Title: RE: [digitalradio] Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net
Hooray for Jason...wonderful idea.
I hope folks will get on and join Jason.
73,
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jason Hsu
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Linux. Was: email to Internet without a PC ?
The partitation naming is actually what the IBM PC Bios did but Microsoft changed that and eventually the Bios providers followed.
The Linux, BSD, Unix and Nics all use the designations so that the systems are pretty
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL To QSY To 1807.500 KC
Its Joe CARCIA.
I don't know why [EMAIL PROTECTED] didn't work.
Carcia, Joe, NJ1Q, W1AW Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
73,
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
What do you think?Would you be interested in being net control?Ican't be net control every day, because I will be busy on some days,
and I am already responsible for being net control of another net Istarted 3 evenings per week.It would be fun to see more activity on that band. I'm not so sure
What makes RTTY so inappropriate for passing traffic? (I have no
experience with this mode so far. In fact, I'm currently brand new to
digital modes. So far, I've only used PSK-31.)
In addition to PSK-31, what other modes should the net use? Just as
my Missing You Like Candy Net operates
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net
IMHO...
RTTY has no error correction capability and is 45.5 baud.
AMTOR is basically RTTY with an ARQ mode.
PSK-31 is 31 baud and more robust than RTTY. PSK-31 with ARQ is more robust than PSK-31, AMTOR or RTTY.
At 11:15 AM 2/24/06, you wrote in part:
AMTOR is basically RTTY with an ARQ mode.
But Mode A (ARQ) gave it Error Corrections.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
Excellent comparison list! Thanks!
How would you compare modes capable of transferring
text files vs keyboard to keyboard, please?
Thanks! 73, doc kd4e
RTTY has no error correction capability and is 45.5 baud.
AMTOR is basically RTTY with an ARQ mode.
PSK-31 is 31 baud and more robust
At 09:09 AM 2/24/06, you wrote:
What makes RTTY so inappropriate for passing traffic? (I have no
experience with this mode so far. In fact, I'm currently brand new to
digital modes. So far, I've only used PSK-31.)
Not a thing !
While a member of Navy MARS it was no uncommon to have
a traffic
In QST March 2006, pages 129 to 136 Icom is promoting their new
radios. The ad starts on page 129 with a Vulture sitting on a
tombstone (R.I.P.) and titled Some say this is the future of amateur
radio. (Scare tactics?)
The Icom IC-7000 looks like a remake of the IC-706 series, it might sell?
I couldn't agree more. I'm no computer scientist, perhaps an advanced user, . . .I dabble in Linux w/an old PII, but my G5 Power Mac has 3 perfectly compatible operating systems. I don't use Classic much, but I move between them with nearly no effort. A form of Linux or Unix is the much
snip
I'd also like the digital 30m net to operate on different digital
modes on different days of the week.
snip
Jason Hsu, AA0II
Cedar Rapids, IA
Jason, if you go to www.ips.gov.au , HF Systems, and look at the HAP
charts, you will find that 30m has excellent propagation in the
daytime,
Again,
I emphazise that NTS exclusively operates in the auto control band plan
the actual scenario of QRM from an autocontrolled NTS station is remote.
I have seen my station delay tranmitting due to RTTY, Pactor, and CW
stations on frequency
Dave WB2FTX
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Yes, lots
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Starting a digital 30m traffic/ragchew net
On 30M with a NVIS antenna you can generally work as close in as 200-300 miles and its not uncommon to work stations as close as 100 miles or somewhat less.
I find that NVIS and low angle of radiation antennas are
I think the title of this string should be changed. Most of the
comments have really no idea of the difference between
NTSD running "Classic Winlink" in the auto control subbands and Winlink
2000. I operate within the auto control subbands
in automatic mode connecting to other NTSD
A. Icom has said that they do not intend to discontinue the 706. We
shall see.
B. People have complained that the microphone supplied with the 706 did
*not* have DTMF capabilities. You just can't please everybody.
