--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the
initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing
QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds
clear in
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote:
Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the
initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing
QSO. You could
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything
else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in
their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the
Thanks, Mike.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Mike Blazek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure it counts as Digital. LoTW has a provision for JT65
contacts.
Mike, N5UKZ
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Does anyone know how JT65 is counted for DXCC awards?
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all hams.
Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that is
not the voice/image sub bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY
Hi Kevin,
If you select by model number from Radio Type you want your radio
to be using the factory address and 19200 baud.
If you use GENERIC ICOM, which I don't recommend, then you want to
use the baud radio your is set to 8N1, the radio address your radio
is set. Don't both checking SPLIT
I think you misunderstood , Rick.
On 10/14/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all hams.
Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are
Hi Peter,
You need to join the HFlink forum or the FlexRadio forum as not
having a system here I can only tell you that what I coded into
PC-ALE works when all else involved in the radio configuration is
solid and that's about it on my end, I just don't have any feel for
it beyond the PC-ALE
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Kevin,
If you select by model number from Radio Type you want your radio
to be using the factory address and 19200 baud.
If you use GENERIC ICOM, which I don't recommend, then you want to
use the baud radio your is set to 8N1, the radio address your radio
is
Rick wrote:
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all
hams.
Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that
is not the voice/image sub bands.
People have
Hi Kevin,
You are using OLD software, you want the latest PC-ALE v1.062H
Interim Build #5 which is found at the HFlink Yahoo forum.
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
At 11:02 AM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Kevin,
If you select by model number from Radio Type you want your radio
to
By the way, I saw the busy detect in PC-ALE work very well this
weekend ...when detecting other 8FSK signals.
And is strictly illegal by Part 97. 5 KW linears are
available. Want the address? No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so
much time in California.
At 08:32 AM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
Rick wrote:
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all
hams.
Many
Les Warriner wrote:
And is strictly illegal by Part 97. 5 KW linears are available.
Want the address? No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so much time in
California.
It is illegal to start on low power and increase the power to maintain a
contact on what was a clear channel at the
Set at 3 characters/minute, USB . Is this good or should I speed up?
John
VE5MU
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steinar Aanesland
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:19 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio]
Dave Bernstein wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
There are physical mechanisms in radio propagation that creates
hidden stations. So do losses, distance, natural obstacles, and
finite propagation paths. I
It is important to distinguish between mode and operating style.
There is no reason to restrict the use of Pactor (or any other
digital mode) to a sub-band.
Unattended stations that rely on remote initiators to ensure a clear
frequency are the problem -- whether the protocol they use is
Your statement was that you would increase power to interfere with
him/her deliberately.
At 09:36 AM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
Les Warriner wrote:
And is strictly illegal by Part 97. 5 KW linears are available.
Want the address? No wonder why Hollingsworth spends so much time in
California.
+++more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a
remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude.
I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a
hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a
lot since
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be
interpreted one way: our traffic is more important than your
traffic; if we QRM you, too bad. Or to paraphrase Demetre, stay off
our highway.
Guys,
Transmitting SSB in the text digital sub band is illegal in the U.S. All
parts of our bands except for 60 meters permit digital operation of
varying kinds.
If you follow the rules you must transmit SSB in the voice/image
portions of the bands. Same thing with digital voice or digital
You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote:
Coming
Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of course
not, Demetre; that would be a violation of the rules governing
amateur radio operation here.
How does your question relate to the discussion?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have I ever transmitted SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands? Of course
not, Demetre; that would be a violation of the rules governing
amateur radio operation here.
How does your question relate to the discussion?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap.
You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend!
73,
Dave,
First, Demetre, my focus has been on unattended stations that rely on
remote initiators to determine whether or not the frequency is clear.
This has nothing to do with the bandwidth of the protocol employed.
It would be just as unacceptable in CW as it is in PSK, RTTY, or
Pactor.
Second, none
The overlap is the reality, Demetre. You may not like it, but you
must respect it and operate accordingly.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@
wrote:
You've
Dave Bernstein wrote:
+++more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why
then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a
remote initiator to ensure a
Les Warriner wrote:
Your statement was that you would increase power to interfere with
him/her deliberately.
Wrong. I said that I would increase power to keep the Pactor station
from taking the frequency. By the way, I don't imagine in your
investigation of the facts (of which there is
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Do you ever transmit SSB in the CW or DIGITAL subbands Dave? I'd love
to see you doing that!
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
73 de Demetre SV1UY
Talk about a false analogy. By this logic anytime a human digital
station operates where Pactor operates (i.e. everywhere there
Demetre,
Here in the U.S. there are no wide digital sub bands. In fact, in the
text digital sub bands there do not seem to be any legal limits as to
the band width permitted at this time. Most radio amateurs would
consider a voice SSB bandwidth mode to be about as wide as would be
acceptable.
