I turned the power way up (from about 40 watts to 200 watts) and we were able to work through it. Roger - how do you know it's WinLink stations and not me and K0ABC in a keyboard to keyboard QSO? I know you have had a anit-wide rant for a long long time. But it's really be showing more and more in the last 2 weeks. Your problem, John, is that you are unable to stick to an argument of the issues. Instead, everything becomes personal with you as evidenced by the above ad hominem remarks. Disappointing. As to how I knew it was a Winlink station and not you, very simple. 1) I doubt that you do Pactor keyboard QSOs more than once in a blue moon (no one does); 2) under the circumstances of the interference, I simply refuse to believe that ANY live operator, including you, would have operated in such a flagrantly inconsiderate manner. I sure hope that this helped your thinking, John. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Alan Barrow wrote: I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to help, and did so. I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags. I totally agree with the above. The times I participated in emergency communications it was a tiresome but necessary chore involving discomfort, boredom, and a considerable sacrifice of time. (My own role was very minor, but there were dedicated hams there that really contributed a lot.) The local Red Cross services needed hams with HTs and mobile rigs. The work we did was tedious but necessary. I have no desire to be a cop or a firefighter, and I personally do not enjoy Emcomm. I did a hitch in the Army and that was enough for me. The strength of ham radio in the context of emergency communications is not that we are all sitting around all the time just itching to monitor for that SOS or whatnot. It is that amateur radio provides a reservoir of private citizens who own and know how to quickly deploy things like generators, antennas, and SSB/FM transceivers. We can quickly put together makeshift but effective communications in environments where all other communications are temporarily down and out. Katrina, the 1994 California earthquake, are but two examples. There are countless others. I do agree that some persons with agenda have used the Emcomm argument as a cloaking device to pursue an agenda. Winlink immediately comes to mind in this regard. But this should not take away from the civic minded hams in many countries who regularly make a real contribution to emergency communications. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network
jgorman01 wrote: Does this ever increasing number of government agencies doing this scare the bejeebers out of anybody. That is, the government buying permanent infrastructure and someday wanting a return on investment, like using it to augment regular communications? Jim WA0LYK Exactly right. When the Government buys infrastructure and puts it on your property, i.e. the ham bands, it does not take long before it becomes their property, i.e. the ham bands. Great. Just great. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another point to consider is that the Government Employee who will be operating this equipment is maintaining (and will probably continue to maintain) and average age south of 40 years old. The same cannot be said for the Amateur Radio community who is letting attrition and lack of appeal to younger members raise the average age north of 60 years old. Let me get this straight. You are saying Government Employees are going to be operating Government equipment on the ham bands? There is something about that survival instinct that trumps tradition fed attrition every time. A meaningless statement if there ever was one. The time to be worrying about this dynamic, and making preparations to prevent it from happening was decades ago. At this point in time, all the bluster is as useful as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I have no idea what most of the above post means, but if you are ready to write amateur radio off, I am not. I don't know what the average age of the hams who responded to the last group of emergencies was, but I do know that they did a bang-up job, as usual. Mostly with relatively simple modes like SSB and FM voice. And they did it without a lot of Government employees or equipment. In fact, it is the very fact that hams privately own lots of things like generators, transceivers, quickly-deployable antennas, etc.(and the skill to use them) that makes amateur radio a unique resource. Time and time again it has been amateur radio, not a gaggle of Government employees, that provides communication in emergencies. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Oregon Governor Allocates $250,000 for Digital Communications Network
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Maybe all would be well if the word WinLink had not been used. Probably. Other forms of amateur communication listen before they transmit, thereby preventing unnecessary QRM. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor on 30 M
Rick wrote: I sure wish more hams would work on solving this problem, rather than exacerbating the situation and being part of the problem. Just a few minutes ago I was trying to have a Q with VE5MU using FAE 400 around 10137. A Pactor station starting transmitting right over our frequency. It is really unbelievable how hams think this is acceptable. It is just plain illegal operation. Period. There is no other way to call it. The Pactor station was S-9 at my location so I doubt very much if that station did not hear one of us and we had been on for quite some time before that happened. I was working an MFSK QSO Saturday, and a Pactor station fired up right on our frequency. He obviously couldn't have cared less at the initiating end that we were there. And of course at the other end there was no human being to curb this illegal activity. The QRM was intense, but I QROed to 200 watts and eventually it went away. Plain and simple illegal behavior by the Pactor station. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Rick You keep lumping automatic together with unattended As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site. A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is attended because it was activated by the distant station. This is unattended transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station attending a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Beacon's ?
Dave AA6YQ wrote: Demetre, amateur radio in the United States is governed by FCC regulations. Would the fact that Winlink PMBOs flagrantly violate these regulations have something to do with your suggestion that we ignore them? Thank you for that, Dave. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Pactor Packet Spot Page now up.
Charles Brabham wrote: Don't hold your breath while you wait for an enthusiastic response from Packet operators, who are constantly QRM'ed by PACTOR Lids and generally will not tolerate being associated with them, in any way. The difference is that the Packet folks do not feel that they have a god-given right to crash other hams' QSO's. We operate according to PART97 and The Amateur's Code. - When we are not having our QSO crashed by a mindless PACTOR Lid, that is... Stop by at WinLink-Watch to see the pics. - http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL I doubt you'll see many Pactor QSOs. Pactor is dead and will stay dead. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!
Howard Brown wrote: LAWS OF RADIO ROBOTICS A robot operator may not QRM a human operator or, through inaction, allow a human operator to be QRMed. A robot operator must obey orders given it by human operators especially orders to stop transmitting until the frequency is clear. A robot operator must handle its own messages as long as such operation does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 73, Howard K5HB ROTFL! So true. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 08:34 PM 1/1/2008, you wrote: John, you might ask yourself if your above comment is worthy of your personal level of maturity. Roger please, I'm not the one that can't fine a pactor QSO. Yes, John, a terrible moral failing, I know... 8-)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
Nick wrote: CQing on 14.0755 Pactor ARQ FWIW... de Nick KU2A FN42dw How does one CQ in Pactor ARQ? de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
Sholto Fisher wrote: You don't, you would use either Pactor-1 FEC or RTTY to call CQ first. Yes, I know. That was my point. I haven't heard a Pactor FEC signal in 3 or 4 years. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
Sholto Fisher wrote: You know I head a Pactor-1 FEC call around 14,061 a couple days ago but I don't have my PK-232 anymore so couldn't reply. I wonder if it was someone in this group? 73 Sholto KE7HPV. I might be wrong but I think that MixW can parse Pactor1 FEC. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Charles Brabham wrote: - Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes snip Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units. Charles, N5PVL Yes, that is the one. The hardware was mostly SCS-built as I recall, but they did try to differentiate the product somehow or other. In any case they were the only company ever to license Pactor protocol from SCS if I remember correctly. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD?
