[digitalradio] Content vs Mode Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Mode is not equivalent to emission type, Phone is not a mode. Phone is not an emission type. Content is what the emission contains or what is carried by the emission. Content can often be part of the emission type, but not always. Sub-bands are demarcated primarily by content, not substantially by mode or bandwidth. Bandwidth has very little to do with the demarcation of HF sub-bands. A mode, such as AM or FSK or FM can easily contain or carry voice or image or text or data as its content... even simultaneously! However, the FCC rules demarcate the sub-bands by content, so ye shalt not allow any text to be contained in your AM or FSK or FM mode transmission while in the phone/image sub-band (with few exceptions). Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: No, not by content, except for unallowed transmission of music, pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by content. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Anecdotes about FCC inadvertent hostility toward ham radio digital modes?
Generally speaking, USA's FCC rules for ham digital technology are sadly antiquated, and many common digital methods could fall into gray areas of the rules, or prohibited areas of the rules depending upon how the rules are interpreted or how the method is described. Overly-complex and restrictive rules that evolved for 20th century communications methods can often lead to erroneous interpretations of the rules. If a question about 21st century digital technology is not phrased correctly, or if there is even the slightest misunderstanding or specification complication... that off-the-cuff interpretation in a telephone call to FCC, or an email request, may start a domino effect which could have far-reaching adverse effects upon other aspects of ham radio digital technology. Even well-researched recent petitions and formal proposals for rulemaking have backfired, and the results have been detrimental to Amateur Radio Service digital communications. For example, a recent proposal resulted in an FCC ruling that took a large and extremely valuable chunk of the 80meter band away from the CW/Data/RTTY sub-band (even though no one proposed it or asked for it to be taken away). One of the fundamental aspects (myths?) of the Amateur Radio Service in USA is that hams are 'encouraged to pursue advancement of the state of the art of radio' ; in actual practice, USA hams are boxed in with arbitrary and nonsensical content restrictions and obsolete technical limitations. Literally, USA hams are confined to a digital technology jail... especially compared to other more advanced countries of the world. Most of the basic aspects of Radio Frequency technology were developed in the 20th century. The real frontier of radio technology now is in the use of digital processing, modulation, and methods of automation or control of radio. And it just so happens, that this is the area of the FCC rules that severely lacks freedom and is most counter-productive toward pioneering USA hams. The ham radio rules for digital methods and technology in USA have changed very little to accommodate 21st century technology and encourage advancement of the state-of-the-art... despite the fact that the very basic purpose of ham radio in USA includes significant emphasis on this: FCC Part 97, Amateur Radio Service, Subpart A--General Provisions, §97.1 Basis and purpose. (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art. Good luck. 73 Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Dear Jose, It is very simple: 1. You are the designer of ROS, and you say ROS is Spread Spectrum. 2. FCC says 'The ROS designer says ROS is Spread Spectrum' so we believe this is true. 3. Spread Spectrum is not allowed below 222MHz for USA hams by FCC Rules. 4. Hams in USA must follow FCC rules. Even if the rules are bad. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software.
[digitalradio] Is ROS Documentation Published?
Jose wrote: if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros Hi Jose, Do you plan to publish documentation of a non-Spread Spectrum version of ROS mode? Examples of public documentation: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/ Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA FCC Rules for amateur radio service in USA §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.
[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
As I previously predicted, an FCC agent has interpreted FCC Rules, saying ROS is Spread Spectrum. ARRL staff have also done the same. In the FCC response to an inquiry initiated by Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL, The FCC Agent 3820 stated this: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created. That statement by FCC Agent 3820 is all any ham in USA needs to know. Use ROS on HF, and you risk fines for breaking the FCC Rules. There is now only 4 options, for USA hams who still want to use ROS on HF bands: 1. Operate ROS... knowing that you are breaking the FCC Rules, and roll the dice, hoping you don't get caught. 2. Go on an uphill battle to change the FCC Rules, and possibly win or lose after a year or more of legal work. 3. When the FCC sends you an enforcement letter Notice of Apparent Liability, and asks you to show cause or risk citation and/or payment of fine, simply tell the FCC please forgive me, I didn't know it is illegal to use Spread Spectrum on HF, and honestly I won't do it again. Several years ago, I started writing about how hams in USA are falling behind in technology due to antiquated FCC rules. I pointed to several excellent modes and methods of operation that USA hams don't have the freedom to use, but hams in most other countries are at liberty to use. This situation is all due to FCC rules that were forged in the 20th century and based upon old methods of using radio. Boxed-in by early limitations, there is no way to think out of the box. Some hams laughed and said: PSK31 and RTTY is all we need; why should we care? Why should we want to use any new modes? Well, USA hams... Welcome to our Technology Jail! Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA 22 Feb 2010, KQ6XA wrote: Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit
[digitalradio] No HF data/text bandwidth limit in USA Re: A closer look at ROS
Dear Rik van Riel, There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the digital emission, not bandwidth. FCC rules allow hams to transmit a 149kHz bandwidth data/text signal on the 20 meter band. It may not be popular to do so, but it is legal :) The amateur radio regulations of many other countries of the world do not have bandwidth limits on signals. Bandwidth regulation has been recently adopted by some countries. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths. Perhaps we will see more development in this area of technology in the future. There are other HF services using 24kHz and 48kHz bandwidth fast data modems. Some of these modems are capable of sending a page of text in the time it would take you to call CQ on one of the slow digital modes. Perhaps there are good applications for 48kHz modems in HF ham radio. For example, large portions of the 24MHz, 21MHz, and 28MHz ham bands are almost completely empty of amateur radio signals for years. It would be easy to fit a 24kHz or 48kHz bandwidth signal in these bands. Rik, you recently wrote that FCC part §97.307 places [bandwidth] limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands Please check your copy of the FCC rules more closely, because you overlooked what the rule actually says: (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. §97.305(c) is a chart of amateur radio bands and sub-bands. Each sub-band has a note, and the notes are listed in part §97.307. The Note # (2) only applies a soft bandwidth limit to non-phone emissions within the Phone,image sub-bands. Note # (2) does not apply to the CW/data/RTTY sub-bands. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted. Thus, USA hams still don't have a bandwidth limit for HF data/text :) Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Rik van Riel r...@... wrote: Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2)No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.
[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
[digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms
The point I was trying to make previously, is: Especially for Emcomm teams that need to fly, boat, or walk into a disaster zone... or simply find themselves in one due to being at the wrong place at the right time... It is so much better to have as few external devices and cabling attached to the radio as possible. Any digital mode for text and messaging that can be built into a radio, would be beneficial... less things to worry about maintaining in an Emcomm situation... We should be asking the manufacturers for these kinds of radios. Some hams have made boxes that contain all their portable station in one waterproof enclosure. This is in essence a good concept, but it falls short of what a good manpack radio would do that has a built-in digital mode. When faced with the weight and bulk minimization requirements to get into a helicopter, light plane, or small inflatable boat at a disaster scene... the bulky and heavy portable radio boxes may be rejected. In a disaster, you may be forced into a ONE BAG limit to enter these vehicles. You will need to carry everything in it that you need to communicate and survive and to benefit others in a positive way at your destination. Ask yourself if you can do that... and look at your gear load and your equipment with that viewpoint. A good strategy for Emcomm responders, is to be able to instantly pare down to minimum gear when forced to go lightweight. Everything in a single backpack. One that you are able to comfortably carry yourself for 2 miles. The main things that hams experience failure with in the field for portable and pedestrian mobile operation are the connectors and cables. Take a close look at the connectors on a notebook computer, netbook, or smart phone. These miniature connectors and cables are not rugged. They are a potential point of failure for Emcomm field work. Avoid them or find some way to set up your system so that they won't be damaged so easily when someone carrying a load at the disaster scene bumps into your setup. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms
Russell Blair (NC5O) wrote: ALE and Winmor and software for a PC, and power to run all this. but the phone nets maybe slow but all you need is a radio. Hi Russell, ALE does not need a computer for sending email or calling other stations. There are many radios with built in ALE. They were expensive, but the price has recently come way down on some of them. It just works, it is part of the radio's function, and you are not at the mercy of your flimsy laptop connections, or limited weight and bulk when traveling to a disaster zone. The limitations of small airplanes, helicopters, or boats could force you to decide whether you will bring water/food or a laptop and the other radio stuff. It is sad that not many ham radio companies have produced portable HF radios with built in PSK31 or RTTY keypad interfaces. Such a simple thing to do, but they just don't get it. Only a few VHF/UHF HTs even have APRS built in. Such a shame. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w2xj w...@... wrote: I truly believe it will be back to the very basics. DHS seems to feel the same way based on the money being spent on deployable HF SSB systems. Hi W2XJ, All the DHS radios have ALE. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: MT 63 question
MT63-1000 can be used on any HF band and on 160 meters. There is no bandwidth limit for Data for USA hams on HF. MT63=1000 also complies with the 300 symbol per second rule. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Kim W4OSS wrote: For US amateurs can MT63-1000 be used below 28MHZ or only above.
[digitalradio] Earthquake Haiti EMCOMM
Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) is now on ALERT for Haiti earthquake Emergency / Disaster Relief Communications (EMCOMM) more information: http://hflink.net HFLINK SPECIAL BULLETIN 13 JAN 2010 Alert: Haiti Earthquake EMCOMM HFN Pilot Stations are active and ready 24/7 for ALE calling, relay, and internet messages. All operators are encouraged to participate in the ALE Comm Centre live operator chat room http://hflink.net and activate Automatic Link Establishment radios on the ALE channel frequencies: HFN net (text/internet/sounding/calling) 3596.0 USB 7102.0 USB 10145.5 USB 14109.0 USB 18106.0 USB 21096.0 USB 24926.0 USB 28146.0 USB HFL net (emcomm/voice/calling) 3791.0 USB 7185.5 USB 14346.0 USB 18117.5 USB 21437.5 USB 24932.0 USB 28312.5 USB === END OF BULLETIN === Bonnie Crystal, KQ6XA International Emcomm Coordinator Global ALE High Frequency Network http://hflink.net
[digitalradio] Re: RS ID
RS ID is wonderful... for calling CQ with most digital text/data modes. But remember to turn it off when using ALE. I've noticed several stations trying to link with RS ID on, and it fails most of the time because it interferes with the handshake. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Olivia Frequencies and Modes Re: NEWBIE QUESTION FROM AC5JV
Hi George, http://hflink.com/olivia The most common flavor of Olivia is 500/16 and for DXing, you can find it on one of the following USB VFO Dial frequencies: 7042.5 USB 7072.5 USB 10142.5 USB 14075.65 USB 14074.65 USB 14077.65 USB 18102.65 USB When Olivia first began, the 1000/32 flavor was much more common, and it is still fairly active in europe and some other parts of the world on these USB VFO Dial Frequencies: 14105.5 kHz USB 14106.5 kHz USB For more complete information on Olivia Frequencies and modes please see the website: http://hflink.com/olivia 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA AC5JV,GEORGE wrote: MY QUESTION IS WHAT MODE IS USED THE MOST ? LIKE 16/500 ? OR DO YOU CHANGE IT IT UP AND DOWN IN DIFFERENT BANDS?