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Kevin,
You are using OLD software, you want the latest PC-ALE v1.062H
Interim Build #5 which is found at the HFlink Yahoo forum.
No, Steve my version is 106g. Only downloaded it not that long ago.
Thanks for the tip, will investigate.
Kevin
Would there be interest in a busy frequency network? This would like a
beacon network in reverse.
A software package using a sound card would connect to a receiver and
monitor a band of frequencies. Presumably this would be the digital mode
frequencies. The software would share busy / free
Part of the problem is that there is a misunderstanding about who
should operate where. In the US at least, the frequencies shown for
automated wideband operation are NOT reserved or allocated for
this purpose. These are the frequencies automated stations using
wideband signals are restricted
One question Roger.
How do I get my SCS TNC to automatically increase power
John
At 06:54 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
Wrong. I said that I would increase power to keep the Pactor station
from taking the frequency. By the way, I don't imagine in your
investigation of the facts (of which
Jose and Demetre,
Let's say the two of you were having a nice Pactor QSO on 14.091.00 kHz. Now
let's say that N4XX (made up callsign) calls me on the same frequency using
RTTY because he can't hear you.
Let's say I can hear both of you but I answer him anyway. Since we are both
running the
Don't believe everything you hear. A couple of years ago when I was
doing packet work, I listened to winlink a lot. What I heard
convinced me that clients did not listen and that the hidden
transmitter was not only a problem with other stations, but winlink
stations too. You can't believe how
Sorry Jim but you did not say in your post
how you knew it was WinLink stations?
And not some KB2KB QSO..
At 08:43 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
Don't believe everything you hear. A couple of years ago when I was
doing packet work, I listened to winlink a lot. What I heard
convinced me that clients
The fact is that SCS modems REDUCE the power to what is just needed to
keep the link. If QRM shows up, the modem will just attempt to maintain
the needed SNR. And it is not done ONLY in the PMBO but also on the user
end. I have seen powers as low as 5 watts with a 100 watts radio.
Jose, CO2JA
### more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable
At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC.
Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do either.
Is that an unreasonable
You've taken this out of context, John.
Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves
from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up
whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could
Sorry, the second sentence of my post below was intended to be
Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit if there's a
Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves
from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up
whenever we were QRM'd.
He is right. Any pactor will know if another pactor station is on frequency.
But in fact I have 2, count em one, two - SCS TNC's.
John, W0JAB
in the center of fly over country
At 09:58 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
You've taken this out of context, John.
Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will
There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting
Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its
reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to
have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from
Winlink QRM.
73,
Addressing only one point: Yes, I think that would work for most situations.
The caveat being that the message would get handled automatically for me
within a reasonable period of time. Something measured in minutes and not
tens of hours. Similarly for retrieval of messages.
I run a Winlink
1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on
your waterfall to be QRM
2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor
3. You're operating on a frequency exclusively owned by Winlink
4. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of keyboard-to-keyboard
QSOs stays these
SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of software and
capability.
SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it for file
transfer and ARQ.
Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with SCAMP.
Just trying to keep the confusion and
Why would they have to have to purchase a TNC?
My question is why would some one running HELL
last week keep calling CQ when I know damn well
they *knew* there was a pactor QSO already on the
frequency for a half hour.
Answer:
Their thinking it was a robot.
At 11:00 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
I don't think there's any confusion or misinformation in referring to
the busy detector incorporated in SCAMP as the SCAMP busy detector.
Its not like its ever appeared anywhere else...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your terminology trips you up. As I pointed out, the busy detector was not
incorporated into SCAMP. It was tested simultaneously.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which
PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM.
In other words, since PMBOs are only capable of detecting pre-
existing QSOs in Pactor, everyone should simply switch to Pactor for
all QSOs. PMBO QRM problem solved.
This reminds me
At 11:31 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote:
They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which
PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM.
Yeah there you go.
So Mr. programmer write a program.
End of problem.
Oh I forgot for a moment that has been tried already.
Don't forget the
Howard Brown wrote:
Jose and Demetre,
Let's say the two of you were having a nice Pactor QSO on 14.091.00
kHz. Now let's say that N4XX (made up callsign) calls me on the same
frequency using RTTY because he can't hear you.
OK on the made up callsign. But actually, even when not on Pactor,
Dave Bernstein wrote:
### more AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that
PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard
software on a Windows PC.
Dave Bernstein wrote:
1. You're using panoramic reception and consider signals anywhere on
your waterfall to be QRM
With a bit of self education people can get to identify what is on the
waterfall.
2. You're operating in a mode other than Pactor
Yes, I do also.
4. Neither snow nor
57 matches
Mail list logo