w6ids wrote: - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:bmc%40wonderwave.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:56 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Is PACTOR I Actually DEAD For KBD - KBD? I was active on the TNC modes, i.e. Amtor, Pactor, RTTY for a lot of years, roughly 1989-2003 or so. Pactor was quite popular until the early 2000s, when PSK31 was introduced by Peter Martinez. This ushered in an age of narrow-frequency soundcard modes, which made ownership of a TNC unnecessary to work these new modes. This was a good thing because prior to this only a limited number of hams bothered with the digital modes (indeed most hams did not know what Amtor and Pactor were) due to the cost of the TNC, which was several hundred dollars. When this happened I owned the top-of-the-line TNC at that time, the SCS PTC-II. Before that I had owned a PK232 (a good unit for what it was), and for a brief time, the Kantronics Kam Plus (not a good unit). Within a year after the debut of PSK31, Pactor K-to-K activity dropped to almost nil. Oh, for a while you could scare up a contact now and then, but it was hard going. At some point I threw in the towel, my PTC-II went into the junk drawer, and not long ago I sold it to a boater. Since the early 2000s period, I don't think I have heard a Pactor FEC signal one single time, which indicates that no one is calling CQ for Pactor contacts any more, and thus whatever Pactor you hear is mailbox robot activity, or, less likely, people calling each other on schedule. I have gotten a couple of private emails this weekend, including one from a European ham, which emails confirm that Pactor is now dead other than for mailbox use both in North America and in Europe. Your PK232 is quite obsolete because it cannot even do Pactor II, and cannot be modified to do so. If you do what most people did, you will pitch it. Other than Pactor 1, your computer sound card or higher-end units such as the Navigator or the Signal-Link units will do far more than any TNC will do if you are simply interested in ordinary amateur radio contacts, i.e. QSOs. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hmm OK, I hope this anti SCS thing is not going to end to being an anti-European thing Roger. I get that feeling somehow, since SCS is not an American company. My dear fellow, I once owned an SCS PTC-II. Very few American hams ever bought one--they never sold well here. Does that sound like the act of an anti-European? Please, let us keep the argument at a professional level and not resort to ad hominem attacks of this low nature. Also anyone can class your claims againstt Winlink and PACTOR as pure propaganda. A purely meaningless statement, my friend. I have simply pointed out, as have others, that Winlink and Pactor stations do not listen before transmitting, unlike essentially the entire rest of the amateur community. Since the Winlink/Pactor people acknowledge the truth of this point, I would hardly call it propaganda. Now, your characterization of this as The Great Global Amateur Communications System or something like that might be rightfully characterized as propaganda by some. But not by me, Demetre, not by me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my friend. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word many. In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. (The HAL attempts to implement P-Mode were a failure, it appeared to me.) This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre? It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes. There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art. Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units. As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an SCS modem. OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats!!!
Demetre SV1UY wrote: So what you are talking about PACTOR 3 being the only offender is FAR AWAY FROM THE TRUTH OM. There is no system today that has such a DETECTOR you are dreaming about. My station does. A human operator. Finally if you are so adament about such a detector why don't you write one that works (you already own an SCS MODEM) and give it for free to the Radio Amateur community? I know why. If you did that you would not have anything to whine about!!! 73 de Demetre SV1UY OK, a couple of points. 1. No one is defending W1AW or the other practices that involve transmitting without listening. I happen to think that all such practices are morally wrong and legally questionable. Regrettably, the FCC has already said that W1AW can get away with its broadcasts. A bad call, but there you are. 2. Pactor is far more ubiquitous in its transmit-without-listening practices than anything else on the air. The Pactor community flatly refuses to change its practices, and they routinely QRM innocent QSOs with impunity and indifference. Mark's superb petition will help curb this. 3. I sold my SCS modem because Pactor as a Keyboard-to-Keyboard mode is as dead as Julius Caesar. No matter what a few outliers may say, Pactor is dead as far as ordinary ham radio goes. It is now solely a mailbox mode, used mainly to provide cheap, inefficient internet service to those who are not able to hook up to the usual internet grid. Doesn't sound much like ham radio to me. Other commercial services are a better provider of this capability--it is not appropriate for amateur radio. 4. I am a yachtsman myself. I can attest that very few yachtsman use amateur radio, let alone Pactor, for even a tertiary communications system when at sea. 5. Winlink is largely irrelevant to emergency communications, propaganda to the contrary. Having operated emergency communications in numerous fires and earthquakes, I can attest that Winlink was never a resource. The simplest modes, i.e. FM and SSB, provided the bulk of amateur-supplied communications. Simpler is better. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: Your excellent petition
Mark Miller wrote: Forwarded with the permission of G3PLX Thank you for sharing this Mark. If you and Peter Martinez are both for the petition, that along with my independent review is good enough for me. Sorry to see some of the ad hominem bozo remarks on this forum. Hey, I thought I was the only guy who labels his socks by day. :-) This petition, if adopted, will be a huge step towards advancement of the digital modes on the amateur bands, and a clean-up of non-amateur modes and practices that threaten our bands. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators. 1. what are you going to do when you find a KB2KB QSO going on? Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for robots. de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats
Dave Bernstein wrote: I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW. 73, Dave, AA6YQ That is because they never do. The SCS TNCs can be set to ID in CW, but in practice no one ever does. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 07:28 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: Be darned surprised. There are almost zero, goosegg, nada keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs in Pactor. The mode is dead except for robots. Yeah Roger you keep saying that yet I seem to find them all the time. Have you given it a try? Yes, for years. This year I finally realized that Pactor is dead dead dead as a QSO mode and I sold my SCS PTC-II. To a boater, by the way, not a ham. For over a year I never heard one K-to-K Pactor QSO; really none for several years. They aren't out there no matter what you keep saying. You keep telling us about all the digital QSOs you have on Pactor, but I never work you on any of the modes, and I have been active on all of them. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HUH! They didn't want CW! What mode were the spark gap operators running then ? Spark. Bonnie KQ6XA Yes, CW replaced spark gap in much the same way that PSK31 and later sound card modes replaced Pactor as primary digital communications modes. The innovation of the sound card modes made digital modes economical for most hams, and the digital modes have become far more ubiquitous than in the days when everyone needed a TNC to do digital modes. It freed hams from monopolists with proprietary modes aimed at forcing people to buy their hardware. Pactor is now pretty much dead as a QSO mode because there is no need to buy an expensive proprietary TNC to do advanced digital work. Which is why very few hams own TNCs these days. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR
expeditionradio wrote: First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, and I did not speak out because I was not a PACTOR operator. The thing that distinguishes Pactor and Winlink from all other modes and indeed from the entire rest of amateur radio is the announced policy on the part of the Winlink community that they refuse to listen to determine if a frequency is clear before they transmit. This dangerous practice must stop. We have all tried gentlemen's agreements and ordinary spirit of ham radio approach but the Pactor community is intransigent, and appears to have its own agenda which is contrary to the interests of amateur radio as a whole. Any petition that will eliminate this kind of operations will be a good thing. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
W2XJ wrote: Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics. The Pactor community has its own agenda which mainly involves squeezing the rest of the digital hams into a tiny sliver of the bands, operating on sufferance of powerful, non-listening Pactor/Winlink stations. These stations reserve the right to seize a frequency from others by sheer mechanical force and robot perseverance. This agenda will make someone a lot of money selling proprietary Pactor hardware, and allow a few people to control a LOT of spectrum. As best I can determine the petition in question would put an end to this. What good can come of 1.5Khz wide, high-powered stations transmitting without listening? None at all, is the obvious answer. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Dave AA6YQ wrote: We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you get it, you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. Hear hear!! de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Demetre SV1UY wrote: OK Roger, Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a few years from now. They are dying out as RVers get Wi Fi internet access in their parks, and boaters are increasingly using satellite telephone/internet. Few hams bother with Pactor or own TNCs any more. This is a problem that will likely take care of itself over time, as most problems do. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Mark Thompson wrote: *Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies* Of course, the problem with Winlink is that since Winlink stations do not, as a matter of policy, listen before transmitting, there is a grave risk that a Winlink station will interfere with other emergency traffic. Other forms of emergency communication (the main ones, i.e. stations manned by human beings) do not have this flaw, because they listen before transmitting as required by the laws of essentially all countries. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower priority. 73 de Demetre SV1UY The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Some will never ending complain about anything and everything. Bottom line - it worked and very well. Actually, I doubt that Winlink did much of anything. The original post read a lot more like a PR effort by people with an agenda than anything of substance. I've done disaster communications in fires, earthquakes, and drills, and Winlink never amounted to anything. I doubt that has changed. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Sholto Fisher wrote: It can also clog up our bands. For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has been on going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go through is titled: FW: Please read til the end-Why boys need parents...269250 Do we really need 262Kb emails like this on HF No, what we need is FCC enforcement to prevent this sort of abuse. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] DRCC multiplier Numbers / 1/1/08 contests
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Due to the pending 1/1/08 contests sponsored by this group, I'm a little behind on creating DRCC numbers. I will probably finish the the backlog of requests in the next day or so. It is good to see the interest, hopefully it will translate to good activity in the JT65A New Years Crawl and also the DRCC Olivia contest.. I had reserved a few low DRCC numbers when I first established the number system. Since the 1/1/08 contests have DRCC numbers below 100 as multipliers, I have issued some of the reserved low numbers to recent applicants who state they will be active in the contest. These low numbers are close to being fully issued. If you really plan on being active in the contest, and would like to swap you high number for a low number, contact me soon. I have a handful of low numbers left. I see that you modestly assigned yourself #1. :-) de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
Howard Brown wrote: Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen. It seems to me that they are violating the rules. I have a similar question about Pactor 3. Can someone explain why it is allowed? My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't that the maximum bandwidth? Howard K5HB Keep in mind that the enforcement resources of the FCC are pretty limited, and Pactor 3 is not all that ubiquitous. Just because the FCC doesn't put a stop to things like Pactor 3 being too wide, Pactor robot stations transmitting without listening, etc. does not mean that these things are legal. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Roger your beating a very dead horse. In just 41 days all the wide robots will have to be in their own sub-band. I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon. John, W0JAB You mean you hope that the anti-Pactor stuff will stop. But you have completely missed my point. Which was, to make it clearer, that merely because a given bad practice (e.g. Pactor stations transmitting without listening as a matter of policy) isn't immediately stamped out by the FCC, such inaction does not mean that the practice is legal. That is my point. Hope this helped you, John. ;-)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I Apologize
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Points taken. What about the times I and other have been up around 075 to 077 with KB to KB on one of the Pactor modes and without seeing any text someone starts calling CQ with one of the sound card modes? There is a difference. 1. In the last 5 years of operating I have not heard one single Pactor K-to-K QSO, so what you are describing is extremely rare. I know that it is; that is why I just gave away my SCS PTC-II modem. No one to talk to with it. Except for a very few, Pactor is not a QSO mode. It is less common on the digital modes as a QSO mode than old A.M. is on the phone bands. 2. What you are describing is not policy. In other words, while the Pactor people admit and are proud of the fact that they refuse to listen before transmitting, other amateurs do not deliberately do this as policy. Oh, the occasional careless Op may do it by accident, but not as policy. The Pactor people have made a deliberate decision to transmit without listening, other hams be darned. There is simply no excuse for deliberately deciding, as a matter of policy, not to listen before transmitting. What if there is emergency traffic on the frequency, for example. Again, I hope this helps you, John. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Roger regardless of what you think about Amtor and Pactor - both are still doing very well. Other then a hand full of CW and SSB QSO's the log book is full of both Amtor and Pactor 1, 2 and 3. John, W0JAB Incredible. And I am on digital almost every morning and evening, and never hear these ubiquitous signals for the past four years or so. Golly propagation is a funny thing, is it not? Pactor and Amtor are as dead as Julius Caesar as ordinary QSO/keyboard-to-keyboard modes except maybe for a few (read: FEW) afficianados perhaps including you. That's why I finally unhooked my PTC-II modem. That's why most digital ops no longer have a TNC operable in the shack. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] PSK63 activity!