[digitalradio] Olivia Modes/Flavors/Bandwidths/Speed Re: NEWBIE OLIVIA QUESTION
Hi Warren, When Olivia first became somewhat popular, it was mode of the month... there was a lot of experimentation with tones and bandwidths. Operators found advantages for various conditions and needs, with extremes of each flavor. The 2000/64 is quite good for interference rejection. We used it on 40 metres to work through strong shortwave AM broadcast stations that used to be around 7105-7125 kHz. You can QSO with Olivia 2000/64 signals in the midst of S9+ broadcast music interference, without using a narrow passband filter. Just tune your VFO dial to about 500Hz above the broadcast station's carrier frequency. Not many digi modes are capable of that level of performance, even with a lot of help from narrow filters. But, the 500Hz 16-tone flavor of Olivia ended up becoming popular... not really because of its technical superiority over the other flavors... it is mainly because it is the best compromise for weak signal and fast enough keyboarding speed, and still fits within the IARU regions' bandplans 500Hz bandwidth segments. Operating near where RTTY/PSK/other modes are normally found increases the chances for random QSOs and responses to CQs. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA K5WGM Warren wrote: has anyone tryied to push the max tones to 256, like 2000/256? What is the SNR on that I wonder? ./
[digitalradio] Re: 1995 QST item on ALE
Andy K3UK wrote: Looks like the minds of many have not met despite 15 years to solve the matter. The minds met in 2001-2002. They developed specific programming and an ALE protocol baseline for what is now known as Ham Friendly ALE. The method is successful and has proven itself with more 7 years of use since then without harmful interference. Nothing comparable exists that can achieve what it does. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Contesters and DXers should use busy detectors
All contesters and DX pileup participants should use busy detectors! This is quite evident since it has been proven that such types of operation are the source of 99% of harmful interference and intentional interference on the HF ham bands. Manual methods of busy detection have been proven to be devoid of merit. Contesters and DX pileup technologists can start developing the DX/Contest Busy Detector with SSB and PSK and RTTY and CW, the most common modes. When they have a busy detector that is proven to work during contests and pileups, then the remaining 1% of rare other modes and other types of operation that are normally the recipient of harmful interference and intentional interference can consider adopting the tried and proven DX/contest Busy Detector. The 1% rare mode operators should continue to use the present methods that have proven to have a high probability of not causing harmful or intentional interference. Put your money where your mouth is. Develop a busy detector for DX/contesters. If your busy detector is successful in preventing the vast majority of harmful and intentional interference of contests and DX pileups, then the rest of the ham community can widely adopt it. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Ham HF networking digital communication systems
There are anti-automatic and negative-hams who would like to hold digital ham radio back in the same tired olde structure of brass pounding nets and CQ random contacts and bulletin boards of the 20th century. But the facts of the matter are, that the old nets based upon manual monitoring and manual message-passing and even logging in to check messages are not up to the standards of modern communications. The only way for ham radio to stay relevant in today's world and in the future, is to keep moving forward with new methods of interfacing ham networks with the world's digital communication systems. For those hams who are still living in the past, possibly they would rather not open their eyes to see the reality of what our service has become these days... The number of active hams on HF is dwindling. Except for weekend (contests) or evening (80m ragchews in the major population areas), in many areas of the world you can tune through several megahertz of HF ham spectrum without copying many strong signals. The fact that HF ham bands are not crowded, is not completely due to the low solar cycle. It is partly the result of the HF active ham radio population dying off. We have not attracted new younger hams to HF because the older hams have literally pushed away the young hams with bad attitude and lack of vision and enthusiasm for the future of technological progress. As one example, for the critical years in the last decade of the 20th century, we showed our contempt for a new generation of hams by putting up the obstacle of morse code testing. But this isn't about the dead issue of morse code testing... what young person wants to be a part of a dying technology? We, as hams and radio experimenters and communicators and emergency volunteers should be wholeheartedly embracing all the new and wonderful ways that we can make more interesting connections with people and communication technology. There is more variety in digital communication systems these days than there ever has been in history. How can we continue to bring HF ham radio into the future of communication? I can tell you for sure that it won't be with the olde ham formula of calling CQ, random calling, or round-table nets. From our mobile phone, we can instantly call a friend on their mobile phone in a distant part of the world, and it will ring... Can you do the same thing with your ham radio? If you are an HF Emcomm operator, can you make an emergency call, day or night, without prior notice or schedule, and get the message through? If the answer is yes, then what if 50 hams were trying to send an HF emcomm message at same time? Could you still get the message through? These are just foundation examples, the basic minimum that we need to be able to do as hams, in order to be relevant in today's world of communications. There is so much more that can be done. It's an exciting world, we can be a vibrant part of it, or we can long for the good ole days before cell phones when an HT on your belt was impressive. It's our choice. There are so many possibilities for new inventions and techniques to be developed in ham radio digital networking. It's our future. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA That's the news. If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own. --Scoop Nisker, Radio Newscaster
[digitalradio] Echolink Re: Ham HF networking digital communication systems
Hi Sigi, Yes, Echolink is a wonderful example of a modern networked radio communication system. Can you please tell me which HF frequencies and modes in europe you use to ring up your friend with echolink? How can you ring up your friend day and night with it on HF? Does anyone have a multi-band HF node on Echolink? I ran an HF-SSB voice echolink node for over a year, on 5371.5kHz and 18157.5kHz. It was fun and useful. Over 1000 hams used it during that year. Some of the more interesting QSOs on it were the ones with the most distant and unusual situations... such as: A european ham on holiday, walking along a beach in Canary Islands on a 2m FM HT, talking with an american ham hiking with a PRC-1099 manpack on 20W SSB 18MHz in Colorado USA. But of course, all the connections were manual operation with voice calling. Echolink lacked the key signaling and alerting feature to ring up someone if they were not listening to the speaker. It also lacked remote PTT, so it had to be manually monitored, the old way. Perhaps the recent software updates have added new alert methods or remote PTT? The use of DTMF tones for signaling from end-to-end is not available in most systems due to many repeaters auto-muting DTMF. This makes it difficult to add any type of universal on-channel audio signalling. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA dg9bfc sigi wrote: .snip Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA wrote: From our mobile phone, we can instantly call a friend on their mobile phone in a distant part of the world, and it will ring... Can you do the same thing with your ham radio? -snip Yes I can do .. with echolink but there is something missing in the system It should be possible to connect to an echolink node and tell the node that you are available via this node (with dtmf tones) Something like the mybbs in the packet net . .
[digitalradio] Disinformation about ALE by N5PVL Re: Getting serious about ALE / LID factor
Charles, Your constant efforts to spread disinformation about ALE use in ham radio shows how little you know about how hams are using ALE. If you are really concerned about lids on HF, start with the #1 primary source of QRM: contesters. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Charles Brabham n5...@... wrote: The system was not designed for use on amateur radio's shared spectrum, and that is why it's use is not appropriate there.
[digitalradio] Re: Moderator comments : Listen-Don't listen
Skip KH6TY wrote: A contester who calls CQ Contest is usually doing it on a frequency that is clear at the moment Hi Skip, What planet do you live on? :) I want to live there in that mythical land, where all contesters get to transmit on clear frequencies. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti contest, in fact, far from it. I was once a very active and avid contester. From experience, I can say without any doubt that successful contesting primarily boils down to who can QRM better and talk over top of all the other stations better. That is why the most successful contesters use high-powered amplifiers and large antenna arrays. The same goes for DX pileups. Basically, a pileup is simply a contest where the number of possible contacts is 1 and the number of possible multipliers is 1. Everyone who enters the pileup contest is trying to out-QRM the other entrants, or in FCC parlance... to harmfully interfere with, the other contestants in the pileup contest. They are trying to keep the other stations from working the target station, in favor of themselves. Louder, stronger, QRMer. Anyone who has listened or participated in contests knows that there will be QRM generated by the contest, and QRM/interference is just all part of the game. In fact, when you think about it, really... living with QRM and interference is part of life on HF. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: HF International Automatic Subbands
I would also like the ALE and digital community to recognise that they share the bands with everyone else Dave (G0DJA) Hi Dave, While I can't speak for the whole digital community, I can probably speak with some authority for the ALE community... ALE operators have been sharing the ham bands for many many years without harmful interference. This is primarily due to the way that ALE has been adapted to amateur radio by hams, a protocol adaption known as ham-friendly ALE. 99% of ALE operation is in organised emcomm networks and 99% of the organised networks are operating in the internationally recogised HF automatic sub-bands, where automatic modes have been in use for many years. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: HF automated sub-bands ?
http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: definitive source as to what those sub-bands are. Anyone ?
[digitalradio] Unattended Re: USA Novice-Tech operations on 10M?
Phil Williams ka1...@... wrote: Who can talk about what they have seen when it comes to best practices when operating an unatteneded on the HF bands? Hi Phil, Unattended operation of ham stations isn't appropriate to describe HF operating methods in USA, as far as I am aware of it. However, unattended is a description used within the IARU bandplans for certain segments of bands. The term is not very well-defined, but the IARU Region 1 bandplan committee started using it some years ago, and it has somehow been carried over to other bandplans, without much explanation. A licensed operator in USA must always be in control of the station, attending to it to be sure it complies with the rules. There are many means that can be used by the licensed operator to control the station and keep it in compliance with FCC rules, including: manual, remote, and several automatic types of control of operation. There is a long history of automatic control for various types of stations, including repeaters, telemetry, data, and beacons. The first automatic data stations on HF were probably RTTY autostart stations... then later on the APRS and Packet systems. Today, we have many many different types of automatically controlled HF stations on the air. There is something happening with an HF automatically controlled data station, every few minutes, every day on every HF band. The automatically controlled data networks form the most dependable emergency HF systems that ham radio has developed so far. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Fast/Wide Slow/Narrow
I'm glad there isn't any finite bandwidth limit for HF digital data communications in USA's FCC rules. (Other than the whole subband) This leaves open the potential for some wonderful new and different data modes to be developed in the near future. Modes that have the potential to send a page of text in a matter of seconds... or to have nearly realtime text chat among a large group of operators. We are fortunate to live in the Golden Age of Ham Radio Digital Communications. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: I might feel I need to transfer my message at 9600 baud on HF but others might argue I should be patient and accept a 300 baud transfer. Andy
[digitalradio] Re: QRV RFSM-8000 tonight
Hi Bill, In USA you can use it on every ham band, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, etc. Just be sure you are in the correct band segment for image comms. And be sure your transmission's content is image. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Bill WA7NWP wrote: So what would be the lowest band we could use it on? 10 meters? 6 meters? Higher?
