Wait a minute, you were the one that said that 100's of hams could use
one 10 kHz wide channel to communicate, not me!
Quote from your message:
... So when you transmit on this 10kHz wide HF channel, from your
perspective you are in a clear one-to-one QSO with another Ham, sort
of like using
There is no difference. PSKmail uses PSK63 to deliver chat mode (PSK31 speed)
qso's with 0% error with its arq protocol.
73,
Rein PA0R
If the protocol can send the info faster than I can type, then I
think it does make a difference.
73,
Mark N5RFX
I don't think keyboard to
In order to have a really robust and accurate mode, I would like to see
an ARQ mode 500 Hz or less. This would allow for a good throughput and
error free data and images, etc. Consider that you can get at least four
500 Hz signals in the width of one voice signal. The 100 KHz digital/CW
I never meant to say we should go back to CW for emergency
communications, although I think it should be in the toolbox. My
point was more about bandwidths consumed in a shared environment.
As far as the Red Cross goes, they have at least 7 HF commercial
frequencies assigned to them in the FCC
You need to explain this further. Just making the statement that IM
is a better analogy just doesn't provide any information as to how it
applies to sharing of RF frequencies, at least not to me. You might
help me out by elucidating a little on just what shared resource with
IM is applicable to
I'll be honest here, I don't know if Pactor starts in mode P1 or P2 or
maybe either. I do know it doesn't connect in P3. It connects in one
of the slower modes and then expands to P3 if the signal is
sufficient. This means every pactor connection, where P3 is
available, does this and is one of
I'm not sure emergency communications is or should be the driver here.
I don't think anyone (or at least most) would begrudge some HF
frequencies be used for 3 kHz data during an actual emergency. Where
the fly is in the ointment is where these frequencies are desired 365
days a year (or some
The Feds have a ton of frequencies, many used only
rarely for tests and training.
The DMAT's use them and the Red Cross has others.
Amateur Radio ops, gear, and spectrum is primarily
for hobby and experimental use. Emergency use of
these resources is, and should be, rare.
There is, however, a
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure emergency communications is or should be the driver here.
I don't think anyone (or at least most) would begrudge some HF
frequencies be used for 3 kHz data during an actual emergency.
In fact it seems
A clear communications channel, with the message/words clearly articulated
and received and understood by an knowledgeable undistracted individual with
flawless cognitive abilities is certainly the best way to communicate.
However, this is the exception rather than the rule.
Thus written and
Jim,
At one time Steve Waterman, K4CJX, who runs the Winlink 2000 system,
did indicate that some government agency(ies) were having talks with him
about using the system for other than amateur radio purposes, but I have
not heard anything further. At least one MARS branch has or is moving to
Puppy Linux 2.11 can do all of those things,
and well and 2.12 will do them even better.
Live boot may be done from CD, USB stick, or
CD/SD card. Puppy has always been optimized
for Live CD mode, is tiny and fast.
I have been growing with it and just now am
bringing MS-only apps into Linux via
If you seriously cared about these things you'd get a mac, hihi.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:09 am, KV9U wrote:
Rein,
You are of course correct, and I do mention PSKmail quite often, but
think of it as a mail system. If this was on MS-OS, it would likely
become quite popular. I do plan to
It would be reasonable to allowswitching
between voice, data and image in the phone segment, all using the same
bandwidth. This would cause no interference to adjacent frequencies and is the
essence of regulation by bandwidth.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From:
What does IM mean? Remember some of us dont know (or dont remember) all
these initials being thrown at us. HSMM (whatever that means) sounds like
an intereting concept, but it sounds to me like it is working a repeater, or
a sattelite. You are not REALLY communicating with the middle man, but
John,
Are you saying that this is something for HF? I can see it working if
you have a wide BW area, but on HF we need to conserve spectrum to a
much greater degree than on VHF and up. I don't see any possibility of
anything much greater than 3 or 3.5 KHz below 28 MHz in the foreseeable
I suspect if there was one, wide bandwidth, 10 kHz channel on each ham
band for ALL high speed data, that would be accepted by most if not
all hams. This is certainly less than what is currently designated
by the different modes/protocols like winlink/pactor 3, wide olivia,
ALE, etc.
Perhaps
Danny,
HSMM = Amateur Radio High Speed (56 kbps) Multimedia Digital Networks
IM = Instant Messaging
Yes, that was our thought with selecting the 6M band also, and using monster
6M verticals.