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Well just add the rest of the keyboard modes while your at it... Great idea! With mode multipliers. And please make sure you do add both the keyboard mode of Amtor and Pactor. Ten extra points for using a time machine, because that is what you'll need to work anyone on these modes. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY contester's survey
Brian A wrote: Look at: http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html http://rttycontesting.com/2007survey/2007octsurveyresults.html It reflects the comments of over 500 RTTY contesters. One major conclusion: More RTTY contests wanted. This is despite the fact that there are at least 32 now. So if you think RTTY contests are going to disappear, think again. I don't think anyone thought that RTTY contests were going away. I do think that a) a lot of the RTTY contesters pretty much don't do much ham radio except contesting; and b) we need to learn to co-exist with contests such that a contest does not mean a suspension of the ordinary band plans, i.e. RTTY in the RTTY portion of the band, not on top of everyone else. Sure, some of these chaps probably would like there to be RTTY contests 52 weeks a year. I guess that is about what you are saying. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY contester's survey
Brian A wrote: Roger, What about shared resoures don't you understand? I don't particularly care for the tone of your post. Thanks for the lecture. Conversation ended. SK de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?
Dave Sloan wrote: A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the Navigator? TNX 73, Dave N0EOP Dave did you try what I told you with NavOptions, changing 15 to Normal? I am pretty sure that was your friend's problem. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?
Dave Sloan wrote: A friend just got his Navigator in the mail yesterday and is having problems getting it to work. Anyone have any experience with the Navigator? TNX 73, Dave N0EOP It is slightly tricky to set up, but once you get it set up it works wonderfully, and in a trouble-free fashion. If your friend has trouble have him contact Glenn at US Interface support, and he'll have it squared away quickly. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone using the Navigator by US Interface?
Dave Sloan wrote: Hi Roger, He worked with Glenn yesterday and Glenn is gone for the week-end. Of course he doesn't want to wait. He says the interface shows he is keying and the radio shows it is keying. But, he is getting nothing out. I told him to try raising his ALC some and to also check the cable. It looks like he must be getting the PTT but, no data into the radio. I have a different radio and use my soundcard. So, I'm not all that much help to him. Tom has psk working with his Winpsk. TNX 73, Dave N0EOP OK, I think I know the problem. The little control program that comes with the Navigator may have defaulted to 15db (attenuated). Be sure ch1 and ch2 (atten) are set to NORMAL in the NavOptions program. I'll bet that is the problem. Try it now. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] QSO or QRM? ...or Contest?
expeditionradio wrote: The recent RTTY contest leads one to ponder: Why don't we see much backlash against contests? More flame bait. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Current balun
Dave AA6YQ wrote: If our objective is to welcome and encourage new digital mode operators, then I suggest that we *never* respond to questions in anything less than a positive and constructive way -- no matter how ambiguous, poorly worded, defensive, or just plain wrong-headed the question may be. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Hear hear. Not all of us are electrical engineers or technicians by trade. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
expeditionradio wrote: Alan G3VLQ wrote: In my opinion all amateur un-attended automatic operation should be banned world wide. Automatic operation might be essential to HF emcomm but is emcomm essential, I think not. Alan, Are you ready, along with all your friends, to personally monitor HF 24/7 for emergency communications? You are welcome to your opinion, but the reality is, that we already have 24/7 access communications being provided on HF by automatic stations worldwide. A pleasant little myth--all of these robot stations just standing by to respond to emergencies. This is supposed to justify their constant QRMing of human operators when they transmit remorselessly without first listening. It is very possible for a robot station to unknowingly (since they do not listen before transmitting) QRM other stations carrying emergency traffic. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Dan KA3CTQ wrote: I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1% asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a land grab. Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change. Exactly right. I have been a ham for 40 years, and active on digital for almost 20. During this time I have participated in emergency communications in the aftermath of earthquakes, and during fires. Never, not once, did automated systems make a measurable or significant contribution to any emergency communications. The myth that they do is merely cover for them to push forward their agenda. And that agenda has nothing, nada, to do with emergency communications. Every emergency in my lifetime that involved emergency communications by hams was handled by SSB and CW stations, and FM stations, manned by live amateurs, usually operating under rough field conditions. Unattended Pactor transmitters should not be permitted on HF at all. Most or (likely) all that presently operate on HF are illegal because they transmit without checking the frequency to see if it is in use. Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery. This is band pollution, about on a par with BPL. de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 08:34 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery And just why do you think every message passed is email? It seems to me you have never copied the traffic. Right? John, W0JAB Wrong, John. I own a PTC-II modem. I have copied Pactor, done Pactor QSOs (practically until I was the last ham in North America trying to use Pactor for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs ... it is as dead as Julius Caesar now, by the way.) Do you? Do you even know what you are talking about? de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 09:41 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: Well John, Those guys never tried.. so for them it is QRM... sad eh? Patrick vk2pn And the packet, amtor and aplink BBS system did what different? Just trying to understand why so many HATE the mode of pactor. 1. It habitually involves transmitting without listening first, as required by good operating practice and by law. 2. Because it is spectrum-inefficient. 3. Because it involves using precious ham radio spectrum as a cheap form of email service. In the past, when Pactor was used for traditional amateur radio purposes, and in accordance with good operating practices (i.e. listening first, John) I used Pactor and liked it. In fact I presently own three Pactor TNCs ... a PK232, a Kam (long story, what junk), and a PTC-II. Hope this helped. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
Rud Merriam wrote: Roger, As a ham I am interested in using email via my radio. Part of it is technical challenge of working on a system to do this. Part of it is to explore the digital technologies. Much of my interest is aside from disaster communications, but there is that, also. My license allows me to do this and I intend to do so within the regulations. There is one ham's reasons for pursuing my part of this hobby. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net http://TheHamNetwork.net Works for me, friend. A little experimenting is a good thing. I like messing with radios and messing with boats, and messing around with radios on boats. I'll do my thing and you do yours. And I'll bet that you listen before you transmit, too, which the regulations require of us both. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
expeditionradio wrote: The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously, automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely popular with ham operators. . What nonsense. In fact it is a small group of hams that are using robot techniques, and if anything the number peaked in the 90s and has been decreasing ever since in terms of actual signals on the air. (Admittedly some of this decrease may be due to the sunspot cycle minimum). Automatic operations are extremely unpopular with most hams, and are far out of the mainstream of amateur radio. Most of the communications are probably illegal under US and other countries' regulations due to the lack of listening before transmitting, and in many cases the communications consists of business over-the-air internet messages which are violative of US Part 97 and other country counterparts. Automatic operation will continue to decrease as wireless internet service becomes more common, and Pactor robot operations will become less and less desireable as RV Parks, and boat marinas will allow users Wi Fi internet access. Most hotels do this now. Even Starbucks does this now. Pactor and unattended operation will then gradually fade away as a third-rate alternative to direct internet access. By the way, let's all remember who started this obvious flame-bait thread. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