[digitalradio] Re: JT65A on 17 30M
http://hflink.com/jt65/ JT65A HF Frequencies VFO FREQ - 28076.0 kHz USB - 24920.0 kHz USB - 21076.0 kHz USB - 18102.0 kHz USB * 14076.0 kHz USB * 10139.0 kHz USB - 7036.0 kHz USB - 7039.0 kHz USB - 7076.0 kHz USB - 3576.0 kHz USB - 1838.0 kHz USB - 1805.0 kHz USB JT65A signal is normally about +1.3kHz to +1.5kHz higher than the VFO frequency. Terrestrial JT65A VHF Frequencies VFO FREQ - 144.076 MHz USB - 144.116 MHz USB - 144.160 MHz USB - 50.076 MHz USB - 50.160 MHz USB - 50.260 MHz USB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave dco...@... wrote: Does anyone use JT65A on 17 or 30 meters, and if so, what frequency is used on both? Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW
[digitalradio] Re: WSPR power levels
Weak Signal = Received signal strength levels that are close to or partially embedded in the natural noise. QRP = Reduce Transmitter Power QRPp = Very Low Transmitter Power 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: WSPR power levels
Many moonbounce operators are running 1.5kW transmitters with more than 10kW ERP (effective radiated power with antenna gain). In that context, Weak Signal has traditionally meant that the signal at the receive end of the QSO is at or below the noise level. It doesn't mean weak transmitter :) Bonnie KQ6XA Sholto K7TMG wrote: Looking at the WSPRnet DB recently and I see guys running 50W, 100W, 500W and even 1000W??? I thought the WS part of WSPR meant Weak Signal? Sholto
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave AA6YQ wrote: Please identify the significant factors... Hi Dave, Some of the answers you seek are in a previous message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/30581 I will leave the rest up to you to determine. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth and FSK Shift
My rule of thumb for FSK is: Bandwidth is greater than Shift. On the surface, that may seem quite simplistic :) But, the deeper one looks, the more one finds that this is just about as far as one can go in making a universal statement of truth in the relationship between bandwidth and shift in real world transmitted FSK. Mathematical computation of How much greater? requires knowledge of many variables, as well as what type of bandwidth and how that bandwidth is to be described. There are many types of bandwidth definitions, for different applications. It is possible to make a very simplistic definition of bandwidth, without variables, but it probably won't be an accurate definition of real world signals emitted by real world transmitters. In actual practice, making good spectrum analysis measurements of some types of FSK signals can also be somewhat difficult. The instrumentation and adjustment of the test gear greatly affects the measurement. Here is an example of a spectrum analyzer measurement on an 8FSK waveform that I made, using 30Hz resolution bandwidth, peak hold, for 240 seconds: http://hflink.com/technical/ As most digital mode operators know quite well, the adjustment of audio and transmitter is a huge variable in the bandwidth of a digital signal. How many hams have a spectrum analyzer with accurate 30Hz resolution bandwidth? As DSP receivers have become widely available, it is possible to use them for spectrum analysis, and this can control some of the instrumentation variables more closely than with traditional spectrum analyzer methods. Still, operator knowledge of how to get good calibration and use reference standards is quite important to derive useful measurements. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave AA6YQ wrote: There is unquestionably a bandwidth restriction on HF for frequency-shift keying, Hi Dave, Sorry, old friend, but you are incorrect. In the USA data/RTTY bands 160meters-10meters, the FSK rule is a shift restriction. It is not a bandwidth restriction. The attempt to equate or change the shift restriction into a bandwidth restriction was denied one year ago by FCC (May 2008). In the Digital Stone Age Petition denial FCC Order [paragraph 10] FCC said: Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands. Plain and simple: FCC has conscientiously chosen to set no specific bandwidth limit for RTTY/data or phone emissions on HF/MF bands. For those who want bandwidth limits, perhaps it is time to reconsider a new bandwidth-based spectrum managagement petition to FCC? I have been a proponent of bandwidth-based spectrum management for ham radio. I don't believe that content-based spectrum management is conducive to advancement of RF digital technology, and I don't believe it is advantageous for hams. However, The Law of Unintended Consequences often applies to FCC rulings... and the petitioner may be severely disappointed by the outcome. A good example of unintended petition results was the one that reduced our freedom by making the 40 and 80 meter RTTY/data sub-bands get smaller! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Under the present content-based rules for hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't really a specific bandwidth limit for most types of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the maximum limit of the RTTY/data subband segment... for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal (14000kHz to 14150kHz). See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the Digital Stone Age petition: http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petition.PDF FCC explained further [in paragraph 11 of the order] : We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees' operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands are reallocated. DATA SIGNAL BANDWIDTH LIMIT CHART HF/VHF/MF BandData Signal Bandwidth Limit 160 meters = 200 kHz 80 meters = 100 kHz 60 meters = 0 kHz (Data Not Authorized) 40 meters = 125 kHz 30 meters = 50 kHz 20 meters = 150 kHz 17 meters = 42 kHz 15 meters = 200 kHz 12 meters = 40 kHz 10 meters = 300 kHz 6 meters = 20 kHz 2 meters = 20 kHz 1.25 meters = 100 kHz Note1: Amateur Extra License, USA Amateur Radio Service Note2: current as of 03-2009 More information and sources: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg FCC, Subpart D--Technical Standards §97.301 Authorized frequency bands. §97.307 Emission standards. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Bandwidth v Shift in RTTY ?
Hi Andy, There is no simple universal relationship between the shift and the transmitted signal bandwidth, because there are so many factors other than shift that contribute to the bandwidth of an FSK signal: 1. Symbol rate 2. Shape of waveform 3. Symbol transition point 4. Filtering 5. Number of tone frequencies 6. Transmitter chain 7. Other factors related to modulation process 8. Noise 9. Transmitter oscillator spectral purity 10. Definition of bandwidth This is an especially complex calculation for multiple frequency FSK signals, commonly 4-ary FSK, 8-ary FSK, 16-ary FSK, 32-ary FSK etc. where the number of shift frequencies is greater than 2, or the number of carriers is greater than 1. The FCC rule says maximum frequency shift of 1 kilohertz between mark and space. But, that FCC rule was written in the old days when common ham RTTY was Frequency Shift Keyed between only 2 frequencies, technically described by mark and space. However, in modern multiple tone frequency shift techniques, with binary symbols there is no such thing as mark and space. Thus, the rule became inapplicable to the new multiple frequency shifting keying modes. When the FCC was asked to convert from shift limit to bandwidth limit, the FCC refused, and at the same time, FCC said it had chosen not to limit bandwidth because it is important for ham radio to have the freedom to innovate and develop new techniques. Thus, the mark and space shift limit became a mere footnote in history that largely does not affect most modern digital techniques used in ham radio today. If you wish to delve into the finer math points of relationship between bandwidth and shift, may I suggest reading Section 6 (starting on page 37) of this fine document: Necessary Bandwidth and Spectral Properties of Digital Modulation by David J. Cohen: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/ntia-rpt/84-168/84-168.pdf 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Andy K3UK wrote -Bonnie, can you explain to this bozo what the difference between a shift restriction and bandwidth restriction would be? My brain viewed them to be the same, that is that a 170Hz shift would be roughly that amount of Hz wide at the usual ham speed.
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave, AA6YQ wrote: Do you think its a good idea for amateurs to transmit 150 Khz-wide signals on HF bands like 20m that are 350 Khz wide? Hi Dave, Yes. There are certainly conditions now that would be perfectly fine for 150kHz bandwidth signals to be used at power levels that would not cause harmful interference. There is currently RF digital technology available that can enable 100kHz bandwidth signals on HF to provide many more simultaneous QSOs than our traditional mid-20th century methods are capable of. I predict that in the near future, there will be such advanced radio technologies being used more and more on the ham bands. Through cooperation, goodwill, and planning, new methods can co-exist with legacy modes. Certainly, we can take a lesson from mobile phone technology. As a cellphone RF design engineer, I witnessed significant advancements in spectrum efficiency in that field. It made possible many more users on the same frequency band or channel at the same time, than was ever thought viable when my first cellphone design went to production in 1986. Similar advancement could be forged in ham radio if we open our minds to it and encourage creative talent. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Dave AA6YQ wrote: What's the bandwidth of an FSK signal whose shift is 1 kHz and whose symbol rate is limited to a maximum of 300 baud? Hi Dave, The question provides insufficient data to derive a simple universal answer. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
k2ncc asked: ...is it legal to transmit on the digital modes sub-bands modes that are greater than 1000 wide, like Olivia 2000? Yes. Under the present content-based rules for hams in USA, FCC has confirmed that there isn't really a specific bandwidth limit for most types of modern digital data signals on HF... other than the maximum limit of the RTTY/data subband segment... for example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal (14100kHz to 14150kHz). See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the Digital Stone Age petition: http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalstoneage/FCC_denies_digital_stone_age_petition.PDF In that FCC order, [paragraph 10] FCC said: Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands. FCC explained [paragraph 10] further: We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees' operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands are reallocated. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Correction, No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
I made a typo error in the previous message. I should have said: For example, on 20 meters, hams in USA can legally transmit a 150kHz bandwidth data signal (14000kHz to 14150kHz). 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] List of FCC Data Signal Bandwidth Limits for HF/VHF/MF
FCC Data Signal Bandwidth Limit Chart for HF/VHF/MF BandData Signal Bandwidth Limit 160 meters = 200 kHz 80 meters = 100 kHz 60 meters = 0 kHz (Data Not Authorized) 40 meters = 125 kHz 30 meters = 50 kHz 20 meters = 150 kHz 17 meters = 42 kHz 15 meters = 200 kHz 12 meters = 40 kHz 10 meters = 300 kHz 6 meters = 20 kHz 2 meters = 20 kHz 1.25 meters = 100 kHz Note1: Amateur Extra License, USA Amateur Radio Service Note2: current as of 03-2009 More information and sources: http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg FCC, Subpart D--Technical Standards §97.301 Authorized frequency bands. §97.307 Emission standards. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Phone/Image Band FCC bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
Frank k2ncc wrote: I think the confusion I have with quality phone transmission comment is the part that says ...of the same modulation type. Hi Frank, The FCC rule about HF signal bandwidth limit related to a phone emission of the same modulation type, applies mainly to Image signals within the HF Phone/Image sub-bands. That limit DOES NOT APPLY to Data/RTTY signals in the Data/RTTY sub-bands. Beware, there are a few narrow-minded hams continuing to spread disinformation about digital bandwidth limits. What motivates them to do so? Are they trying to scare us into self-inhibiting our freedoms? Or a desire to retard the advancement of radio technology? Whatever their reason is for using the Big Lie technique, it won't work in this case, because it is too easy now for USA hams to go to the source of true facts about bandwidth limits. That source is: the FCC rules on the web. The best way to understand the FCC rules about ham radio is to read the FCC rules, footnotes, tables, orders, definitions, specifications, and FCC opinions. I acknowledge that not everyone is quite as enthusiastic about reading this exciting material as I am. So, perhaps it will help to point out the parts of the tome that are pertinent to this discussion. Turn your hymnals to Part 97 :) - The FCC rules contain a table of frequency bands in paragraph (c) of §97.305 Authorized emission types. - In that §97.305 table, one can see Standards that apply to each sub-band or segment of a ham band. These little details are the key to understanding. Some Notes apply to certain sub-bands but not others. Here are the important things to look for: - Observe that Footnote (2) can be found in the Phone/Image sub-bands but Footnote(2) cannot be found in the Data/RTTY sub-bands! - The text of this important Standard (2) is found in: §97.307 Emission standards paragraph (f) . Here is the full text of §97.307 (f) (2) - No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. The main types of non-phone emissions this bandwidth limit applies to, only in the phone/image subbands are: 1. Image content (such as video or photo) 2. FAX image (such as drawings or documents) The FCC rules define what a Phone signal is. It includes speech and some other things, such as selective calling and controlling tones. The FCC definition of the word Phone can be found in §97.3(c)(5) Definitions of terms that are used in Part 97 to indicate emission types. So, everything in the Phone/Image sub-bands that is not Phone is considered Non-Phone. On an interesting side note, did you notice... there is no bandwidth limit for most common types of AM and SSB Phone signals in the HF bands? There is a non-specific limit for angle modulated signals such as FM voice... but that is a topic for another discussion. See you on 20 meters FM simplex! 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Unintended Consequences: Recent FCC Order on Repeaters
