Meaning no offense, but I would say that it is you that is proven
wrong. You have been stating that the regulations as recently
promulgated (not after the corrections that we are now promised)
made Pactor 3 legal.
de Roger W6VZV
Respectfully, Roger, if you are one of the many who
expeditionradio wrote:
Respectfully, Roger, if you are one of the many who were jumping up
and down on the PACTOR3 illegal bandwagon, then it is certainly
time for you to eat crow. If you were not, then don't worry about it.
But, I do notice that the most vocal PACTOR-haters are
relevant to its classification to OFDM. Which it is NOT. The
carriers
are on 120 Hz centers and the baud times are 100 Hz. Because the
baud
time is not commensurate with angular frequency of the carriers, the
dot products are not zero and therefore, they are NOT orthogonal in
Hi John,
Some of my message seems to have disappeared. I can see them on the
yahoo web, but not in the mailing list.
I don't know what's happen , but here I try again.
There is no new version of RFSM2400. The 04 is the last one.
The only freeware of STANAG I have found is open5066:
Thank you for the note. If it is designed the way you say (and this is
not contraindicated by the document I provided a link to) then the bauds
in the detector will be orthogonal.
73's
Bob
N4HY
cesco12342000 wrote:
relevant to its classification to OFDM. Which it is NOT. The
Bill,
The FCC is very clear about ALE being completely legal to use on voice
frequencies for signaling purposes. You would not even have any
particular restriction on baud rate either.
This whole eat crow nonsense is coming from one person. The fact is
that the FCC's decisions have been
I would like to hear of the results from those who are able to try these
modems. I wish I could find someone who would operate 6 meter digital
but have never been able to do so, even though I have promoted this for
years here in Wisconsin.
It has been very disappointing to me that even though
Proposed New 80 meter Bandplan for USA
3500-3540 = CW
3540-3560 = 500Hz BW All Modes.
3560-3580 = 500Hz BW All Modes. Including Auto.
3580-3600 = All Modes. Including Auto.
---
Proposed New Calling Frequencies
3539 QRP CW
3545+ PSK31
3548+ PSK63, MFSK16, Olivia500, etc
3552+ Hell, etc
John,
From everything we could find, Q15X25 never really worked very well and
was abandoned as a replacement for AX.25 packet. Consider that instead
of adding this mode to Multipsk, Patrick came up with the PAX modes,
although they are not 8 bit ASCII.
We know what we MUST do to improve
Thanks Patrick,
So what about the different bandwidth? Assuming SSB is 2.4 kHz and PSK31 is 31
Hz, is there an extra advantage here of 800 (19 dB or whatever) as well?
IMO Digital Modes are ideal for QRP and for those who want to get away from the
screaming guys with 1,000m towers and 10kW
Somehow I doubt the non-extra-class CW ops will go for a
15 kHz segment (3525-3540)
Since 25% of the non-phone band is extra-only, wouldn't it
make sense to designate some of the extra-only sub-band
as digital? Not all extra-class operators operate CW.
expeditionradio wrote:
Proposed New 80
Rick,
To me it all depends on the channel behavior. On HF, with multipath,
the parallel modem wins because the simbols can be made longer than
the delay spread.
Just observing the succesful implementations may lead anyone to see that
in an ionospheric channel, generally, parallel tone modems
Hello Simon,
So what about the different bandwidth? Assuming SSB is 2.4 kHz and PSK31 is 31
Hz, is there an extra advantage here of 800 (19 dB or whatever) as well?
The bandwidth is already taken into account. The standard bandwidth for
determining S/N is 3 KHz. The small bandwidth of PSK31 is
Hello Rick,
As far as I know, there are very few specifications about Q15X25, only
generalities. However, for HF, the minimum S/N is certainly too high (surely
around -1 to +1 dB).
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday,
It seems to me that CW will be more toward the bottom of the band and
Data/RTTY will be more toward the top of the band. Sometimes CW will be
over the entire band and it is possible for Data, particularly RTTY
during a contest, to be over much of the band too.
I certainly do not expect the FCC
Well, my vote would be to restrict semi-automatic and automatic stations
to the top 20 KHz or less in the below proposal. And just have the rest
be all modes less than 500 hertz.
Or wait until the NPRM comes out for the management by bandwidth where
the wider data modes would be permitted in the
HI Bonnie and the others commenting..
I certainly do not hate any mode but I believe that there are some
incompatible uses of the bands that need to be separated given the
number of inconsiderate operators that seem to be out there. I do not
like getting stomped on by an operator using a mode
17 matches
Mail list logo