expeditionradio wrote: Automatic operation is essential to HF emcomm. It is certainly not asking too much that 10% of each ham band be devoted to one of the primary purposes for the existence of the Amateur Radio Service. Greg, where is your volunteer force of non-automatic operators providing 24/7 emergency service on HF? I have participated in numerous emergency communications scenarios, through several earthquakes and fires. Never, not once, was automatic operation even involved in passing emergency traffic. 95% of it was done either on HF SSB or FM repeaters or simplex for short-range communications. Mostly the latter. Where is the 24/7 volunteer force? Red Cross, RACES, and other minuteman style ham volunteer groups. Not on Winlink. Automatic operation is mainly a way for boaters and RVers to use the ham bands for cheap internet access. This is not a valid use of our amateur spectrum and is probably illegal since most of this traffic is business-related. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
expeditionradio wrote: Roger, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. If you can provide such 24/7 access on HF with manually operated stations, they do so now. Show us your volunteer operator army on duty. Otherwise, your continued protests ammount to little more than lip service. As a wise man once said, in the face of [such] ignorance, the Gods themselves contend in vain. I have said about all I have to say, as I believe that the absurdity of Bonnie's posts speak for themselves. One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are. I will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect. I was, quite likely, wrong about that and therefore should not have said that. I hope that the majority of amateurs will resist strongly the Pactor/Winlink attempts at a frequency grab. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 07:41 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote: One last thing. I like to say only what I *know* to be so. I do not, for a fact, know that a large portion of the internet messages that pass on Winlink are business-related, although I do know that some are. I will therefore withdraw my comment to that effect. I was, quite likely, wrong about that and therefore should not have said that. Sorry for the bottom post but it's short. Again I have *NOT* seen any even on the WinLink internet network. Show me. John, W0JAB Per other posts in this thread, evidently even the Winlink people admit it, so consider yourself shown. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes
Rick wrote: Demetre, What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all hams. Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that is not the voice/image sub bands. People have been suggesting for years that a small area be designated for automated digital (Pactor, in other words). The Pactor guys have refused. THEY are the ones who insist that wherever digital can go, Pactor can go. The only solution is to do what I do--if a Pactor signal comes on freq, up the power until he has to stop. It works. (New linear coming soon solely for this purpose). de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes
Les Warriner wrote: And is strictly illegal by Part 97. 5 KW linears are available. Want the address? No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so much time in California. It is illegal to start on low power and increase the power to maintain a contact on what was a clear channel at the beginning of the QSO? Do you have a cite for that proposition? I would love to see it. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Only using wide digital modes
Les Warriner wrote: Your statement was that you would increase power to interfere with him/her deliberately. Wrong. I said that I would increase power to keep the Pactor station from taking the frequency. By the way, I don't imagine in your investigation of the facts (of which there is none) that you are aware that SCS Pactor modems do that *automatically* ... if the link slows down (say, because there is a live QSO on frequency interfering with them) they increase power automatically. By your analysis this is illegal, of course. But since that is a robot station doing it, of course that is OK with you. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy frequency detection
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands Dave? I'd love to see you doing that! 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY Talk about a false analogy. By this logic anytime a human digital station operates where Pactor operates (i.e. everywhere there is digital) we are transmitting inappropriately. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] center of the waterfall question
Bill Aycock wrote: Frank- I think that there is MUCH confusion in our ranks on this subject. For instance, I set my rig to one frequency (usually 14,070.00) and leave it there. I tune to different signals by moving the marker that shows the offset from the base frequency on the waterfall. The radio bandwidth is many times as wide as the signal width (for PSK31), and many signals can be accommodated in the passband. I have a tuneable Digital filter, and one of the most educational tricks is to shift the upper and lower audio limits of the filter, and watch the result on the waterfall One of the sources of the confusion is the ambiguity in the meaning of best. I think that it is highly improbable that we can get a clear definition. Good luck- Bill-W4BSG In my opinion there are two classes of radios for digital use, and which type you have dictates how you handle the center frequency question. Older legacy radios do not allow use of narrow crystal filters (originally intended for CW) in the digital modes. The designers of these radios either ignored the digital modes altogether (requiring, for example, interfacing the radio through the mic connector) or simply didn't care much (my FT-900, an otherwise good radio, falls into this category). These radios can be used for digital, but lack the most important QRM-fighting tools--the crystal and mechanical filters. For these radios you can get away with tuning by leaving the VFO alone and simply moving the marker on the waterfall to the signal you wish to receive. But you will miss receiving many, many signals if the band is at all crowded if you tune using this technique. Newer radios generally all allow use of the narrow crystal and mechanical filters in the digital modes and typically have a special DIGI mode setting for this purpose. For radios of this type, it is *very important* to tune the station that you are working to the center frequency rather than simply moving the marker on the waterfall and not touching the VFO. The reason is that otherwise you cannot use the crystal and mechanical filters of your rig effectively. The optimal way to tune a station with a modern rig is to place the received signal in the center frequency passband, typically either 1000hz (most Yaesu radios, for example) or 1500 hz, and then utilize the rig's narrow filter. For PSK31, literally the narrower the better -- for example, my Mark V's 250hz filters are super for PSK modes, and the 500hz filters are great for MFSK, 500hz Olivia, Domino, and MT63. Doing this also makes the IF width and shift controls much more effective, and often you can use these controls to eliminate even a QRMing signal that is inside the narrow passband corridor. Placing the received signal in the center frequency passband often makes a huge difference in your ability to receive a signal. Often if there is a strong PSK signal elsewhere on the band, it will desensitze your receiver through AGC action to the point where you are not receiving the weaker signals at all. Kick in the narrow filters, and this problem will disappear. This is true even with higher-end rigs such as the FT1000MP/Mark V. Sure, you can work stations by simply moving the marker to the station you want to work rather than tuning the same station to your rig's center frequency, but this technique is sub-optimal and makes the signal you wish to receive subject to QRM and AGC desensitization even from signals 1Khz or more away. You can usually readily see how important 1) tuning the received signal to the center frequency and 2) kicking in the narrow filters actually is, by watching the waterfall. Often the waterfall on the rig will be dark when the passband is wide open, and much lighter on the received signal once the filters are kicked in. This is because some stronger signal outside of the filter passband is desensitizing the receiver. I can often copy signals with the filters in the circuit that are completely invisible on the waterfall without the filters. The best digital programs recognize the importance of tuning the received signal to the center passband frequency, and make this easy to do. DM780 has a center frequency marker, and with one click of an icon it automatically tunes the received signal to the center passband (moves the received signal marker to the C center frequency marker). One more click and you can kick in whichever narrow filters your rig has that are appropriate for the mode, e.g. 500hz for MFSK, much narrower for PSK. MixW also enables the user to do this with a few clicks by use of an easy-to-program macro function. As the band conditions start to improve, with more signals on the band (remember, we are presently right at the solar minimum) using the narrow filters on digital modes will become more and more important. de Roger, W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Tests in ARQ FAE
Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong. However, reading all these posts suggests that what these wonder modes want and or need is channelized, clear channel frequencies, with no human factor strengths added. Is that realistic to expect on the ham bands? 73 de Brian/K3KO I'm afraid that only PACTOR 2 or 3 has any chance of making it through these conditions OM. Everything else fails. Actually, I had Olivia and PSK QSOs through the RTTY QRM this weekend. By judicious use of the narrow filters and IF Shift/Width controls, I was quite able to work through even severe QRM, where RTTY stations would start transmitting nearly on top of us. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: center of the waterfall question
Dave Bernstein wrote: Whether you find an interesting signal by clicking on traces in a panoramic tuning display or by rotating your tranceiver's tuning dial, ideally you should then direct your digital mode application to place the selected signal at a pre-specified optimal audio offset by appropriately QSYing your transceiver. Though different names are used to describe this function, most digital mode applications have provided it for a long time. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Exactly. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: jt65a is an automatic mode
expeditionradio wrote: JT65a is certainly an automatic mode. It is as automatic as any other automatic system. It perfectly fits the definitions of automatic in both the strictest sense and in many other ways, figuratively, literally and as used in RF communications: It sounds like a ghastly prescription for useless QRM. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers
Rud Merriam wrote: My only criticism is you are lumping a tool, PACTOR, into a procedure discussion. PACTOR is a tool that has nothing to do with unattended operation, except it is used in unattended operation. Which is about all it is used for. Nothing wrong with Pactor as a live QSO mode, but it is pretty much not used for that anymore. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the matters among ourselves ? I sure hope that is not what he meant. How are we supposed to resolve matters among ourselves? The Winlink people are violating the plain letter of the law by transmitting without even pretending to listen first. They appear determined to keep doing it until someone enforces the law to make them stop. Not real complicated. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?
Demetre SV1UY wrote: - So if I were you and the above description covers you I would buy an SCS-modem. The cheapest one is the PTC-IIex. 73 de SV1UY Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3). I quit using it years ago. Don't know if I still have it or not. There is next to zero Pactor QSO activity, and the PSK implementation is inferior to what you get with MixW, not to mention it doesn't support most of the other soundcard modes. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Vojtech Bubnik wrote: Question - what's so special about MT63 - where / when is it used? From my point of view, MT63 has high number of carriers, which implies low crest factor - the effective transmitted power will be much lower than of single tone mode like Olivia, if you make sure PA is not overdriven by peaks where the amplitude maxima of multiple carriers meet. Some argue that the mode is fast, but are not there Olivia submodes with the same throughput? 73, Vojtech OK1IAK There is no Olivia mode that can match MT63 for thruput. It is true that MT63 has a lower duty cycle. This enables higher output from the rig. I can easily run MT63 at 200 watts and not overheat the finals on my FT-1000MP/Mark V. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The decline of Olivia and DominoEX
Simon Brown wrote: FWIW I tried the DominoEx-4/8/16 today without FEC. Nice mode - at the moment I'm only supporting the 8kHz sample rate modes without any FEC. If the need arises I'll add the 11.025kHz variants. To complete my current programming effort I guess I should look at MT63 - there's the very fine source from gMFSK which I understand. . Now to peruse the MT63 sources... Simon Brown, HB9DRV YES!! de Roger W6VZV DM780 user
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Very confused
Andrew O'Brien wrote: I think the point was simply that there may be some new, inexperienced, operators on 10...not poor operators. If they were at 28300, they are WAY OFF the recommended PSK31 frequency of 28120 USB. Andy K3UK Not 28070? de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] MFSK16 activity
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Quite a lot of MFSK16 activity on 20M today. Don't forget this useful mode. Andy K3UK Indeed. My favorite digital mode. I live for the day when DM780 includes it! :-) de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Very confused
Dave wrote: I have apparently missed the memo that covered the way calls are made and answered on PSK31. I just answered a CQ sent by one station, only to have a completely different station call me back and start a QSO as if I had answered him! This is at least the 4th or 5th time this has happened in the last week or so, and it seems to be only on 10m PSK. W1XYZ calls CQ, I call W1XYZ de KB3MOW, and K9ABC calls me back with his name, RST, and QTH. I could almost understand if it were a contest and all I answered was a QRZ?, but these are CQs I'm responding to. Where did I go wrong? Can't imagine. I do many PSK qsos per week and never have that happen. Kinda odd. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
John Champa wrote: Bruce, When are you ever going to stop your babling ignorance about wide band HSMM on 6-meters? You are worried about 100 kHz when the band maybe opens in a few years out of a 4,000 kHz wide band. Get real! Attach brain to keyboard. I am getting very tired of reading about something you know absolutely nothing about, as in cognitive radio DSP design. Please knock it off, and stick with things you have EXPERIENCED. Your comments are much more worthwhile and enjoyable in that context. Not a very civil post. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought
Brian A wrote: You are totally WRONG if you truly believe that the other station KHz away is at fault because he captures your AGC when you're using a 3 KHz filter. As you point out PSK is only 31 HZ wide. Thus it only seems reasonable to try and copy them with a narrow filter. A filter of 2x to 3x tx bandwidth will capture all of the signal. Note this filter must be within the AGC loop or you must turn the AGC off and use the RF gain control to avoid distortion. External audio filters and may 'DSP' filter rigs are outside of the AGC loop. Get a 200Hz IF filter any you will be pleasantly surprised how many of the so called problems disappear. Exactly right. Sometimes I call CQ and at first do not see (or hear) anyone coming back to my call. Then I kick in my cascaded 250hz filters, and suddenly there is a readable signal that was not readable without the filter due to some strong adjacent signal or other that had been de-sensing my receiver's AGC. Narrow filters are a must for effective PSK operations. Asking everyone to operate QRP so that no one's signal is strong is simply absurd; it is not the answer. What about my locals, who run around 50 watts and are still S9+20? Am I supposed to expect them to operate at 1 watt? Of course not. Those who operate solely with a 3 Khz passband on PSK are going to experience very poor operating results and no help for it. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.