The FCC recently posted on Order clarifying what it believes a repeater is. Due to the law of unintended consequences, while this recent FCC order closes one small perceived loophole for D-Star and P-25 signals, it simultaneously (pun intended) affirms something else... the existence of an opportunity for other type(s) of digital voice relay systems that will absolutely not be considered repeaters by FCC! I'm not going to spill the beans on exactly what RF digital methods or other techniques this speaks to, but it has far-reaching ramifications for wonderful new developments in ham technology on HF/VHF/UHF. I will say that I'm quite gleefully watching what happens next... this is going to be fun! 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] New 7MHz IARU Region 1 Bandplan
7MHz IARU Region 1 Bandplan (effective 29 MAR 2009) IARU Region 1 is Europe/Africa/Russia/MiddleEast. More details: http://hflink.com/bandplans === FREQ kHz (BANDWIDTH) PREFERRED MODE AND USAGE === 7000-7025 (200Hz) CW, contest preferred 7025-7040 (200Hz) CW [7030= QRP Centre of Activity] 7040-7047 (500Hz) Narrow band modes - digimodes 7047-7050 (500Hz) Narrow band modes digimodes, automatically controlled data stations (unattended) 7050-7053 (2700Hz) All modes - digimodes, automatically controlled data stations (unattended) 7053-7060 (2700Hz) All modes - digimodes 7060-7100 (2700Hz) All modes, SSB contest preferred [7070= Digital Voice Centre of Activity] [7090= SSB QRP Centre of Activity] 7100-7130 (2700Hz) All modes [7110= Region 1 Emergency Centre of Activity] 7130-7200 (2700Hz All modes, SSB contest preferred [7165= Image Centre of Activity] 7175-7200 (2700Hz) All modes, priority for intercontinental operation More details on bandplans: http://hflink.com/bandplans Some comments and notes on the new bandplan de Bonnie KQ6XA: 1. Region 1 is Europe/Africa/Russia/MiddleEast. The IARU Region 1 bandplan has been updated, effective 29 March 2009, and it includes the ITU change of the 7100kHz-7200kHz band to allow ham radio use in Region 1. 2. In some cases, Region 1 hams may need to disregard the suggested IARU R1 bandplan in order to communicate with operators of countries which have different rules and regulations for frequency use. This includes USA, Japan, some countries of Africa, South America, and Asia. 3. The shortwave broadcast stations of Africa, Asia (especially China, etc) or South America will probably not move out of the 7100kHz-7200kHz band soon. They will continue for a long time, to make this part of the band nearly useless from evening to morning. Some countries opposed the removal of this band from shortwave broadcast... they are the most likely ones to be reluctant to move out... or they may never actually move. 4. Placement of the Emergency Centre of Activity Frequency at 7110kHz is interesting. However, it will be plagued by strong QRM from rogue broadcasters of various nations for years into the future. The bandplanners might have been naive to remove the existing 7060kHz Emergency Centre of Activity Frequency from the 2006 bandplan. It would have been better to list both frequencies during the next few years of interim changes in spectrum use. 5. Unfortunately, like previous years, the bandplan committee paid scant attention to the needs of the auto digital ham community. The plan provides only one channel for high speed data in a shared overlapping area of the band where SSB voice will continue to be widely used by the operators of Region 1 (and 2, and 3). Although some auto data entities will try to meet this suggested change, the reality is that this leaves most operators involved in the constant volume of fast data activity with little choice other than disregarding the bandplan's suggestion. 6. Many countries of Region 1, Region 2, and Region 3 likely do not plan to update their ham radio spectrum allocations, and it may take many years for it to happen (if ever). In the interim, it is more likely that the band will continue to be used by 3rd world bootleggers and pirates... as well as government entities. There is really not much recourse for hams to deal with those problems. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: New 7MHz IARU Region 1 Bandplan
Rick N6RK wrote What are these comments based on? They are not consistent with the April QST article. Do you know something the ARRL doesn't know or isn't telling? Hi Rick, The April 2009 QST article by Brennan N4QX, is good, and it provides a feel-good positive spin back story on what has been happening with the 7MHz band changes. It trumpets the success of the WRC process. The reality is, that the process took several decades too long to yield any positive results for the ham community. For USA hams in the lower 48 states, the combination of an ill-conceived FCC-dictated phone band which was not congruent with the realities of the international allocation in the 40 meter band has thwarted nightly SSB voice communications for several generations. Respectfully, Brennan's article, in my opinion, is overly optimistic and glosses over the realities of the spectrum allocation footnote problem, and the little-known fact that any country that wants to operate a rogue transmitter can basically do so on any frequency at their whim, because each country regulates its own spectrum with national sovereignty. What seems like an innocuous little footnote can legitimize the negation of a main category of the international spectrum allocation. A simple analogy example for USA hams is, that two federal entities, FCC and NTIA, have separate control over the same RF spectrum, and assign or allocate the same frequencies at the same time, in parallel, and sometimes in direct opposition. In my opinion, it is either overly optimistic or naive, to think that all broadcasters and continuous fixed data transmitters in China or South America or Africa will instantly vacate the 7100-7200kHz band. Keep in mind that there are broadcasters and fixed data presently operating in other ham bands that are allocated primary to ham radio. Now, we have a new bandplan for Region 1 that sets up a situation of contention between traditional SSB voice, digital, and operators in other countries and other regions. We are supposed to be communicators, but the people who represent us have often done things to thwart communication between us. Most of these IARU Bandplans and national bandplans are done in secret, without any input or interface with the general ham community. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Anti-Digital Hams
Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity and misinformation being spouted about various digital modes and methods by those who profess to be proponents of digital ham radio? Why is it necessary for a person who advocates some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean and nasty against another flavor? I ask these questions, because I've watched so many positive people and technology innovators driven away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham radio forums. Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices of some of the most positive and beneficial individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a rough place to begin with, but aren't the same individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing the same thing here on digitalradio? If we let the negative people control the level of discourse in forums for discussion, where will this lead the future of ham radio digital? What have we already lost in digital technlogy? What will we lose in the future? Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Andy K3UK wrote: Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK Hi Andy, As the defacto global standard for initiating and sustaining HF comms, ALE isn't affected by ham radio digital flavor of the month :) When linked, simply use whatever mode suits your fancy... voice, PSK, CW, etc, and perhaps WINMOR when it becomes widely available. Personally, I support the efforts to advance the WINMOR development. Advancement is a good thing for ham radio. Bonnie KQ6XA http://hflink.net
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Dave, AA6YQ wrote: Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each month? Why not try it and see? 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Frequencies RFSM8000 and MIL-STD 188-110 (Re: RFSM8000 qrg's?)
Hi Wolf, Here is the Centre of Activity frequency list we have been using for RFSM8000 and MIL-STD 188-110 testing, file transfer, auto, and some images: VFO FREQ KHZ / MODE=USB 1806.0 1840.5 3584.5 3626.0 7040.5 7065.0 7100.0 10142.5 14101.0 14112.0 14233.0 18104.5 18111.0 21116.0 28096.0 28327.5 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Wolf oe7ftj wrote: Are there CoA frequencies with RFSM8000 between individuals or dedicated frequencies with automatic stations or servers or gates with RFSM8000 modulation?
[digitalradio] Moderator Gone Wild: illinoisdigital group
Since illinoisdigitalham group is now gone, there has been quite a lot of discussion about it. It seems that Mark's rise to power as a group owner and especially, as a moderator, was rather sudden. Many of the successful group owners and moderators have developed their groups over many years, working up to it slowly and gaining their experience. In Mark's quest for an instantly huge membership for his group, it seems that he may have lost sight of an essential part of how this is done... through Netiquette. Netiquette is not just about being polite in public. It is an essential part of co-existing with others on the internet peacefully. Spamming, one of the deadly sins of Netiquette, will get one into deep doo-doo trouble, even if it is for a good cause :) Cross-posting is another delicate Netiquette issue. But, harvesting the email addresses of ham operators from groups, to spam those hams, is one of the things that will bring down the wrath of many internet-savvy individuals upon the perpetrator. Most group members have higher expectations for the behavior of moderators than they do for the average person on a group. Moderators are expected to be angels and saints, even in the face of the slings and arrows of insult and indignation. They are looked to, for guidance in solving disputes, while simultaneously serving as sergeant-at-arms to police the group when a bad boy can't be talked down through gentle persuasion. In all of these situations, it seems that Mark might have had high aspirations to do the right thing. But perhaps, did a quest for power eclipse an otherwise very beneficial endeavor? Perhaps we won't get to know the answer to that. Before I go on, I want to personally say that I've never harbored any ill will toward Mark. I was very supportive of him and his initial efforts to build a group about digital ham radio. I had nothing to do with Yahoo's action leading to his account being terminated for violation of Yahoo's Terms of Use. Now that the illinoisdigitalham group has been deleted by Yahoo, there are a huge number of hams out there who are coming forward about their experiences with spam from Mark, and their attempts to get him to stop. I will add my own interesting experience with Mark that happened on illinoisdigitalham group. It is a typical example of moderator Netiquette failure: I posted a message on illinoisdigitalham group, as part of an ongoing discussion about FCC digital rules. In this particular case, Mark intercepted my message with his moderator control panel. Before my message was posted to the group, Mark secretly changed the text of my message, to have the exact opposite meaning from what I had written. Then he let it go to the group, as if what he wrote had been written by me. It looked just like a message from me, but it was from Mark. He wrote some erroneous things. Everyone thought it was a posting from me. Mark never gave any explanation, he never even gave a hint to others about what he had done :) I wrote another message to the group that explained what had happened, and Mark blocked it. In an exchange of private email with Mark, he refused to provide any explanation on what he had done, and refused to retract it on the group. At that point, there was nothing I could do but accept the fact that anything sent on his group could be twisted by him into a falsehood at his whim. So, I curtailed my participation in his group from then on. In private correspondence with other hams, I discovered that I wasn't alone in my experience... several other hams had exactly the same or similar things happen with Mark and his group. Even after my personal bad experience with Mark, I continued to allow Mark to post and participate in all of the groups that I moderate, with the proviso that he always follow the group guidelines like the rest of the membership. For the most part he did so. But recently, I found out that he had been harvesting email addresses from postings on my groups, and adding them to his mass email address list for spammings. Those hams were not too happy about it. Some of them complained to Yahoo. As they say What Goes Around Comes Around. Does the saga of illinoisdigitalham end here? illinoisdigitalham is gone... for now. Will it re-appear in another incarnation? Perhaps this experience will serve as an example for groups, on what to avoid in the future. Running a large group for hams, or any other circle of interest, is not an easy thing to do. Yahoo isn't easy to deal with, they can really cause problems for owners of groups. The membership takes constant time and energy. There is pressure from all sides. Moderators and group owners are human. They are prone to the same human frailties that every other mortal on this planet endures. I wish Mark all the best of good fortune in whatever endeavors in ham radio he pursues in the future. Best Warm
[digitalradio] FREQUENCIES RFSM8000 and MIL-Re: RFSM8000 qrg's?
