Could I ask you to explain this in terms a ham would understand?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, iv3nwv nico...@... wrote:
In a message oriented and power limited fading communication system what
counts is the relationship between the channel coherence time (the time
interval over
Nico,
I agree 100%. What's needed more than anything is the ability to determine
whether a frequency is in use, then we can hop around as much as we want as
the MUF changes.
As for the FCC - let's just be happy that they only legislate for the US
possessions (colonies) :)
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
Hi Julian,
By channel coherence time do you mean time when the signal is readable?
The channel choerence time is a property of a (fading) channel which gives an
idea of the time interval over with the channel response is approximately
*constant*.
If you drive your car at 100 km/h and tune
Hi Jose.
You have a point too nobody had made me to stop and think about. FEC or
UWB in whatever way, carried to the extremes, are two sides of the same
coin.
It happens, never mind. Sometimes also telecommunication engineers have not a
clear vision of what they are designing :-D
On
El 06/03/2010 19:44, iv3nwv escribió:
Jose,
if you are referring to me I'm not saying that theoretically it is correct to
use as much bandwidth as possible. This is a conclusion you have drawn on
your own.
Using a 100 kHz bandwith to communicate information at a rate of 1 bit/s
could by
-Original Message-
From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com
Sent: Mar 5, 2010 11:28 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Rein, why don’t you call Dawn (FCC agent 3820) and ask her why the FCC chose
to communicate through the ARRL; the phone
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, iv3nwv nico...@... wrote:
I also agree that amateur bands are not just an experimenter's playground but
this implicitly means that they are not exclusive to communicators.
If I were an experimenter I would like to see acknowledged my right to make
my
AA6YQ comments below
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 5:50 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Hi Dave, ( AA6YQ
El 06/03/2010 4:49, rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió:
I thought, that there has to be a direct specific connection
between the transmitter and the receiver on how to retrieve
the info from the spread spectrum. ( SS for dummies )
This makes it useful for the militairy, for who it was
originally
I agree with Nino, theoretically it is correct to use as much bandwidth
as possible, 3 kHz in the ROS case, but due to the small spreading, the
ROS signal does not have a negligble level compared to others on the
channel, so it is a halfbreed, it has spread spectrum characteristics,
but does
Message-
From: Jose A. Amador ama...@electrica.cujae.edu.cu
Sent: Mar 6, 2010 6:37 AM
To: Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com
Cc: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
El 06/03/2010 4:49, rein...@ix.netcom.com escribió:
I thought
Hello Dave, ( AA6YQ )
I see your point with the use on HF
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com
Sent: Mar 6, 2010 7:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Jose,
if you are referring to me I'm not saying that theoretically it is correct to
use as much bandwidth as possible. This is a conclusion you have drawn on your
own.
Using a 100 kHz bandwith to communicate information at a rate of 1 bit/s could
by sure approach any channel capacity, but the
Laws are laws, whether you like them or not. And, in this particular context,
is it actually necessary to go on the air to carry out experiments of this
type? As has been mentioned in several posts. there are ionospheric simulators
that permit the testing of different modes.
The amateur bands
But the situation where existing users of the bands suddenly have their
activities disrupted when people start going mad with some flavour of the month
new mode is unacceptable, and the controls the FCC exercise over amateurs in
the USA do at least go some way to prevent this.
This is why
All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb.
23.
That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be
spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a
decision.
The FCC has never said ROS is illegal nor have
be,
I am a member of the ARRL and have been that for 40 years.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Mar 5, 2010 5:13 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
All the ARRL announcement really does
Julian,
thanks for your comments.
Yes, laws are laws.
Also the Hammurabi rule If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall
be put out was a law but I don't think that it would be of great help in our
modern society.
I agree with you that simulations should be performed prior to any
The FCC is very slow to respond to anything related amateur radio. In other
words we're a very minor player in the scheme of things. I for one will refrain
from using ROS below 222Mhz until it is approved because my license is more
valuable to me . Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright hfradio...@... wrote:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
Quoted:
The ARRL supports -- as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio -- the
experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators. The
development
communications on those frequencies below 222 MHz?
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV
- Original Message -
From: iv3nwv nico...@microtelecom.it
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
21 matches
Mail list logo