We'd likely use beams and the 222 MHz band for the back-haul (connecting the
6M nodes). But we haven't
Danny,
The 6M vertical we are using must be two 1/2 waves in phase? It's over 24'
tall !
For a 6M vertical, that's a MONSTER to me (HI).
Although your inverted L sounds intersting. I have used a simple indoor 1/2
wave
dipole on 6M, but never thought of using an inverted L. Interesting!
73,
Well said, Jim.
73
Bill KA8VIT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ka8vit.com
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC RO
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:29:05 -
A couple
It is my understanding that all users CAN NOT share the frequency at
the same time. Most high-speed connections are dedicated, I know
pactor is. I am not sure about ALE, but from a cursory view, I
believe it is also. Packet is the only protocol I know that is
designed to share a frequency, but
Jim,
Your analogy of the party line phone is quite correct. Packet suffers
from not only time sharing, but also has a really bad modulation scheme
for HF and should never have been used for this purpose.
While some of this technology can be used on VHF and above frequencies,
it just does not
Ah ha...well Bonnie I see that I am not the only one who is looking at the
overall picture of band usage.
Here is an example of what I saw in the military...
SSB voice took 10 minutes to pass a 100 word message between really seasoned
radio operators on an HF channel typical of most Q4-5
Rick,
Did you figure this as a text/data file being sent or a keyboard-to-keyboard
mode.
I think that there has to be some operator thought concerning wheather or not
they are going to be operating in a chat QSO or data trasnfer mode. But the
condition certainly has to be considered if there
I don't see much use for a very high throughput, very robust data mode that
requires 6-10 KHz of bandwidth as being used by me except when I am working
disaster relief and for perhaps traiining nets. If I have that capability,
good amateur radio practices would cause me to use only the mode
Walt,
Your examples are with like bandwidths. These channels were
assigned for the purpose that you have mentioned, so any reduction in
bandwidth would not provide any increase in efficiency. In other
words you would still occupy the entire channel. With Amateur Radio
this is not the case. We
Walt,
I am mostly figuring it as a data file for the higher speed modes, since
most of us can not type all that fast. I have found that for me, about
40 wpm is all I need for Keyboard to Keyboard and that includes some in
the type ahead buffer responding to the other station as I receive their
Yea, but that 100 word message could have been sent in about 3 minutes
using 30 wpm CW. I've done both, and the SSB'ers have a hard time
understanding that CW is that much faster than voice. Almost what you
quote for the 300 baud text data, and in a much smaller bandwidth.
Also, using your
jgorman01 wrote:
Yea, but that 100 word message could have been sent in about 3 minutes
using 30 wpm CW. I've done both, and the SSB'ers have a hard time
understanding that CW is that much faster than voice. Almost what you
quote for the 300 baud text data, and in a much smaller bandwidth.
getting on my soap box
But 90% of my communicators are tech's and myself or other general class ham
operates as the control operator. Most only got there tech license so they
could volunteer as communicators and would never have gotten their license if
would have had to learn CW.
Here's an
But how many software programs today allow this? winlink, ale, etc.?
If queuing was being used properly today, why so many frequencies
on each ham band for these current wide bandwidth applications?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL
Why can't you move to one frequency per band that is designated for
wide bandwidth data transfers, put your request in queue, and wait for
it to be sent?
Your example is exactly what I was trying to illustrate about wide
bandwidth modes aren't always best even if they will send data faster.
You
Starting in narrow mode, moving to wide mode, then back to narrow mode
will only work properly if you and everyone else doing it is
considerate and checks the adjacent frequencies adequately for
occupancy. Otherwise, you'll be just like winlink, start out in
narrow mode and go to wide mode
I am very flexable. I just dont think that everyday use of multi kc
signals, especially those sitting there giving out a call now and then, just
to keep the channel open, is any way for an amateur station to operate.
There will, if these things are to be used - and approved, have to be
certain
If they are not in QSO - and only setting chatting to themselves, it appears
to me that the channel can be used by anyone else that wants it.
Danny Douglas N7DC
If they do not meet the standard of a beacon station
are they not broadcasting in that mode?