Peter G. Viscarola wrote: Let me hasten to add: I certainly DO NOT want to be an discourteous operator, and I ONLY wish to operate my station in accordance with best practices. Seriously. So, how does one reconcile the oft-repeated mantra only run 25W or 40W with my experience? Am I *really* bothering my fellow hams, or operating outside the bounds of acceptable practice, if I crank my PSK31 output to 85W to get a new one, when my signal is clean and my measured IMD is low? If my (strong but clean) signal captures somebody's AGC should they not simply narrow/change their IF bandwidth to eliminate the strong signal (heck, when in a PSK31 QSO I often narrow down to 50Hz just for this purpose). If they see sidebands due to receiver overload or lack of sound card dynamic range, is that a problem with MY station? I agree with you totally. Many PSK operators need to learn how to use their narrow filters as you describe. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Here's a silly thought.
Danny Douglas wrote: Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell new people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they can. There is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run more) on the PSK, etc. digital modes. Everytime I say that though, someone jumps in the middle and says that a well adjusted signal, blah blah blah, wont cause problems. Ive been told to get a receiver: get a rig: get a filter, etc. I have all three thank you - but that doesnt mean that the person transmitting such signals is not responisble to the amateur code and should not run the minimum power needed to make contacts. One can almost always tell who is exceeding necessary power, just from the view on the waterfalls. When one signal out of 20 appears 4 time brighter, and has traces above and below their main signal for half the width of the waterfall, they are exceeding power badly. Especially with PSK, many of us use broadband copy software, so we can see and copy every signal on the band at the same time. With one of those signals, I see the same station readout on a dozen or more channels of that window. Often, they just wipe out everyone else. There is never an excuse for running an unclean signal on PSK or any other mode, i.e. with sidebands, etc. In fact, this is a violation of Part 97 and analogous regulations in other countries that require a signal to conform (more or less) to the state-of-the-art as regards purity. On the other hand, it is a myth that PSK only requires 20 or 30 watts for effective communication. This is no more true of PSK than it is of the ultimate digital mode, CW. The laws of physics control all, and a signal using more power will *sometimes* get through when a signal using 20 or 30 watts will not get through. This can be the difference between a solid QSO and no QSO. There is a reason why most CW operators run 100 watts or more. Nevertheless, some ops are operating under the misconception that PSK is digital and therefore the power level does not matter. This is no more true of PSK than any other mode, such as CW. The real problem on PSK is that many operators do not know how to use their narrow filters and IF width and shift controls to filter out strong adjacent signals. They plop their VFO on 14070 or so, and tune their rigs with the software (essentially by tuning the soundcard frequency) with their IF wide open. Every strong signal on the band then pumps their AGC and they wonder why all the traces but one or two are faint and unreadable. Sure you can operate this way, so long as you don't mind not being able to read many signals that a little filtering would render quite readable. I am often surprised by the number of operators who have no understanding as to how to filter out QRM on PSK. Instead, some take the position that no one should have a strong signal at all. (One wonders, do those who argue this also believe that no one should run a high-gain antenna? Is everyone on PSK supposed to run only verticals or dipoles?). This argument is, I submit, absurd on its face. Here at the bottom of the sunspot cycle signals are often darned weak, and some power will make otherwise infeasible qsos possible. Most rigs, if properly tuned, will permit a clean PSK signal at 100 watts. I happen to have several neighbor hams who are frequently S9 + 20 on my s-meter. I nevertheless have no difficulty working on the same band as they do, because I use my filters and IF controls accordingly. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL wake up ......
John Bradley wrote: Hmmm. Large number of rules sounds like suppression to me. The right of citizens to experiment and innovate freely without the government telling them where when and how would be a truly free society. My guess is that the vast majority of non US hams on this reflector do not feel supressed, but rather sorry for the US hams who don't have the freedom that other countries enjoy. We can only hope that the FCC and the ARRL will come to some understanding which would enable and foster new modes and further the hobby generally. If you have been a member of this reflector for some time, you would realize that this is the umpteenth time this argument has gone round and round and takes the focus off what this reflector is really about. There have been some great things happening here lately, with all the interest in J65 and now the digital radio interactive sked page, thanks to the efforts of many members. Why muddy these waters with ARRL politics? John VE5MU I said it once before, and I will say it one last time. Slurs against *any* country on this reflector or in any other amateur radio venue are absolutely contrary to the spirit of international brotherhood that has always been the hallmark of amateur radio. John, if you have personal problems, solve them. Don't bring your anti-US prejudices here. Having said that, I too am tired of the ARRL rant. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Software for Pactor Controller?
wa0cqg wrote: As mentioned in an earlier post, I have a PacComm Pactor I controller (vintage 1992) with version 2.02 firmware. I did find the original operating instructions and am wondering if there is some better software to use than trying to find some terminal emulator. What would you recommend for someone just getting back on AMTOR/Pactor after a very long absence? I will be using the controller with a Yaesu FT-897 and CAT interface. All ideas gratefully received! 73, Carl WA0CQG [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:wa0cqg%40arrl.net The SCS site used to have links to such software and probably still does. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] MFSK16 pictures , much ado about nothings ?
