Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread John B. Stephensen
The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation by bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there are very few restrictions on image transmission. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread Dave AA6YQ
Had the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal been accepted, the range of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it. 73, Dave,

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread John B. Stephensen
I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules. The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

2009-10-30 Thread Phil Williams
What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used. I have finally installed mutlipsk which offers this mode. I would sure like to get some hands on with ALE-400. Oh yeah, I second the motion on Feld Hell. Thanks KT. philw de ka1gmn On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Kurt Tuttle

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread Dave AA6YQ
Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to operate on any frequency is incorrect. See ยง97.221 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221 With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate wherever RTTY or data emissions are

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge

2009-10-30 Thread Andy obrien
If people want to use those other modes ...go for it. I did not include THOR or ALE400 because they are not common to all three software packages. Andy K3UK On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Phil Williams ka1...@gmail.com wrote: What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used.

[digitalradio] Re: FLARQ outperforms WINMOR

2009-10-30 Thread aa777888athotmaildotcom
Definitely apples to oranges, Andy. One doesn't even need to get into a discussion of speed (although I've finally tweaked things so that I reliably get ~1Kbyte/min on a 1.6KHz mode S9 connection with 1-5K payload). The most important difference is that there is no promise of FLARQ being

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FLARQ outperforms WINMOR

2009-10-30 Thread Andy obrien
Quite true, but there is a network of ARES and RACES groups slowly beginning to see that FLARQ is quite effective. When WINMOR moves to peer-to-server operations, it will be interesting to see what happens. WINMOR also has the Telnet and packet capabilities. Andy K3UK On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at

Re: [digitalradio] FLARQ outperforms WINMOR

2009-10-30 Thread Ron Wenig
Andy, Thanks for the Flarq tests last night. That was really fun. I can see how useful this can be in emergency communications in addition to a program like Winmor. Winmor with its capabilities to send email through the Winlink network and NBEMS with its peer to peer capabilities to send

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread John B. Stephensen
I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments. However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic stations up in

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone

2009-10-30 Thread Dave AA6YQ
I agree that there were positive aspects to the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal. However, expanding the range of frequencies available to unattended stations without including a requirement that they verify their frequency to be clear before transmitting was a showstopper, in my opinion.

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

2009-10-30 Thread Patrick Lindecker
Hello Tony, What are the numbers that you get? In fact, from my measures, the first decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and -16 dB in Call ID (but respectively -16 and -13 dB for almost 100 % success). SNR tests I think it must be a bit difficult to measure S/N for bursts. What I do, on my

Re: [digitalradio] New to digital modes? Try this weekend's challenge - ALE400

2009-10-30 Thread Patrick Lindecker
Hello Phil, Tony (K2MO) is preparing a paper about the way to use ALE400. Here is a first draft that Tony sent to Digital radio some time ago. I added some modifications. 73 Patrick From Tony: All, Received several emails asking how to setup Multipsk and work ALE-400 ARQ chat mode so

[digitalradio] FLARQing fun

2009-10-30 Thread obrienaj
Anyone want to test FLARQ with varying modes this weekend, please consider the following dial frequencies. 10147, 7082, 3583, and 14073 USB (all dial frequencies ). 2 years ago I met with Skip KH6TY (or was it three years ?) and he gave me a beta copy of NBEMS FLARQ. I thought it would

[digitalradio] Packet Question

2009-10-30 Thread Paul Webster
Hi, I thought that I would try help Brian out but I don't know the answer my self, so I am passing this along. Thanks. 73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster SKCC #5322 John 3:16 Proud member of the; ARRL NRA Handihams LiveFreeUSA 60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60) Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3W)

Re: [digitalradio] Message ID in multipsk

2009-10-30 Thread Tony
Patrick, Hello Tony, What are the numbers that you get? In fact, from my measures, the first decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and -16 dB in Call ID (but respectively -16 and -13 dB for almost 100 % success). I get the following SNR figures for 100% decode: RS ID -20db Call ID

[digitalradio] Re: lpt to com port assignment?

2009-10-30 Thread kg4kri
Thank you all- my laptop does not have a 9 pin port. The 25 pin is the only available parallel port. Any Ideas? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kg4kri kg4...@... wrote: Hello all, I am trying to set up my computer to key my radio rather than the el cheapo way of using vox. I have built