Hi Wolf, 1806.0 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Wolf, oe7ftj wolf.hoel...@... wrote: Hi all! Are there CoA frequencies with RFSM8000 between individuals or dedicated frequencies with automatic stations or servers or gates with RFSM8000 modulation? We have done some good tests regionally here and would like to connect stations mostly in europe for EmComm tests. 73 de Wolf, oe7ftj Innsbruck, Austria
[digitalradio] illinoisdigitalham?
Anyone know what happened to illinoisdigitalham? Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25)
Howard K5HB BTW, I was one of the stations experimenting with Q25. So far it did not work very well. So, tell me, Howard... when did you stop QRM'ing the net? 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..
Respectfully, I'm just curious why you would want to run such an experiment directly on top of an existing ham radio 24/7 global Emcomm network at 14109 USB? Bonnie KQ6XA I've left my system on 14.109 USB running Q15X25 through the soundmodem software. Connect to VE4KLM please. I'll send out the odd AX25 beacon from time to time. something about center frequency of 14.109.5 USB ? Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..
Hi Les, It is 2009. Digital evolution moves on. MT63 had a few good years of activity in the late 1990s. It was a significant step in the evolution of digital texting modes. But, alas, the popularity of MT63 on 14109 kHz USB subsided about 8 years ago. This coincided with the increasing popularity of a number of other interesting modes that eclipsed MT63. We saw very very few MT63 QSOs in 2008 on 14109 kHz USB. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..
Bonnie, amateur frequencies are shared. We always listen before transmitting, don't you? Howard K5HB I don't have any idea why you would be asking me that question, Howard. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day
John VE5MU wrote: To call a few operators using ALE soundings on 14109.0 a global Emcomm Network is a bit of a stretch, We do share these frequencies 14109.0 is not busy to say the least. Hi John, Your observation about 14109 being not busy is not supported by facts. It is probably one of the busiest frequencies in that part of the 20m band. Today I just checked and see activity by more than 20 stations on 14109 using ALE, with hundreds of signals being sent back and forth. I don't take it personally that you made an obvious snide remark about ALE global Emcomm network. However, I do note that in making such a comment, you are being profoundly disrespectful to many excellent operators who volunteer their time and devote their energy and resources freely to constant public service in the ham community. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..
Howard K5HB wrote: Bonnie, I asked because you don't seem to want to share the frequency. Hi Howard, Please explain. I don't understand what you are talking about. Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day
John VE5MU wrote: I admire the dedication that you and your fellow experimenters have with ALE, and the progress you have made so far. Hi John, Thank you. However, ham radio ALE was past the experimental stage about 7 years ago. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: 80m QRM right now
It is a fast HF modem. Could be data/text transfer, but the long transmissions are not typical of ARQ data transfer. Probably digital voice 2-way comms. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, oz1...@... wrote: I walked downwards and upwards in frequency (you can hear it on the MP3 file) down to 3.568 MHz and up to 3.585 MHz to find the span of this QRM. Torben, OZ1TMK
[digitalradio] Re: Real time audio frequency multiplication sofware
Such devices have been used in music industry, especially vocals, guitars, and other instruments. They have been variously known as pitch shifters, pitch scalers, or harmonizers. This function has become a feature in multi-effects boxes for electronic music instruments, recording, and live sound processing. It is done by changing the rescan rate of digitized audio, and some other syncro tricks, and the effect is most recently accomplished in real time with a good DSP engine (or several). The technique for audio timescale pitch modification is used in voice commercials (spots), usually the legal fine print disclaimer heard very fast at the end of the spot. The voice is sped up, but the pitch is then adjusted back lower to the original speed. In my recording studio, I have a DSP multi-effects rack-mount device (with 3 DSP engines in it) that has a pitch change feature, selectable as one of the many presets, and various parameters can be adjusted with a menu, such as octave, percent, or relative pitch change up/down. Perhaps this sort of feature could exist as real time PC computer software, but I don't know. Real time audio and PC computer don't seem to be allowed in the same sentence these days, at least in the Windows world. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA Graham g0nbd wrote: The event time is not changed, so its not like a tape speed changer where the duration is also modified .. amplitude liniartity would be 'nice' but not 100 % important can it be done ? has it ? music production ?
[digitalradio] Re: FT-450 on digimodes
Hi Sholto, It is not normal specifications to have 12dB tilt (or more) within the passband of an SSB transmitter. The engineer's response to your measured graph of power vs passband frequency indicates that either the engineer is BS'ing you, or the engineer is unqualified to determine the problem. Bonnie KQ6XA Sholto wrote: Now I am confused because I contacted Yaesu and sent them this graph of my measured transmit passband: http://www.projectsandparts.com/misc/ft-450tx.gif And this is what the engineer told me: Your graph shows the typical audio roll off expected. The bass band deviation for the FT-450 is 300-2500. You would expect the dBWs to peak as the filter narrows and conversely to drop off sharply as you approach the band edges. That is exactly what your data shows. Your FT-450 is performing within design parameters.
[digitalradio] Re: FT-450 on digimodes
Hi Sholto, I just read the FT-450 Transmitter Specifications: Audio Response (SSB): Not more than -6dB from 400 to 2600Hz In my view that is not a very impressive specification to begin with :) But, be that as it may, your measured graph of transmit power vs audio frequency indicates about 26dB of response variation (tilt) between 400Hz and 2600Hz. This falls short of achieving Yaesu's advertised transmitter specification by approximately 20dB! So, it would be wise to do your measurement again on both Upper Sideband and Lower Sideband, and compare the two graphs. If the graphs are different, it points to tilt problems in the roofing filter, or other problems in the radio audio-to modulator chain, possibly the DSP. By the way, the hilarious errors in technical language in the reply to you from Yaesu is an indicator that the engineer doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA FT-450 Brochure with Specifications: http://www.yaesu.com/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2519FileCatID=156FileName=FT%2D450%20.pdfFileContentType=application%2Fpdf Sholto wrote: Now I am confused because I contacted Yaesu and sent them this graph of my measured transmit passband: http://www.projectsandparts.com/misc/ft-450tx.gif And this is what the engineer told me: Your graph shows the typical audio roll off expected. The bass band deviation for the FT-450 is 300-2500. You would expect the dBWs to peak as the filter narrows and conversely to drop off sharply as you approach the band edges. That is exactly what your data shows. Your FT-450 is performing within design parameters.
[digitalradio] Re: Simple ALE question
Graham g0nbd wrote: Q1 With ALE can 'I' send a message via a second station ... eg send to g0abc via m0abc for example ... Yes. If you link with one of the ALE HFN Pilot Stations, you can relay a text message through it to any other station that can be linked to the same HFN Pilot Station with ALE simultaneously on that same channel. The text relay command is called Forward. The syntax of the command text is: !CMD FW CALLSIGN MESSAGE Upon receiving this command from you, the HFN Pilot Station will immediately call CALLSIGN via ALE on the same channel and link with the target station. Then it will send an AMD containing the MESSAGE text you sent as the last part of the command line. Q2 if so, what is a good simple software to use (win-xppro based) There are 2 software ALE controllers available for hams: PCALE and Multipsk. More ALE info: http://hflink.com More HFN messaging syntax info: http://hflink.net/bbslink/ 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Simple ALE question
Graham G0NBD wrote: Well looks like its 'close' .. Yes, there are 2 HFN Pilot Stations close to your QTH, Graham: F4BXW in France SM0TSC in Sweden You should be able to easily link with one of them at any time of day or night. Q .. Can any station be a relay station ? If so how ? Yes, for more information about How to become an HFN Pilot Station Operator please see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hflink/message/5843 Or contact me by direct email. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Olivia is a type of FSK (Re: Olivia 8 x 250 / psk31 / MFSK BEACON)
Graham G0NBD wrote: Follow on from last night , As the olivia system transmits tones in parallel it requires a linear system, however , MFSK is a single tone phase continuous system Hi Graham, Olivia mode does not transmit tones in parallel. It transmits each tone one at a time, in series. At any instant, there is only one tone being transmitted. Olivia is a modified form of FSK. It has amplitude wave shaping, and like any other amplitude-changing waveform, it is benefited by using a transmitter with linearity. The beginning and end part of the waveform of each Olivia tone is smaller amplitude than the middle of each tone. In between each tone, at instant of frequency shift, the amplitude of the waveform is near zero. This provides narrower bandwidth between the tone frequencies, and thus better inter-frequency tone recognition by the decoder. This also helps enable close-spaced tone frequency shifts to be realized, and thus, better throughput and better decoding sensitivity because of less intersymbol interference. The PSK31 mode has amplitude-changing parts of its waveform, and that is the reason it benefits by using a linear transmitter. Some common FSK modes do not have amplitude- changing waveforms, such as conventional RTTY, ALE, etc. These FSK modes do not need very linear transmitters. RTTY does not have a clearly defined tone-shift keying transition, but some other modes have their keying transition carefully defined at either the peak of the waveform or the zero-crossing of the waveform. Olivia information: http://hflink.com/olivia Image of ALE waveform (FSK) tone keying transition: http://hflink.com/technical/ Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] PSK31 = USB dial + audio centre Re: Specification of Frequency for Net
The defacto standard for PSK31 frequency listing: USB VFO dial freq kHz and audio centre freq Hz Examples: 14070kHz USB + 1500Hz 14070 + 1500 The defacto standard for PSK31 is Upper Sideband on all ham bands, so sideband is often not listed. There are other wordy ways to list PSK31 freqs with the same method. Examples: 14070kHz 1500Hz audio 14070kHz + 1500Hz 14070kHz at 1500Hz audio 14070 USB + 1.5kHz audio centre 14070 kHz VFO with 1500 Hz waterfall It is wise to choose exactly 1500Hz for the default PSK31 audio frequency of a net or sked, unless there is some compelling reason for another audio frequency. The possible exception for picking another audio frequency, is a net or sked that is within the main 14070kHz PSK Window. But, choice of an audio frequency should be between 700Hz and 2200Hz, to avoid problems for some types of radios. Other methods of listing PSK31 freqs are prone to widespread confusion among some hams... such as: RF frequency centre of signal. Note: Other modes have different defacto standards. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Emcomm Message Notification Routing Networking Re: Push Messages to the Field
Hi John, Thanks very much, for the detailed comments on PSKmail for this type of application. That is the probably the closest I've seen to approaching push message capability. Here's some follow-up questions: How does the mobile operator determine which PSKmail base and frequency to check in to at any particular moment? Is it manually selected by the operator, i.e., does the mobile operator need to keep manually checking if they remain linked-to-base on an ongoing basis? Does the op need to keep finding another base to be linked-to-base with, so that the notification messages get routed properly? What is the fall-back position for the system for notification, in the case that none of the bases show a link-to-base condition when the target mobile op hasn't checked in for a while? Is there a time-out or not-linked indication to the network or mobile op? I'm very interested in the network server side of how this can work smoothly. I think that it is the key to getting the best notification system. It would make sense to join as many ham networks as possible to this, to enable a message to be routed to the target operator by any method they are using. A mutual cooperation between ham networks could be forged, and this could make it a reality. If one dials a telephone number, it isn't necessary to know which telephone provider company that the called party is using. We need to carry this type of universal networking into the ham radio realm. The email address provides universal portability and networking opportunities for hams. Hams could adopt specific email addresses that are used for emcomm purposes, and use email forwarding. This simple feature could be leveraged to provide powerful networking for hams. At least for the HFN system, the high probability of linking on HF has already been achieved through the power of a network of geographically distributed HF base stations running simultaneously on all bands. It has often been pointed out that HF base-to-mobile can be statistically undependable for 24/7 point-to-point communications with a base station, due to the changing ionospheric propagation and channel conditions. However, the statistical probability for successful communications with a mobile goes way up when dynamic linking with any base in a geographically distributed HF network is added. A single ham band may not be open at any given instant between 2 specific stations. In fact, there might not be any HF band open between those 2 specific stations :) But, it is very rare that all HF bands are closed to everywhere. That points to the need to develop a wider, more flexible, network outlook for HF Emcomm systems; one that is not concentrated so much on NVIS or specific regular propagation patterns. The solar flare that happened during the Katrina disaster response certainly taught us how fragile traditional Net-Control-centric state nets can be that rely on 75 meters only. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA John (VK2ETA) wrote: Bonnie, The way Pskmail addresses the push messages is by using two concepts: 1. A notion of Linked-to-a-base status and 2. a centrally accessible (over the internet) database so that servers can be coordinated and avoid duplication). More details: The clients (mobile units) have to check in by sending a link to base. From there on, the server will push any new APRS messages (without ack) to the client. Of course other message sources could be pushed as well.