Andrew O'Brien wrote: Now that images are legal to transmit (in the USA) and MFSK16 is set for this in MixW and Multipsk, I wonder if it has been determined useful ? I rarely hear/see any use of this function. . -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com I do it often in QSO and everyone seems to enjoy it. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: narrow filters/PSK
Patricia Gibbons wrote: Yes, I have MIXW, with a tigertronics SignaLinkUSB interface, connected to a Yaesu FT897D .. In digital mode, I can select the 500 Hz CW filter, then using the IF shift, I move the IF passband so that it is centered on the signal being received .. generally when channel center is between 1000 hz and 1500 Hz... without the IF shift / passband tuning turned on, I find that the passband of the CW filter is centered within the SSB channel, i.e. centered on 1500 hz on the waterfall display .. works fairly well .. Elaine / WA6UBE .. The center frequency of the FT-897 (all versions, if I am not mistaken) is 1000hz. In digi mode, if you use your 500hz filter, you should see on the waterfall a narrowing of the passband corridor centered on 1000hz. The corridor will be roughly 500 hz wide. You do not need to mess with the IF shift to center the signal. Put another way, you want to tune a signal so that it is centered on 1000hz. If you are using CAT control, the best way to do this is to click onto the signal on the waterfall, and then use the ALIGN: 1000 macro to align the selected signal with the 1000hz spot. I find it convenient to have a MixW indicator at 1000Hz. In this way you achieve maximum benefit from the narrow IF filter. The IF shift command can then be used to filter out adjacent signals that are inside the 500hz receive passband of the radio. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital Master 780
Salomao Fresco wrote: Hi! It looks great! It works great! Today I made a pause on my sabatic leave on amateur Radio to try DM780. Made a few QSO's and I think it does what it says. The adition of modes as the time passes will make it a piece of software to keep an eye on. We will learn to work without the niceties we have on other programs, namely MIXW, it is all a matter of getting used to it. Meanwhile other opinions are welcome. Regards A very interesting piece of software. Very impressive. Does anyone know how to set the Center Frequency? It defaults to 1500hz. Yaesu radios use 1000hz. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital Master 780
Simon Brown wrote: Drag the marker, it's in the User Guide, I'll make this more obvious :-) Simon Brown, HB9DRV Yes, thank you I actually found it there on p64. On my computer I had to press control and left click for it to drag. Works FANTASTIC!! Except for spending 15 minutes or so screwing around with that, the setup is very intuitive and after a couple of QSOs the interface quickly becomes second nature. Not that there is not a learning curve ahead!! Beautiful program. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Announcement
Andrew O'Brien wrote: FCC Announcement It was announced today that Kellogg's and the Federal Communications Commission have signed a pact to issue Amateur Radio Licenses on specially marked boxes of Corn Flakes. In this unprecedented move the FCC believes this will not hurt amateur radio but allow all individuals to receive an amateur radio license without having to demonstrate any skills with the exception of being able to use a pair of scissors to cut out their operating permit from the breakfast cereal box. Do we really need this garbage on this forum? de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC Announcement
Andrew O'Brien wrote: -One man's garbage may be another man's treasure. Andy. I 'spose. :-) de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: This would still be a good solution. 1/3 the band for narrow museum modes. 1/3 for voice modes and 1/3 for modern progressive modes with no rules or bandwidth limits and let technology rule. 73 Bill - WA7NWP I am confused. What is a narrow museum mode? PSK31? MT63? Olivia? i.e. modes used by actual hams in actual QSOs? I have thought all of these modes are a pretty dynamic part of our amateur radio hobby. PSK31 was invented by a ham, and its use has been one of ham radio's success stories. Same for Olivia and other modes. What is a modern progressive mode? Pactor being used by an RVer using amateur radio as a cheap way to get internet access? Is it progressive because it is not really amateur radio, or is it progressive because it does not listen before transmitting, as has been traditional (and I guess non-progressive) for all other components of amateur radio throughout its long and storied history? I do not understand the labels here. Sorry, I am confused by these labels. If not listening before transmitting is progressive and if filling our bands with RV internet traffic is modern count me in with the non-modern non-progressives. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting
Bill Vodall WA7NWP wrote: There was no detection available when the rules were implemented (1995?). That is the reason for the automatic areas. It was primarily intended for fully automatic stations, such as the Winlink system (perhaps the is still true for the NTS/D system which continues to use the old Winlink software), and for AX.25 store and forward. There was detection.. The automatic areas were set up for packet and that's always had carrier sense or even audio presence detection. It was the same automatic vs manual station issue then. The whole idea was if you swim with the sharks (operate within the automatic stations segment) then don't whine when you get a toe bit off. The packet automatic area was confined to a small, disused part of the bands under an STA, and was always understood to be a temporary thing for experimental purposes. It did not mean that we were supposed to be stuck, in perpetuity, with commercial modes like Pactor Winlink that do not listen before transmitting as a matter of policy. We are about to get a LOT more ordinary hams on the bands due to the demise of the CW testing requirements. This will mean more digital keyboard operators, as evidenced by the very large number of /AG and /AE stations that have been showing up on the bands during the past month. In turn, this will mean the need for more bandwidth for amateur radio operators, as opposed to Winlink users, whoever they are. Winlink and other automatic modes should look outside of the amateur service for its frequency needs. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MPSK vs OFDM vs MFSK for HF High Speed Data
Danny Douglas wrote: The best answer is NO linears at all. Not gonna happen. But, in those countries whee no linears are allowed, things seem to work quite smoothly and operators get out and work DX better than most people here do. Danny Douglas N7DC Well yeah. Countries in Europe and Asia are not 7000 miles away from most other countries as we are here in the States. I personally do not run a linear for fear of RFI, but if I could I would. de Roger W6VZV
Re: Obstination (was Re: [digitalradio] Re: 3580kHz-3600kHz FreqCoordination Info)
Seems all the stateside operators want to do is argue. Is the plan to go back to the fundementals of this group, or do we set up a new one where policy arguments would be punted? John VE5MU Fellows, injecting national slurs into *any* ham radio discussion is a spectacularly bad idea. Please, let us not travel even one step down that road. This is an international fraternity. Let us keep it that way. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Bad PSK signals ?
mulveyraa2 wrote: I think I've actually gotten a Thanks! I'll drop my drive level down next time maybe twice. A few never responded back, and the remainder were of the F-you, there's nothing wrong with my signal or equipment style. Needless to say, you can recognize the same guys over and over again in the passband without even clicking on their trace to decode them, like a certain kt4* who doesn't seem capable of ever turning his amp off. - Rich That is certainly disappointing. What software do you use to take a screenshot? Will it work with MixW? de Roger W6VZV