Last I checked broadcasting by Hams on
Danny,
Everything you have said is done as much as they can. Our husband of our
locall EC happens to handle statewide National Guard and Reserve
Communications and he tries to be ready for all contingencies with
multiple back ups. But for most local emergencies, the government does
not call
IM would be a better analogy than a party line.
John - K8OCL
From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC RO
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:42:55 -0500
Jim,
Your analogy
Mark Miller wrote:
The wider bandwidth of PIII may make the transmission more robust.
Not only so, mainly it is the effect of constellations that have been
chosen.
Pactor II uses DBPSK, DQPSK, 8DPSK, or 16DPSK over two tones.
Pactor III uses DBPSK or DQPSK over up to 18 carriers separated
A couple of comments. The FCC must consider more than just how fast
data can be sent. It must also consider how to maximize the numbers
of users that can access a finite spectrum without waiting.
Your point assumes there is queuing system of some sort for that 3 kHz
of spectrum and that
Quoting expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's another way to look at spectrum use. It is better to use a
3kHz bandwith for 10 minutes than to use a 500Hz bandwidth for 1 hour
to pass the same traffic. On HF, with short propagation openings, it
is better to be able to quickly send the
Pactor 3 has disadvantages, not the least being that it will make a
connection in 500 Hz, which may be clear, but then abruptly expands to
2.5 kHz regardless of whether adjacent frequencies are occupied or
not. And worse, it does this when signals are good. Normally, hams
are supposed to use the
There is a grain of truth in the concept of the wider BW protocol
working more efficiently than a narrower one. But this is primarily for
a special case where it is a many to one situation such as between
users of an e-mail system, examples being Winlink 2000, PSKmail, JNOS2,
etc., or BBS
Jim WA0LYK wrote:
I'll bet I'm not the only ham who would chose wait time for an open
frequency as being more important than length of qso. Perhaps the FCC
is encouraging hams to develop a method of queuing for frequencies
and qso times thereby maximizing spectrum use. I suspect a system
You guys are going to have to do the math for me. I do understand
that faster throughputs mean that I will be occupying a certain amount of
spectrum for a shorter period of time, but the cost is bandwidth.
Unless the increase in throughput is greater than the increase in
bandwidth, I don't
I'm afraid that keyboard to keyboard, mike to mike and keys have EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH IT. Ham radio is here for amateur use, not professional. I am
here to enjoy QSOs with friends and acquaintances, and to-be friends around
the world. Not to send tons of official traffic. Each of us needs to
I don't think keyboard to keyboard has anything to do with it.
At 05:03 PM 10/22/2006, Mark, N5RFX wrote:
You guys are going to have to do the math for me. I do understand that faster
throughputs mean that I will be occupying a certain amount of spectrum for a
shorter period of time, but the
If the protocol can send the info faster than I can type, then I
think it does make a difference.
73,
Mark N5RFX
I don't think keyboard to keyboard has anything to do with it.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
No Danny - maybe I did not make myself clear on this .
Mark said
I do understand trading bandwidth for accuracy
and that can be added to the equation too, but that really
only applies to forwarding messages, not keyboard to
keyboard QSOs.
This is not true. It *applies* to all...
All my
You guys was directed at all the people yelling that they want umpteen kc
of bandwidth to pass traffic that 99 percent of us dont touch, will never
touch, and dont care about. If it comes down to us keeping our freqs/bands,
only if we make them of no value to the majority of us, the majority of
Hate to be the one to tell you this - but there
is a lot of the you guys running RTTY, Packet,
Amtor and Pactor that do nothing but KB to KB
QSO's on the bands... And enjoy it very much.
What would you do about them using umpteen KC
of the band?
At 07:35 PM 10/22/2006, you wrote:
You guys was
I also am one that runs RTTY on the bands, as well as PSK, but neither of
them take up multi KC of space to do so. I used to run packet on 2 meter
too. But neither one of them is there to pass large amounts of official
traffic, and both are good DX modes, and neither one needs more bandwidth
Jim,
The old telephone party line is a poor analogy. Think more along the lines
of IM when it comes to high-speed data users all sharing the same frequency
at the same time.
73, John - K8OCL
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To:
There's another way to look at spectrum use. It is better to use a
3kHz bandwith for 10 minutes than to use a 500Hz bandwidth for 1 hour
to pass the same traffic. On HF, with short propagation openings, it
is better to be able to quickly send the message. Approximately 3kHz
is the defacto
53 matches
Mail list logo
