All,
It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The
number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential
tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS
frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
All,
It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K.
The number of tones
-
From: Tony
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
All,
It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than
regulations.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: w2xj
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 19:17 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit
shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they
were generated.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Tony
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer
Message -
From: Tony
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
All,
It would appear that ROS
, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
All,
It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia
128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote:
Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU
international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to
permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and
can be received by anyone, the real restriction is
Ok so what if it is...
This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time)
that this has happen.
My question is where do they all come from?
Why would someone take the time to write the
program if it can't be used?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
Ok so what if it is...
This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time)
that this has happen.
My question is where do they all come from?
Why would someone take the time to write the
program if it can't be used?
Probably because, in other countries, it
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote:
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments
where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
support such operation:
Lets look at it in
- Original Message -
From: Tony
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s
Rik,
Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
/(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J
or R as
There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is
that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J
in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being
spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally
spread by the PN
On 02/21/2010 04:16 PM, KH6TY wrote:
Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
Definitions, Para C, line 8:
/(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions having designators
The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy
and what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of
ROS, if the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then
hopped, that would classify it as spread spectrum.
The rules are FCC rules and
AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:14 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The current
ROS is one voice channel wide, it seems to have been conceived for a 3
kHz wide voice channel, as usual with SSB radios.
Its width is comparable with accepted modes like MT63 or Olivia xx:2000.
It is not an automated mode, it is meant for keyboarding.
Its spectrum spreading is hardly the way
- Original Message -
From: Dave AA6YQ
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 23:24 UTC
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
AA6YQ comments below
The current restrictions on automatic stations can stay in place with
regulation
mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2010 22:30 UTC
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve
everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to
take over the HF bands
-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:30:50 -0500
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy and
what is done with it, not how that RF is generated
21 matches
Mail list logo