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Hi Howard, Thank you for the interesting reply. It is the first one that I've seen that actually addresses the core issues. Certainly, your item 1 suggestion, have their radios on all the time is a necessary fundamental for push messaging to work, and it is the prerequisite for it to function. This begs the question: How is the notification routed to the specific operator, notifying the operator that an email or SMS cell phone text message is pending? Your item 2 suggestion is good (check your email once per hour), but respectfully, it is still the old check in and pull a message technique of the early 20th century ARRL nets, rather than the quick push messaging that is needed today. Your item 3 suggestion is good (use D-Star calling) for notification from one radio operator to another. But, the weak part of the monitoring a voice net approach is that the members of a voice net or D-Star net may not know when that specific operator has an email or text message pending, so even if they can manually call the operator, how would they know when to call? The obvious limitations of D-Star on VHF/UHF and the need for repeaters is a weak point, especially given the hurricane scenario, as Katrina taught us. D-Star would be good as a VHF/UHF component of a larger strategy that includes HF. In response to your comment that the ALE High Frequency Network may have some ideas on how to do Push Messaging, the answer is yes, Push Messaging is being developed now for HFN. But HFN does not want to re-invent the wheel if necessary. Also, HFN wants to understand what has been tried before (if anything) and get any suggestions on how it can be done, or various ways to do it. So far there hasn't been any realistic answers that address the core Push Message question, other than yours, Howard. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Howard Z. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are some possibilities: 1. Teams have their radios on all the time, or perhaps only on the top of the hour for 10 minutes to check in 2. Teams connect to an email server via the radio at least once an hour. 3. D-Star radios - they have the ability for 'call-sign squelch'. A member will only hear messages explicitly sent to his call-sign. There are many approaches, probably more ideas exist in your organization than I have thought of here. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionradio@ wrote: The core question still remains: How can we initiate (push) a message to the mobile or portable operator in the field, when the field operator has no expectation that a message will be sent? Or, even more simply, how can we timely notify the field operator You Have Mail via HF? During the Katrina disaster the traditional HF voice nets failed to adequately provide this type of notification service. It's been 3 years since Katrina. What has we done to improve our ability to notify field ops via HF? How can we work together to forge unified or standard methods to make this happen... in a way that will function across the various ham Emcomm platforms and nets? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
The core question still remains: How can we initiate (push) a message to the mobile or portable operator in the field, when the field operator has no expectation that a message will be sent? Or, even more simply, how can we timely notify the field operator You Have Mail via HF? During the Katrina disaster the traditional HF voice nets failed to adequately provide this type of notification service. It's been 3 years since Katrina. What has we done to improve our ability to notify field ops via HF? How can we work together to forge unified or standard methods to make this happen... in a way that will function across the various ham Emcomm platforms and nets? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
The following questions are asked to the amateur radio Emcomm community... how can we work together on this? THE TYPICAL SCENARIO It is a dark and stormy night... You are an amateur radio operator, volunteering with a relief organization, for communication to set up shelters in a hurricane disaster. There has been no power in the area for 24 hours. There is no mobile phone service, and all the VHF/UHF repeaters and digipeaters in the area are out of range or out of service. It is 3AM. You are driving in your vehicle, half-way to your first shelter destination, making your way on back roads. The main highway is flooded. You use your chain saw to pass a downed tree. The road ahead looks worse. THE CALL The relief organization wants to call you now. They have new information since you left on your mission, and they now want to change your destination, to divert you to another shelter location not far from your route. They want you to give the workers at the other shelter a list of supplies that are on the way. They want you to check the shelter's status. They want to know where you are, and if you can possibly divert to the other shelter, so they won't need to send out yet another expedition to the other shelter. THE QUESTIONS How will the relief organization call you? How will they get the actual message to you? How will they know where to route the message to be sure it gets to you? How will they get urgent feedback from you? THE BACKGROUND In the past, Ham radio has generally been very good at a One Way Traffic situation. We can initiate messages. We can pull messages into the field using automatic email systems. It is easy to send messages initiated from the field. But, not as easy to call someone in the field, unless the operator in the field decides to actually initiate some sort of 2-way contact. CAN WE PUSH MESSAGES? What about pushing calls and messages to the field? What are the types of ham radio methods presently in place to call hams in the field when the ham in the field doesn't initiate the contact? What are the existing techniques, and how can these be improved? How is the ham in the field alerted to a call? Can we devise standard method(s) for routing Emcomm push messages to the field? Is ham radio HF viable for pushing messages? Can we make the call day or night, without prior notice? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA P.S. In case you are wondering, the scenario above was taken from the Katrina Hurricane Disaster. .
[digitalradio] Does an NTS Digital Net Station run 24/7 allband HF?
Hi Dave WB2FTX, Does a station in the NTS Digital net operate 24/7 on all HF bands simultaneously? Does a typical station in the NTS Digital net use 8 transceivers to achieve simultaneous operation on the 8 HF bands 80m/40m/30m/20m/17m/15m/12m/10m? Or, does each NTS Digital station scan every HF band? What type of software/hardware does a typical NTS Digital station use to achieve allband 24/7 HF operation? I'm very curious about it, because none of the publicly available information by NTS indicates that any station in the net is running 24/7 allband HF. Dave, I see you are cross-posting your message with CC to many of groups and individuals :) I am replying to you on the digitalradio group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ but, feel free to cross-post your answer to these questions. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Dave WB2FTX wrote: NTS Digital operates 24/7 on 80, 40, 30, 20, 17, and 15 meters... There are mutiple stations that do this, again primarily dedicated to NTS traffic... Some of the delivery points are made through packet links, 73 Dave WB2FTX
[digitalradio] NTS Digital 24/7 allband HF? Re: Global Emergency Network Marks Record
Hi Dave, Is NTS Digital operating 24/7 on all international HF bands? 80m/40m/30m/20m/15m/12m/10m? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Dave WB2FTX wrote: I kinda of thought that NTS Digital had been doing this for the past 10 or 15 years on a 24/7 basis, maybe I was mislead. Dave WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Coordinator - NTS Digital
[digitalradio] NTS Digital 24/7 allband HF? Re: Global Emergency Network Marks Record
Sorry, I forgot to list the 17m band :) Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dave, Is NTS Digital operating 24/7 on all international HF bands? 80m/40m/30m/20m/15m/12m/10m? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] NTS Digital 24/7 allband HF? Re: Global Emergency Network Marks Record
Hi Dave, Has any station in the NTS Digital net operated 24/7 on all HF bands simultaneously? 80m/40m/30m/20m/17m/15m/12m/10m with multiple transmitters, or scanning? Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Dave WB2FTX wrote: I kinda of thought that NTS Digital had been doing this for the past 10 or 15 years on a 24/7 basis, maybe I was mislead. Dave WB2FTX Eastern Area Digital Coordinator - NTS Digital
[digitalradio] This Week In Amateur Radio audio news: Global ALE - HF Net
Audio News by This Week In Amateur Radio reporting on: Global ALE High Frequency Network Operates 500 Days Click here to listen: http://hflink.net/press/HFN_500_days_twiar_news.mp3 Thanks to Larry W2LAG for his coverage of HFN news for This Week In Amateur Radio. Visit the TWIAR website at: http://twiar.org/ 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] GLOBAL ALE HF NET OPERATES 24-7 FOR 500 DAYS
GLOBAL HIGH FREQUENCY NETWORK OPERATES 24/7 FOR 500 DAYS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE [Global ALE High Frequency Network] http://hflink.net/ 07 November 2008 - The Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) has become the first network to operate continuously for more than 500 days on all international amateur radio shortwave bands simultaneously. The main purpose of the network is to provide efficient emergency and disaster relief communications to remote areas of the world. Beginning with a core group of 6 North American radio operators in June 2007, HFN rapidly expanded to cover large areas of the planet with 24/7 digital communications. It was designed to be an open framework for amateur radio emergency services of the world to interoperate on high frequency (HF) using the global standard Automatic Link Establishment http://hflink.com (ALE http://hflink.com ) system. Relying on ionospheric radio communications, the system of interconnected HFN base stations scans the radio bands every 10 seconds, from 3.5 Megahertz to 28 Megahertz. Through this net, ham operators stay connected with each other at all hours of the day or night in any mode of operation, and can send internet email or cell phone mobile text messages from the field. All ham operators are encouraged to participate in HFN, especially during ALE On The Air Week (AOTAW) from 7 November through 17 November 2008. The AOTAW event encourages ALE techniques and emergency preparedness. To track the operations of the Global ALE High Frequency Network, please see the HFLINK.NET http://hflink.net website for more information. About HFN Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) is a international amateur radio service organization of volunteer ham operators in various countries of the world, dedicated to emergency / relief radio communications. HFN website: http://hflink.net http://hflink.net Contact: Bonnie Crystal, KQ6XA (HFN International ALE Coordinator) Contact email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ###
[digitalradio] Re: Monitoring merchant vessel Antalina ?
Yesterday, I listened to a recording of one of the crew on the ship calling into the regular 911 operator, using a mobile cellphone. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know of frequencies to monitor for traffic related to the stranded ship, Antalina ? -- Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: MT63 freq ?
We haven't seen MT63 on 14109 for several years. It is mostly ALE and PACTOR. It seems that MT63 is dead, except for a few bulletins among MARS and UK emcomm. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 14,109.5 still being used for MT63?
[digitalradio] Re: Noise
Hi Ron, Use a portable HF receiver with a whip antenna and walk around, track it down by signal strength. This will find the source 90% of the time. Take 2 ferrites and call me in the morning... Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w4lde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I started to experience significant noise (S-9) on all bands from 160 through 15M with the lower frequencies much stronger. Any suggestions? Ron W4LDE
[digitalradio] Fast ARQ Hardware
It has been argued by several in this group that the first part of a digital mode transmission may be deleted by faulty transmit hardware without any problems in the reception on the other end. In other words, the first part of a transmission may be thrown away or discarded, and the message will still get through. One reason they give is that some modes are designed with preambles or first parts of the transmission as simply a synchronization for the signal, without any actual message content. They also say that the FEC (Forward Error Correction) or ARQ, or other repeat request parts of the mode will somehow mysteriously put the lost part of the message back together :) However, in my small scope of experience, as one who has been using and testing various ARQ, handshaking, and other soundcard programs for only 8 years, I can tell you that in most ARQ modes and handshaking modes, every part of the mode's transmission is being transmitted for a good reason... and the first part of each transmission is intended to be transmitted and received. It is not something you can willy-nilly throw away in the hardware, and expect the mode to perform correctly. In some modes, the first part of the transmission is relied upon to lock the decoder's synchronization so the the rest of the message can be decoded reliably. If the initial part of that transmission is deleted by the sender's hardware, then the decoder on the other end of the radio path will not be able to lock on to the signal as well, and this will cause random errors. In the case of modes that have repetitive or redundant transmission built into them, (in other words, they transmit the same thing several times, to increase the probability that the content will get through) the intention of the redundancy is to overcome the noise or interference of the radio path. If you delete one or more of the repetitions of the transmission, by using a faulty VOX interface or faulty hardware for whatever reason, you are defeating the redundant part of the signal, and thus, your dependability of the message will certainly suffer. I've personally observed this happening on the air. Often, the operators have no idea that it is even happening. And often, the operator isn't aware that their own hardware is causing the problem. They blame the mode, the software, the propagation, or even the other operator. But they don't want to consider for a moment that their own choice of hardware, that they paid good money for, may be at fault :) Sometimes, because they don't see the problem happening in one or more QSOs, they assume they have no problem. The redundancy has corrected the errors. But, reliability problems may show up in other instances when conditions are not quite so good, or if the station on the other end of the QSO is not optimized. These conditions are not something that the operator can control. But, good hardware to offset these problems is certainly within the realm of what the operator can do. There are some who have suggested that modes can be designed that can compensate for such initial deletion of the transmission. But, the fact is, that there are many existing modes that don't, and they will not be changed. In fact, especially for the faster ARQ systems, it makes no sense, because, the result certainly would be to slow down the throughput of the system. The trend now in both ham radio and commercial radio, is toward Software Defined Radios, and toward very rapid DSP systems. This enables even faster handshaking methods for digital communications than ever before thought possible in economical hardware. Thus, the trend in new modes of the future can be open to even tighter timing in ARQ handshaking and time multiplexing. Often, the discussion of this group revolves around the fads in software. But, I believe that the software is only as good as what the hardware that sends and receives it can provide. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Caveat Emptor - Etymology: 1523 Latin, let the buyer beware. A principle in commerce: Without a warranty the buyer takes the risk
[digitalradio] Re: Fast ARQ Hardware
Hi Bob, There are several alternative RF designs for 100W transceiver applications which enable solid state RX/TX switching without the need for the old 100W PIN diode brute-force 50 ohm T/R switch approach, that takes a power supply almost as big as the one that is running the radio. A high impedance receiver input can be coupled to the transceiver antenna port or filter bank, with a clamp circuit at the receiver front end for protection from overvoltage during transmit. The clamp circuit can be implemented in varoius ways. Also, power MOSFETs, or other types of FETs, could replace PIN diodes in standard 50 ohm switching applications for HF. ON-resistance of less than an ohm, and OFF-impedance of a few hundred or a thousand ohms at a few pF is all you need. The big advantage of FETs is that, unlike PIN diodes, they switch with very small current. Some of the FETs were mainly developed not for the HF transmitter industry, but for high power switching power supplies and motor control. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Bob, KD7NM wrote: high power PIN diodes ... for operation down to 1.5 MHz, and can also handle a couple of hundred watts, don't appear to be easy to find.
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Rud Merriam K5RUD Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware. Hi Rud, There's no problem with the computer hardware, simply a problem with the commercially made interface between the computer and the radio. Any interface that deletes part of the transmit waveform on every transmission, and possibly deletes part of every received transmission, is a faulty design. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] VOX not for ARQ modes Re: Signalink sL+
Peter OZ1PIF/5Q2M wrote: Either you have to add an external USB- RS232 [...] or resort to the VOX solution. Hi Peter, For ARQ or handshaking modes, VOX is simply way too slow. Signalink will not work. Not an option. Let's crunch the numbers: 1. Really fast VOX with 25milliSecond PTT delay. 2. Add 12mSec to 30mSec transmitter 90% power ramp-up. 3. Total delay = 37mSec to 55mSec! Now, let's take a typical example of a slow ARQ or handshaking mode running at 125 baud (symbols/second) It transmits one symbol every 8 milliseconds. In 37mSec, you have missed 4 symbols. In 55mSec, you have missed 7 symbols. Each time you miss some symbols, this creates more errors that need to be corrected somehow. So, each transmission with a VOX system, you create errors... and each ARQ transmission is trying to fix the previous transmission's error, and the previous errors in the transmissions before that... a vicious cycle :) The other issue is VOX release delay. The longer it is, the more the receive decoder will miss symbols. VOX is totally wrong for ARQ modes. I'm surprised that Signalink doesn't offer any RTS keying, it would be so easy to add to their interface. They are really shooting themselves in the foot with their design choice. A lot of hams are buying these Signalink and other VOX interfaces, and they don't realize what they are missing by doing so. Of course, Signalink doesn't tell them, (the truth would be bad for business). 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote: Bonnie and all, I use the SignalLink SL-1+ (older version, not USB) for ARQ modes successfully. I use MultiPSK and the ARQ modes I have tested and had working are: ALE 141A, ALE400, Pax/Pax2 and Packet. Hi Sholto, The fact that you were able to make contacts with ARQ using Signalink is not an indicator that it is good for ARQ. In ALE, with the Signalink, you would absolutely not be transmitting the first group of symbols of each transmission. The Signalink timing just isn't sufficient to do the job. The errors in your transmission may have been corrected by FEC or ARQ. But, your empirical evidence of success is more an indicator of the good redundancy and Forward Error Correction of the robust mode, rather than success for the Signalink :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bonnie, Does it really make that much difference? 73 Sholto. Yes, it really does make a difference :) Please see my previous explanation where I detailed the exact number of symbols that are deleted by Signalink at the beginning of every time you transmit. Then, there are the receive signals that may be deleted by Signalink due to PTT release delay. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
matt gregory wrote: Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA Hi Matthew, The Rigblaster Plug N Play is an excellent choice. Almost any of the interfaces that include PTT using hardware RTS will do fine for ARQ modes. Beware of interfaces that say they don't need any configuration or use VOX. Also, beware of the ones with cheap miniature soundcards inside them. For fast digital modes a soundcard with native 48kHz sampling is best. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the protocol implementers should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Rud Merriam k5rud wrote: Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for transmitter keying.
[digitalradio] Re: signalink sL+
Signalink is not capable of high speed ARQ. It uses vox, and doesn't have a real PTT with RTS. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, matt gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WONDERING IF ANYBODY IS USING A SIGNALINK SL+ FOR HIGH SPEED ARQ SOFTWARE IE RFSM2400 OR ALIKE ? I'M CURIOUS OF PERFORMANCE BEFORE I CONSIDER PURCHASE MATTHEW A. GREGORY KC2PUA
[digitalradio] No RTS PTT? Re: New digital mode interface due for release 25/08/08
For ALL present and future afsk Digital DATA modes. PTT via built in soundcard vox system. My big question about this interface is... only via vox ? Or does it also provide PTT via RTS? As many already know, vox, such as provided by the Signalink interface, is way way too slow for ARQ or handshaking digi modes. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.g4zlp.co.uk/unified/DM_AudioPRO_complete.shtml High performance, fully isolated USB DATA interface. PTT via built in soundcard vox system. PTT will operate automatically via the built in vox system whenever you hit your softwares TX button / key. Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Frequencies for digital modes
Dick Zseltvay, KC4COP wrote: I've been attempting to establish a list of a suggested frequencies to be used with the various digital modes in Region-Two for quite some time. Hi Dick, Probably the best we can hope for is a documented snapshot of a point in time. As an example of such a snapshot, earlier in 2008, a research project by HFLINK was completed, and a chart produced for the upper part of the 30 metre ham band: http://hflink.com/bandplans/10mhz/ We all must keep in mind that the digital modes are in a constant state of evolution, and the various frequencies that are haunted by these modes, ops, nets, and groups are changing over time as well. Some digital ops follow the mode fads... extremely popular for a few months and then fade away... like hoola hoops and pet rocks. The http://bandplans.com website is a good resource, very well done, however, it suffers just a little from TMI (Too Much Information) for presentation in spreadsheet list format. Some of the listings are over-reaching, conceptual, obsolete, mis-categorised, or wrong. But, most of the listings are excellent. It is probably the best starting point for digital mode ops to understand the ham band spectrum landscape. Whoever pointed the questioner to the ARRL website was quite humorous! ARRL resources in this area are a joke :) For some reason, ARRL has never really provided up-to-date listings, practical advice on digital mode operating freqs, or leadership in this area. Perhaps they don't want to wade into such a barrel of monkeys. Only recently did ARRL add the automatic subbands to their considerate operators frequency guide, even though it has existed for many many years! 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] In The PSK-RTTY Sandwich (Re: Frequencies for digital modes)
One of the recent developments in soundcard digital texting frequency groupings we have seen over the past 5 years or so, is in the 20 meter band, where several passband sections of it are popular for weak signal, QRP, or very narrow signals. This evolved in the space between the common PSK and RTTY segments. Stations in the PSK-RTTY Sandwich are commonly having QSOs with new super-weak modes at such low signal levels, that they are easy to overlook simply listening by ear... VFO (Passband) 14070.0 USB (14070.3-14072.5) PSK31 14072.5 USB (14072.8-14075.0) MFSK, OLIVIA, PSK63, New modes 14075.0 USB (14075.3-14077.5) Olivia, New modes, weak sig 14076.0 USB (14076.3-14078.5) JT65, super-weak sig Above = RTTY (14078.5-14090) RTTY 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: USB soundcard for use with laptop
VK3ZFS Frank wrote: a USB sound card looking for low noise and wide dynamic range. looking at lowest cost as possible. Hi Frank, When you find it, please let us know, be cause I'm also looking for USB Sound Device Nirvana :) It would seem that the two requirements of: 1. lowest cost possible 2. low noise and wide dynamic range ...are somewhat in opposition. At least from what I've seen in the market recently, some of the cheap USB sound devices do not have real 48kHz sampling, and they are quite sub-standard compared to the internal sound device system found on the average laptop. I'm using the internal sound device for the radio modem. My external USB sound device is just for my own speaker monitoring and Skype headset. There are some high end USB sound devices out there, but they tend to be high end cost also. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: USB soundcard for use with laptop
A google search: 16 bit 48 kHz USB SOUND turned up some new USB sound devices at reasonable prices (US$25-US$60). Many of these units are intended for Hi Fi audio and have RCA connectors. Beware of the ones that fit within a USB connector and have only 2 mini-plug connectors. They often sell for $US5-US$15 and are found in most stores. Many of these cheap USA sound devices are not 16 bit A/D or D/A... and they are not capable of 48kHz sampling... they fake it. But your digital software will not be so happy with the fake signal. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Tim N9PUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With most things... - Inexpensive - Fast - Reliable Pick any two. Tim, N9PUZ
[digitalradio] Report: ALE HFN Activity for Global Simulated Emergency Test- 3 May 2008
Report Log of the ALE High Frequency Network HFN for IARU GlobalSET 03 MAY 2008 On the 3rd of May 2008, the ham radio Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) was activiated to participate in the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) Global Simulated Emergency Test (GlobalSET or GSET). Ham radio operators in various countries around the world were on the air using ALE High Frequency radio stations as part of this preparedness excercise for emergency / disaster relief communications. http://hflink.com/hfn The following 27 amateur radio stations were activated for GlobalSET on the air using ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) and logged by the reporting station system of the ALE High Frequency Network (HFN). http://hflink.net/qso Stations Activated AB9MA AE6RD K4JPE K6DDW K6DLC K7EK KB3CS KE7ACY KK7IF KM4BA KN0CK KQ6XA KU2A N0PWZ N1DL N3OSO NJ7C NZ1I VE2FXL VK4TGV VR2HF VR2/KQ6XA W5DG WA2WDT WA3MEZ WB4AKK WD8ARZ == GlobalSET ALE Messages 03MAY2008 == The following stations successfully originated and/or transferred standard GlobalSET Readiness Messages via ALE HF email through the Winlink system to the GlobalSET Headquarters: Originated - Transferred K6DDW via N0PWZ KB3CS via VE2FXL KE7ACY via KQ6XA KM4BA via WD8ARZ KN0CK via NJ7C VR2/KQ6XA via VR2HF N1DL via NJ7C NJ7C via KM4BA VE2FXL via WA3MEZ WB4AKK via WA3MEZ WB4AKK via VE2FXL WD8ARZ via N0PWZ WD8ARZ via NJ7C WD8ARZ via KM4BA AB9MA via KM4BA Note: Other ALE stations are known to have participated in GlobalSET but were not logged if they were not received by one of the reporting stations of the automatic logging system or did not originate a message. ==END REPORT== ==REPORT DATE: 22JUN2008== ==REPORT FROM: ==Bonnie Crystal VR2/KQ6XA ==ALE HFN International Coordinator== http://hflink.com http://hflink.net .
[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
Dave, AA6YQ wrote, The amateur radio's community rapidly adopted PSK31 once panoramic reception on soundcard-equipped PCs became available. When the dogs don't like the dogfood, its a mistake to blame the dogs... Dave, A more accurate ham radio dogfood analogy would go like this: I went to feed the puppies and a pack of old wolves attacked me along the way. I ended up in the hospital, and the starving puppies were eaten by the wolves. Let's face it, the majority of ham radio is still stuck in the mid 20th Century. Simply put, PSK31 is a flavor of RTTY: same keyboarding concept, but weaker signals. Adding an esoteric feature like your example of panoramic reception software to spice up an old recipe is cute. But, it isn't a significantly different method of operation... still RTTY :) But, to see this as a mode or software creation issue, is missing the point totally. The real issue is not what digital modes we operate or bring out or what features are in the software we use, or how existing hams are using modes. The important thing is: How we can change what has heretofore been considered socially acceptable in the ham community: bad public attitudes toward creative new and useful technology paradigms. A blatant example was what we saw with abolition of morse testing. If the old morse test wasn't enough to scare away the first generation of computer-raised youngsters, then the next generation of web kids was turned off by the vitriol spewed by those who fought to keep ham radio locked in the 19th Century. After ham radio stupidly shot ourselves in that foot, we sat back and allowed a huge and vicious attack on Winlink and Echolink. There went the next wave of youngsters. This situation can only be changed by operators who are not afraid to stand up to those who display such sour attitudes in public. Until this kind of change happens, prospective new hams who are growing up totally connected by RF with WiFi, webfones in their pockets and Bluetooth in their ear, will see ham radio as a dead end or an irrelevant old folks pastime... they WILL go elsewhere to be creative or have fun or learn about RF technology. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] New Hams and New Digital Technology
When was the last time you talked to a teenage ham on HF digital? If you are a ham in a Western country, more than 35 or 40 years old, it is likely that you are last of the generations of active hams in your country. Look around, there are very few new young hams. Right now, I'm seeing a rapid increase in active hams in China... possibly the only country in the world where this is happening... mostly due to the recent relaxing of chinese Amateur Radio regulations and the huge number of people in high tech professions. Because most hams in China are not influenced by the english-speaking world of ham nay-sayers, the new wave of young Chinese hams have a vibrant experimental attitude, a good grasp of new technology, and they are active on the air. If hams in The West are to attract new young ham operators (or even maintain the existing hams younger than 30 years old), we need to start by changing the public attitude a lot of the older hams have toward those who are adopting new digital technologies. Will we graduate beyond PSK31 and keyboarding before this generation dies off? Or will we stagnate, to the point of oblivion, a footnote in history? Will Amateur Radio lose its spectrum simply by default, due to inevitable inactivity after this generation is gone? I'm already seeing it happening... the ham bands are being taken over by non-hams in many parts of the world. The pirates or government stations simply get on and use the band without any concern... there are more and more of them every day. We have broadcasters and jammers on 20 meters now (real high power AM shortwave broadcasters). All of 40 meters (including 7000-7100 kHz) and 80 meters has been taken over in most of Asia, Africa, and South America. They wouldn't be there if hams were actively occupying the frequencies already. Yet, regular activity on the ham bands is on the decrease. I've watched this happening over the 40 years I've been a ham. Sure, we have a few flurries of contest activity on the weekends (when the HF pirates are inactive). But, the sustained activity we once had, even 10 or 15 years ago is gone. And, it is not just due to the solar minimum :) Young people simply do not stick around places where they see the status quo putting down creativity, innovation, and actively discouraging new technology. QRZ.com and eham.net are flagship examples of this bad ham attitude on the web. Many young people get their first impressions of ham radio via the web, yes... even groups such as digitalradio and other yahoogroups... and hams posting videos on youtube. Stop and think for a second: What have you done on the web recently to encourage new operators? Recently, ARRL started an outreach program via a Blog on the web, to encourage young people interested in ham radio. It is called We Do That and it has the right attitude. It enthusiastically covers a lot of new technology and creative innovation. Click here: http://wedothatradio.wordpress.com/page/2/ 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA .
[digitalradio] Sloppy Station Control Re: Microphone putting audio into PSK transmissions
Dave KB3MOW wrote: When I'm going to run digital modes, I'd simply select the no mic position so that room audio doesn't get transmitted. I don't see that as being sloppy at all. Hi Dave, Sorry if I offended you by calling manual mic muting sloppy station control. No personal offense intended :) But the term is rather descriptive, don't you agree? It harkens me back to the old days of AM or split transmitter/receiver manual switching, when ops often used a sequence of manual antenna change-over knife switch, receiver's mute switch, and transmitter keying to start and stop each transmission. Been there, done that (Novice) it was sloppy :) While there are a few hams who are computer-modes-only ops... most of us like to occasionally use whatever mode of operation happens to be interesting or needed at any particular time. What if one forgets to manually mute the microphone when going to PSK31? What if you have a visiting operator using your setup? Everyone listening on 14070 is going to get a good laugh when you are chatting on the phone with your paramour or listening to the local 2 meter repeater on your VHF rig in the background while sending your brag file? These days, with all the ham accessories available, automatic muting easy to do... either with store-bought rig control gizmos like Rigblaster, or homebrew relay/transistor switching interfaces. There is also an advantage in some ham radio operating modes and methods to having real automatic rapid switching between the computer and station microphone. For example: 1. for video operation on HF, the computer's signals are often interspersed with transmissions of voice SSB on the transceiver's micrphone 2. for digital voice operation using a computer as the digital voice source, the computer signals are often interspersed with SSB voice transmissions via the transceiver's microphone. 3. for ALE operation with SSB, it is very important to keep the microphone interactive and at the ready, so that voice SSB responses may be used rapidly when called or when monitoring. ALE calls can also be interspersed with SSB voice. Those are just a few common examples. Even if one never intends to use any of the 3 examples of rapid interactive operating modes I mentioned... The risk of a forgetful hasty response to a digital mode call leading to an unintended hot shack microphone over the air at full power, should be enough to scare most ops away from manual microphone muting. So... that's why I call it Sloppy Station Control. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Microphone putting audio into PSK transmissions
Hi Dave, Many transceivers have automatic muting of the microphone whenever the rear panel accessory jack PTT is in use... and they do not require external switching or modification. However, some Icom transceivers and other brands do not have internal muting of the microphone muting when the rear panel audio/PTT is enabled. A simple modification of the Icom HM-36 microphone results in the muting of the microphone whenever the microphone's PTT button is not being pushed. It enables the computer to interface via the transceiver's rear panel data accessory jack, without ambient audio entering via the hot microphone during computer audio transmissions. CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE MOD: http://hflink.com/icom/microphone/hm36/ This mod provides an easy viable solution that does not require modification of the transceiver itself. The principles used in this modification may be applied to other brands of transceivers and microphones. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Dave KB3MOW wrote: I'm using the ACC jack on the rear of my IC-746 for digital mode audio from my computer. Convenient, but the downside is that the microphone picks up audio from the room and that also gets transmitted. ... might there be a simpler way to kill the audio from the microphone without going through all this?
[digitalradio] Re: Microphone putting audio into PSK transmissions
To mute the mic audio, you only need to short the microphone hot pin to ground. A simple single pole single throw switch (normally open) will work. However, you will need to manually switch it each time you transmit... and perhaps that is rather sloppy station control. Bonnie --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave 'Doc' Corio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess unless someone tells me that a rotary wafer switch won't do the trick for me, I'm going to try to build one. Tnx es 73 Dave KB3MOW CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE MOD: http://hflink.com/icom/microphone/hm36/
[digitalradio] Emcomm Backbone Re: Winlink: Latest in Emcomm
Hi Andy, Within the past year, the Winlink system has basically evolved to become the standard ham radio Emcomm messaging backbone. The Winlink development team has upgraded the system from the previous system, and now has all the RMS (Remote Message Servers) access points communicating directly with international reduntant CMS (Central Message Servers) in different parts of the world. Several different programs exist (that run at the sites of the different types of RF access points) for communicating with the CMS system. There are built-in backups for direct RF-to-RF relay in the access point programs... in the event that your RF access point can't communicate with a CMS directly, you can use the RF access point for RF-to-RF regional or local relay. A single Winlink.org email address account now gets you a portability of choices to go through one, any, or all of the different types of RF and wired methods, modes, and access points to send/receive email messages, position reports, and email/SMS phone texting. You can go RF or directly through the web or POP3, whatever you have. This is the kind of seamless access and redundancy that is expected and needed these days for real world emcomm messaging stuff. The methods for Winlink system access have been increasing so fast in the past year, it is difficult for some of us to keep up with. But here is a partial list of what I know of (someone please correct me if I made a mistake or left something out)... HF via Pactor 1,2,3 (email with attachments) HF via ALE (AMD single line text, DBM ARQ multiline text) VHF/UHF via Packet (email with attachments) APRS (text message via commands in the comment line) VHF/UHF via D-Star data (new) POP3 Webmail At this point, it is so easy to provide interconnectivity on HF/VHF/UHF with the Winlink system, that there simply isn't any excuse for not using it (except for personal ego or blood feud). Winlink is simply one of the best ham radio emcomm messaging tools you can have in your toolbox. There just isn't anything like it out there that provides what it does. 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside from PACTOR, NBEMS and ALE, which has seemed to be moderately active , what is the latest in emergency communication protocols ? I did manage to use AIRMAIL a few years ago, just to see if it could work. I vaguely recall something recently that said they have revised some aspects of Winlink and eliminated Telpac, is that correct? If so, what did they replace it with? Andy K3UK
