--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not surprising that strong polarizing opinions exist regarding
this subject or how it is applied to ham radio digital communications.
Bonnie KQ6XA
It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring.
OK from a NON-DIGITAL Ham's view point.
EXPLORING / pushing the boundary's of radio are as old
as ham radio it's self. Now how do we do this if the
rules don't allow it? Good question
Do we break the law then after we prove it will work
apply for a rule change or go on until we get
What I would like to see are more published accounts of experimenting.
We did have the one in the quiet zone of an eastern state with using
WiFi. But it seems to me that we need to go far beyond that. I have seen
no WiMax type of articles yet. And I use a WiMax type system everyday
for a 7
Brad wrote:
It is not surprising Bonnie, but it is INCREDIBLY boring. You guys have
way too many rules, and the surprising thing is that so many hams seem
to think that the problems can be solved by introducing yet more!
I agree with this, and would like to suggest that when discussing
March 15,2007
As of 1500Z on 14109.5 USB until Z , no beacon , mil std 188 110A,
please try a connect
John
VE5MU
If you look at the background of the ARRL direction, such as:
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html
It does not seem to me that much of this has come to the point of not
requiring further study and experimentation. Where are the results
published since the 2001 inception?
Switzerland
Dave wrote:
What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7, but
CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters.
Tnx es 73
Dave
KB3MOW
OK, Brad,
What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are
improper?
It seems to me that we have found different countries have different
rules and it can be very helpful to know what they are. As I recall, it
took years for your country to even allow Winlink 2000
John, will you post the method you used to resolve this?
Thanks,
Howard K5HB
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HELP!!!
I cannot seem to get this software running properly.
I can call another station, and his station answers me , looking for
http://home.satx.rr.com/wdubose/hsmm/hsmm-webpage.html is not a good
reference. I have not maintained that page since 2005. Much has
happened since then and I need to take it down since it is very out of
date.
Actually I didn't know the account still existed. I wonder who is
paying for it?
The problem appeared at the other end, Terry, VE5TLW, was using a 600mhz
computer running W98, which
he has used for all other digi modes without a problem. His rig is a TS2000.
Switched computers , and everything works as it is supposed to, and what a
great piece of software Dmitry and
John VE5MU wrote:
... everything works as it is supposed to, and what a
great piece of software Dmitry and partners have developed.
connects under very poor conditions, and seems to be immune
to the usual noise etc on 80M over a 1500km distance.
Hi John,
I agree with you. RFSM2400 is an
This is the part that is incredibly baffling to those of us outside the United
States.
The argument that us Cannucks and our Aussie cousins have very few hams and
very limited
population is valid only on VHF/UHF, since HF has no boundaries when it comes
to propagation.
90% of Canada's
Robert Meuser wrote:
Switzerland
It would beon the Internet
Dave wrote:
What is CQ CH? I'm used to seeing CQ WY, or CQ ID, or even CQ KL7,
but CH has me puzzled. Just heard it on PSK31 on 30 meters.
Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW
It is CQ (C)ounty (H)unters.he, he...
73,
Hey, knock it off Steve. Who are you to judge how I feel?
I have been licensed for almost 50 years and I have seen
regs come and go. I do care.
I am NOT saying I don't care! What I am saying is don't
replace your brain with the rule book. I worked closely
the League's legal staff for 4 years
Results were published in our WG report to the Board twice a year.
The Board would then publish them with their minutes in QST.
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
Dave,
You have made some good points about US hams having too many regs.
We seem to have this incestuous love affair with regs, or at least seem
to think we lack the ability to perform as good operators without them.
It has an impact on our performance and perspective, too! Please note
that
I certainly have MY doubts that many hams would live the goodie life if
there were no regulations. Just take a look where there ARE regulations;
the US highways, and see how many Americans pay attention to the law. Yes,
the majority would try to do so, but the minority, and I mean a large
Rick,
Sorry. Did I write years to get an STA? My bad.
It should only take a 1 -2 months. Paul R. can help.
HOWEVER, he will insist that you have whatever it is
ready to be put on the air for testing BEFORE he
applies, and not wait until the STA is issued to finalize
the software, hardware,
There is really nothing that baffling when you consider that NZ and Oz
are so remote that even the lower HF bands are not often going to bother
the larger population areas that much.
But it works both ways.
The Canadians, who are immediately adjacent to the U.S., have in the
past had phone
kv9u writes:
What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other
than if it is not yet posted with a technical description?
97.307(f)(3) ... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ...
That applies to all the cw,data subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it
were otherwise, but
Rick,
Those are good points. We must be careful about making
cross-cultural comparisons when discussing International regs.
We learned that big time in various gun control debates!
If we were to compare our radio regs to anyone, it should
probably be to Japan, and right off we can see problems
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I thought you said, Kill all the lawyers, guess that does not
include the ARRL legal staff..
Prohibitions are fairly simple; and no, that is not the same
as permissions :)
73 es be well,
Bill N9DSJ
{snipped
OK, Brad,
What are your specific objections to any given rule that you think are
improper?
RFSM2400? You know the new mode that triggered this whole hand wringing
debate about whether USA hams could or could not use it?
300bd? Ha!
Images/Text/Images of text/fax? Ha!
It seems to
I thought we decided somebody else said that? (HI)
Chris Imlay worked pretty hard for us. He was able to get
an FCC consensus on encryption being OK for Hams to use
when the FCC staff in the SAME office had somewhat different
views on the same subject!
I don't know what the ARRL pays him, but
- I can't see the FCC spending a lot of time looking for WMD's since the
probability of success in the
past has been pretty low..
( I'm speaking of Wide Mode Digital, what were your thinking?)
John
VE5MU
The other problem is linearity of the whole chain. The subcarriers get
mixed not only in the PA, but in the receiver, sound card etc., which
may be interpreted as increased noise on the decoder side. The average
YaeComWood was not designed with this in mind. Voice SSB modulation is
roughly similar
27 matches
Mail list logo
