piece on Interoperability.
http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/10/01/1/?nc=1
Beaconing 14109.5 starting 1530Z , ending 1700Z, 10 minute intervals,
RFSM8000, 500/600 long
John
VE5MU
Hi John,
For ARRL members, that piece was on page 9 of the Oct 2007 QST.
More and more ALE will become integrated into the Amateur Radio
Service (ARS) do to its significant advantages, it is just such an
obvious path to take with respect to the role that the ARS plays in
ECOM support for one
Hearing good RFSM signals in North Texas this morning. Not able to
decode beacons with the older version.
Also hearing lots of ALE and Pactor3 signals here.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2,
This definition says all the past HF emergency communications were
useless and might as well never have been attempted.
New and different doesn't always mean better or more useful.
Emergency communications always boils down to using whatever is
available and whatever works under the
- Original Message -
From: Brian A [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The strength in emergency communications will always come from skilled
operators.
I agree.
Interested as I am in digital mode software one must remember that millions
of troops on both sides were co-ordinated in WWII using the
When ALE is is used for selcal purposes, Part 97 allows this incidental
use of tones, at least in the voice/image portions of the bands. I have
not heard anyone comment negatively about that.
As I had brought up earlier, it is when ALE is begin used for
soundings or what is really beaconing.
Have other ALE users found that they could not transmit on a busy
frequency when using PC-ALE?
(Note: there are no channels on HF amateur radio frequencies except on
60 meters which prohibits ALE and digital operation of any kind).
Perhaps I have things set up wrong, but I did a basic test of
Robert,
The reason that radio amateurs discussing automatic operation would use
the term is primarily because that is the term used under Part 97. On
the other hand Part 97 does not reference the word unattended.
We need to insure we are talking the same language, and not substitute
Howard Brown wrote:
Hearing good RFSM signals in North Texas this morning. Not able to
decode beacons with the older version.
Also hearing lots of ALE and Pactor3 signals here.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
I'm not sure soundings can be classified as beacons. The rule states
or other related experimental activities which indicates that
beacons have an experimental purpose, not one used for negotiating a
two way conversation. In other words, you can't have a two-way
conversation with a beacon.
The
ALE in ham radio went from an experimental communication
method, to mainstream, over about 5 or 6 years in
North America. It is now well-understood by many
operators, and has become a reliable system for hams
to use on a 24 hour basis. As ALE is catching on in
other parts of the world, there
I have found that I could NOT transmit once. This was during the presence
of a strong broadcast band station in the 40M band. I then tested by
sounding on top of WWV, a strong SSb signal and a strong AM signal, each
time PC-ALE attempted to transmit. Thus , I conclude that I need to be
present
Seeing how useful PC-ALE is, I have to imagine a time when that is how
most HF communication is attempted. If it requires brief soundings
that are considered unattended, then I say change the rules and
allow brief 10-20 second transmissions that are unattended in some
portions of the bands. It
Allrighty, then! (climbing up on soapbox)
I guess I am getting a little tired of these arguments about operating
correctly. We all know the rules and most
of us try to follow them. Sure, we screw up once in a while but so what? We
learn for the next time.
What bothers me more is that the
John
you forgot the Busy Channel Detection stuff.
You should know that is the fix all for all QRM.
John, W0JAB
in the center of fly over country
At 09:09 PM 10/2/2007, you wrote:
Allrighty, then! (climbing up on soapbox)
I guess I am getting a little tired of these arguments about
The only problem I see with this is how several tens of thousands or
even hundreds of thousands of hams are going to do 10-20 seconds of
sounding even using whole segments of bands. There won't be any room
or time for actually talking! I just don't see this being good for
most HF communications.
Be careful what you ask for!
Would you really want 2,3, or 4 hundred thousand US hams doing ALE
soundings on all the bands? Even every six hours? How about using
data modes that are 20 kHz wide like the ARRL HSMM committee
recommended? How about with no busy detection? How about in 4 - 5
Jim WA0LYK wrote:
Would you really want 2,3, or 4 hundred thousand US hams
doing ALE soundings on all the bands?
Yes, that would be wonderful, Jim!
But a few hundred to a thousand stations simultaneously
is much more likely to be happening within the next year
or two. Keep in mind that
Soundings aren't required. They merely minimize wasted linking
attempts on currently-unsuitable bands. You can run an entirely
sounding free ALE network, and in fact the utility dxer crowd does
occasionally note such networks run by various government or NGO
entities.
If you want to have the
30-meter POP Announcement
Posted by: Ev Tupis [EMAIL PROTECTED] w2ev
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2007 7:05 pm ((PDT))
Announcing the October 2007 Weekend 30-meter POP (Play On PropNET)
From October 6, UTC through October 7, 2359 UTC
John VE5MU wrote:
What bothers me more is that the folks who make the most
noise and offer the most criticism of the modes
Are not those who are using them.
Hi John,
It is human nature, that there will always be people
who resist advancements of civilization or technology.
A small
Hi Jim,
It sounds almost like you are making case to abolish all forms of
Amateur Radio Contesting with this argument of yours, no where in the
FCC rules are contesting ( which by the way I enjoy ) mentioned as
such, actually many of the FCC rules could be used to make an
argument against
Howard;
That might be my fault that you couldn't decode using 2400. Will double
check and try again Wed afternoon.
Same frequency, but will make sure I am on the right modulation,
non-standard .
My antenna does well north -south so maybe see u around 1700Z or so
John
VE5MU
From:
Oh, and will be sitting there all day in this mode, starting at 0400Z today,
so you might want to try a connect
jb
From: John Bradley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:08 PM
To: 'digitalradio@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RFSM8000
Howard;
First, John, I will point out that you have never provided a serious
technical response to any of the points made regarding the importance of
listening before transmitting, and the opportunity to enable polite,
unattended operation via busy frequency detectors. You mostly snipe and make
lame
Hi Andy,
The FCC rules don't actually require changing WRT ALE other than to
satisfy those that want to see things spelled out in black and white
specifically approving or disapproving each and everyone little
thing. This is not the intent of the FCC to constantly be updating
the rules to
So you're an entrepreneur, Bonnie? What companies have you founded?
What innovative products have you successfully brought to market, and
what's been their impact?
I designed my first commercial product in 1972 -- Data General's Nova
2 minicomputer, while a junior in college, and went on to
28 matches
Mail list logo