Alan NV8A
On 02/24/06 04:37 pm Danny Douglas wrote:
It escaped me that the
Hello,
I am trying to identify some of the different digital mode traces
which I see. Is there a web page where I can see examples of Domino,
Contestia and others which have been introduced recently.? There are
now so many but one in particular keeps appearing in Europe.
Kind regards, Mel
I like to think that we need to have a robust amateur radio network and
I believe that many hams support the general concept, even if not
particularly interested in participating. But one of the things we don't
need is yet another real time network. By having semi-automatic server
type
RTTY can have tremendous errors in the data. Also, all things being
equal, you typically run much higher power to operate RTTY compared to
the newer modes such as PSK31.
Very few current sound card modes are ARQ. My experience says that only
ARQ modes should be used for serious traffic
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very few current sound card modes are ARQ. My experience says that
only ARQ modes should be used for serious traffic handling.
Why should only ARQ modes be used for traffic handling? CW, SSB, and
FM are non-ARQ modes, and
Mel,
Is it possible that you start on a different audio frequency and that
the passband on the rig behaves differentially? Try different frequency
settings on the same band example 75o hz, 1000hz 1500 hz and notice the
difference in drive levels needed for the same power out.
Ron W4LDE
Mel
Operating exclusively in the automatic sub-bands only reduces QRM
because many ops avoid those sub-bands for fear of being QRM'd.
If your station automatically delays transmitting when the frequency
is busy, that implies a busy detector of some sort. What software
and/or hardware does your
If I'm hunting a clear spot to call CQ and there's a clear frequency
in the automatic sub-bands, I should be able to call CQ there
without fear of later being QRM'd by an automatic station that
doesn't listen before transmitting.
Were there a bandplan that suggested these sub-bands be
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm hunting a clear spot to call CQ and there's a clear frequency
in the automatic sub-bands, I should be able to call CQ there
without fear of later being QRM'd by an automatic station that
doesn't listen
There was a study done a couple of years ago I believe by the ARRL that showed
accuracy of relaying by SSB was not nearly what it should be, CW (if I
remember correctly) was better but still not good. I don't remember FM being
nvolved in the test.
If I can find the study somewhere I'll post a
But the governing bandplan is
woefully obsolete:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html
According to this band plan, the only protocol allowed in the
automatic sub-bands is Packet.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Those aren't your governing bandplans at all. If they
Here is a Net I think would be both interesting to
join and valuable to multiple causes, especially
demonstrating the diverse HF resources via Amateur
Radio.
Analog-Digital Emergency Net
Goal: Demonstrate the capability of Amateur Radio
to utilize voice, keyboard-to-keyboard, text file,
and
I would still have a problem with that. If there are to be sub-bands, they
should be mandantory, not suggested. Otherwise there are going to be too
many people who decided not to go by the suggestions, or simply do not know
what they are. Plus, if they are not international in scope, they are
The Repeater Directory does not contain HF band plans; neither does
the FCC Rule Book. Does the Operating Manual contains a band plan
different than the one published on the ARRL web site? Seems
unlikely, Brad.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Brad [EMAIL
The NCDXF beacon frequencies are specified in the ARRL Band plan.
So your view is that any operator who feels like setting up
automatic stations incapable of listening before transmitting should
be free to do so, and that its everyone else's responsibility to
figure out where these are and
Obviously, I am referring to digital modes as we do use voice and cw
modes with some success, although quite slow compared to the potential
of what digital modes could do.
There is at least one official ARRL Skipnet operation on 10.147, but it
is fair to say that few use the band for digital
Brad,
Here in the U.S., repeaters can only operate on a coordinated frequency.
They then have the right to operate and no one else can claim the right
to a repeater output frequency without the permission of the frequency
coordinator and anyone who was on that frequency would have to accept
Doc,
I have long wanted to be able to do this, here in the U.S., just like is
done now with SSTV on several HF bands.
But what you propose is currently illegal on all HF amateur bands except
for 160 meters.
Or did you mean that stations would QSY to the various required parts of
the band to
Thanks Kurt you just made the point that I have been
trying for a while. Some refuse to see this being so set
in their thinking. IE making some CW'ID every X
amount of time and not transmit for this amount
of time. A burden that will just be ask *only* of some.
At 07:43 PM 2/24/06, you wrote:
I
Why not do it for everyone, every mode ?
At 09:19 PM 2/24/06, you wrote:
Why not require WinLink and similar apps to poll both
ends to be sure *neither* hears anything *prior* to
engaging a continued QSO?
This should neutralize the could not hear them at my
end problem.
Station A checks the
There is at least one official ARRL Skipnet operation on 10.147, but
it is fair to say that few use the band for digital links other than
Winlink 2000.
What is Skipnet?
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
Perhaps Homeland Security could ask the FCC to grant
permission for such a Net at the edge of CD/Digital
and Phone?
e.g. 7150, 14150, 28300?
The more complex alternative would be to map out
the necessary minimum of freqs (+/-) QRM on which
alternative modes could be utilized.
More complex but
The biggest problem you'll find is that ARQ session oriented modes
are conducive to net operations.
Why aren't ARQ modes conducive to net operations?
FEC modes, on the other hand, are.
Why are FEC modes good for passing traffic?
Jason Hsu, AA0II
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
John Becker wrote:
Why not do it for everyone, every mode ?
Because it is already mandated for everyone in
every mode and has been for decades -- your
continued possession of a FCC-granted license
depends on it.
Only automated stations are currently technologically
incompetent to accomplish
Good one Doc
That is if I happen to be using the same mode.
At 09:41 PM 2/24/06, you wrote:
e.g. KD4E listens and hears nothing. He then checks
the frequency via SSB calling QRZ the frequency?, then
listens, then calls QRZ the frequency? again.
Hearing nothing he then calls W0JAB.
If W0JAB
Oh I see just the RTTY op's. what about all them
long winded PSK op's?
At 10:02 PM 2/24/06, you wrote:
The choices are
A. allow RTTY stations to identify in either RTTY or CW
B. make you and the other green key operators reach for your paddles
every 10 minutes
Personally, I'd be okay with A.
The proposal is that all digital mode stations identify in CW at the
beginning of each N minute interval of operation. That would include
PSK stations.
PSK software based on AE4JY's PSKCORE has the ability to identify in
CW, as does Digipan. I suspect that MixW, MultiPSK, and MMVARI all
can
Got no use what so ever for any of that stuff.
Remember I do RTTY with TTY machine no
software. been that way for the last 30 years.
At 10:42 PM 2/24/06, you wrote:
The proposal is that all digital mode stations identify in CW at the
beginning of each N minute interval of operation. That
The regulatory incentive could be as simple as
the FCC requirement that the installed base users
manually assure the freq is not occupied if they
cannot do so automatically else they risk fine,
loss of license, and equipment confiscation for
repeated incidents of QRM.
If aggressively enforced for
As I said, John, I'd be comfortable with RTTY stations continuing to
identify in RTTY. Thus the modified proposal is
All digital mode stations must identify in CW at the beginning of
each N minute interval of operation; RTTY stations may instead
identify in RTTY.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Gee Doc
Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to have regulation
by bandwidth like most of the rest of the world and not have to be concerned
with regulatory barriers to your net?
__Howard S.
White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM
All other Modes (including several Weak Signal
Digital modes) Failed to Connect the San Diego EOC to the Imperial County EOC
during the SET.
Doc:
You were so hung up in your theoretical analysis
that you missed the point
Basically there was no HF/VHF/UHF propagation path
directly
There is one thing that puzzles me. How did you
manage to set up Winlink between the two EOC's
if you could not communicate? It appears to me that
both would have to know the band/frequency
and that the other EOC had to know that the other
was going to switch to Winlink. Sounds sort of
Joe:
As I said, I was in the field and not at the
EOC's so I do not know the exact sequence...
One of the great things about
Winlink...
You can almost set it and forget it...
You Do Not need to know the band and frequency of
the receiving station...
You only need to know the
49 matches
Mail list logo
