and the tones will be placed
correctly in your passband of the rig.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Paul wrote:
What is the designation of 10.140 + 1000Hz? When I've looked at band
plans I sometimes see 20M psk designated as 14.070.150 More often it
is 14.070. When I tune, I tune to 14.070 with a Ten Tec
the battery through the firewall in her truck. We just
got the bug catcher antenna so she can try out HF mobile, mostly on 75
meters.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker wrote:
I have no waterfall when I operate RTTY or software
or computer or can click on anything. But I can do the math
from
.
The free Multipsk program can decode AMTOR ARQ but of course has no way
to handle repeats. It can transmit and receive with AMTOR FEC.
Similarly, it can listen to Pactor 1 ARQ and it can transmit Pactor FEC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Since I dont use either Pactor or Amtor, I
still would like to see is a sound card ARQ modes that is
scaleable in speed and also can work with weak signals, QSB, etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brian A wrote:
I've been playing around with this on 20M.
The new version which does the decoding starting at 48 seconds is a
big help
100 watt rig?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Danny Douglas wrote:
Absolutely spot on Erick. That is one reason that we try to tell new
people, on the digital bands, to start with as few watts as they can. There
is just no reason to run 100 watts ( and I expect some run more) on the PSK,
etc. digital modes
the propagation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Joe Veldhuis wrote:
10 meters has been open almost every day for the last month, with MUFs often
reaching 6 meters (and sometimes as high as FMBC) somewhere in north america.
Given that the F2 MUF has been getting up to 15 meters pretty consistently,
and Es
say, it only takes one person to make the difference when it
comes to developing new software and concepts. Sometimes it can be a big
difference changing all the rules.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Skip KH6TY wrote:
**
The following was my submission. After further on-the-air tests, I am
now
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Loyd Headrick wrote:
I work mostly digital and have had this problem with the BIG boys
running enough power to light up half the town. I've made contacts
with 10 watts. if I can't work a station at 10 watts 100 isn't going
to help much more except to prove that I can't
provide military honors at
funerals. You do not have to be a member of the organization.
The American Legion is an organization Chartered by Congress and has
certain duties to carry out in support of veterans.
Rick, KV9U
Member and Officer of my local Post
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Thanks
that they will eventually publish some kind of
collation of the input and perhaps we may find some areas of consensus.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Art Botterell wrote:
They say it's not an RFP, and I have no reason to doubt that, but
that still leaves me wondering what the League's query actually
on your part.
If you disagree with someone, why not respond by calmly explaining why
their view appears to be wrong (to you) instead of attacking them. You
might find it better for everyone, including yourself.
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Bruce,
When are you ever going to stop your babling
here in the state but I think
most of those have been discontinued. But we can not just think of our
area since we could cause serious interference to other areas and even
regions if the bands open with Es and F layer propagation.
Rick, KV9U
John Champa wrote:
Rick,
Unless you have had
failure prone infrastructure.
73,
Rick, KV9U
bruce mallon wrote:
ITS NOT what is going on is the government has radar
on that band and HAMS are not supposed to interfere
with it. They have a problem with that radar. NOW if
70cm goes away it will go back to the GOVERNMENT.
SAME OLD LIES
with my hardware:(
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
Rick, my answer to your question is no (I do not have
those two programs running as well under Wine/Linux).
I do have a rig control program running under Wine
for my TS-2000 - ARCS II by WB5KIA. There may be
others for your rig.
gMFSK
not be
difficult to do this. Many years ago, I assembled a Heath HERO robot kit
as a demonstration project for the agency I worked with at the time and
it was relatively simple to program speech by using various phonemes. I
am not sure how useful this would be though.
73,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000
some solutions.
73,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000 wrote:
ARQ makes no sense in DV, and FEC is easily adaptable to meet those 375
or 300 data rates of those 2 modes.
Are any minimum SNR numbers of those 2 modes known (375/300 bps)?
The problem with ofdm (windrm style) is that it's hard to go
hope is that there may be some help in a new direction with some ARRL
backing for an HF emergency protocol.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
If Scamp was abandoned, is it publicly available for others to play with ?
Andy K3UK
__._
with his
diametrically opposite statements.
I do not recall seeing a reply.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Since RDFT was released under the GPL license, failure to release the
source code for SCAMP may be violation of the GPL license.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
,
Rick, KV9U
cesco12342000 wrote:
The rdft routines are not integrated into scamp, they are external
exe's. Same trick is used by mixw, gpl-code is moved to an external
library.
While this seems to be legal in the scamp case, the mixw case could be
different. To use GPL code in a library
time until the band lengthened. But I can not remember how I set up the
contact.
It seems to me that these modes should work more like connected packet
radio works. A few simple commands, and then also could work as a BBS
too. That always seemed to make sense to me in the old days.
73,
Rick
with existing
equipment, and would only have it on new equipment.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
For those running DXLab applications on Vista, the defect in the Vista
File Manager has been identified, and an option has been added to each
application to work around this defect. New
this using an
ARQ pipelining technique of performing the computer time on the last
packet in the background while the next packet is coming through. In
fact, this is what I hope will come out of the ARRL's interest in
possibly developing a new HF mode(s) for soundcards.
73,
Rick, KV9U
AAR2EY wrote
-mail and ALE. What is
currently available other than PSKmail for Linux OS that permits anyone
to set up servers to route the traffic into the internet?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
GM Rick,
Alternate Link Call (AQC) ALE is basically 2G Plus ALE in that its an
advanced 8FSK
throughput as 300 baud packet and how
does the bandwidth compare?
73,
Rick, KV9U
r_lwesterfield wrote:
My Rockwell ARC-190 v8 HF radio and a Rockwell Q9600 modem at “the
office” into the SCOPE Command network works very well for e-mail
INTERNET access but I do have access to 3khz wide
. The problem with any HF DV is that it really is not very
practical as it requires very good signals to work adequately and
amateur radio often is challenged with weak signals.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Hamilton wrote:
Is this the reason why the AOR and ICOM digital voice modes are not
available
the
newest modes do not compete well.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
This is interesting. Various digital proponents have
tirelessly pointed out how inefficient these obsolete
modes are. Why not let them compete too and let the
best mode win?
Rick N6RK
, but it is probably best that we not tie up frequencies in
the automatic portions of the bands, so how about using 14.073 USB dial
frequency?
Other bands? 3573, 7073, 10133?
Other suggestions?
73,
Rick, KV9U
756 Pro 2 every so often.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Hello Rick,
Yes, I confirm, you must:
* calibrate Multipsk with the sound card installed: click on Sampling
freq. then click on Determination of the standard RX sampling
frequency... and Determination of the standard
a Soundblaster Live! card that is not being used, and
maybe I can figure out how to get it to work with my emachine.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Hello Rick,
MFSK16 which requires even more accuracy I think I read in the help
files, 4 Hz
Yes (and MFSK8: 2 Hz...which becomes
If there is anyone who uses a Pro 2 with PC-ALE (and is having success
keying the rig) I could use some help.
I have some other issues with the rig going into split operation when
the program is booted and never returning the rig to normal operation.
Thanks and 73,
Rick, KV9U
I just received word from other sources about the fact that it does not
work as expected. There is to be some alpha software available and I am
always available to try something new.
But I can not get the rig to TX on PC-ALE at all, so something else must
not be set quite right?
73,
Rick
I have had the Use CAT for PTT checked in the enable/disable options.
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
Hi Rick,
Depending upon your setup, you need to go into the options panel and
select Use RTS for PTT or Use CAT for PTT.
Bonnie KQ6XA
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL
, (some of
their info says 10.120) and 14050 as much as possible. If you were
operating portable with simple equipment it would almost have to be CW
to work with modest antennas and a couple of watts and they can take
message traffic out of normal net sequence.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien
to make it
work. We are really fortunate today with the ultra compact and
moderately priced portable HF CW rigs, but ironically fewer and fewer
hams will be able to use them since they won't have the skill.
73,
Rick, KV9U
n2qz wrote:
NREN is basically defunct due to lack of interest
received scan list, but it is primarily NJ7C and K7EK
who I frequently copy at this northern midwest U.S. location.
73,
Rick, KV9U
WN1Z wrote:
Just curious, is anyone on this list using the
Digital Radio Interactive Sked Page
(http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php)
for anything other
this model transceiver for
ALE, or at least was willing to help solve the problem., assuming that
the rig can actually operate with PC-ALE. It does fine with Multipsk.
One wonders if there really are hundreds or thousands of ALE users as
has been claimed.
73,
Rick, KV9U
slamat ali wrote:
Dear
anything like that.
Again, it seems that it is difficult to find information of this kind on
the internet and I rather expect it to be very openly available and very
clear and concise.
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick,
I have replied to your comments many times on these matters:
1. PC-ALE
VE2FXL to W9WIS
EA2AFR
Maybe try and call some of these or see if anyone is around. I am still
not sure if you see connections when you monitor because thus far I have
only see soundings or someone that appears to be calling to someone
but no apparent response.
Have I got that right?
73,
Rick
, it is much better in the long run to be open and inviting to
others and they will want to participate if there really is a perceived
benefit.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick,
At 02:38 PM 8/5/2007, you wrote:
Steve and those interested in the ICOM rigs for ALE:
I had asked
throughput speeds and robustness compared
with other modes?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Andy,
It is the same 8FSK modem, however it uses shorter bursts for calling
and sounding and there is a PSK burst mode as well which uses the
MIL-STD-188-110 modem for generation.
/s/ Steve
, KC9ECI is a somewhat local ham who I understand was a major player
in starting SKCC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Rick et Luc,
I have set mine to no more than 300 baud to make sure I am legal below
10M, let me know if you want to sked.
Of course, with ALE...we should not need
using digital voice or
other digital modes that we could not monitor. Is the signal legal or
not? We may not be able to tell unless we have self regulation
(self-policing to use the FCC terminology).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
I don't know where you keep getting this need for 2
. This is
made even easier these days since we have more rigs that can work on 6
meters.
Anyone doing that and who is willing to report on their comparisons?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
In the U.S. ( correct me if I am wrong) which you are located, 300bps
for MIL-STD-188-110 is not legal
with other e-mail
platforms on amateur HF frequencies. I know that I would be extremely
interested. I would be even more interested though in something that
would work more robustly on the lower bands, would be perhaps a bit
wider, but kept under 500 Hz in width.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Darrel Smith
high, but likely very unrealistic, expectations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Thompson wrote:
A Beginner's Look at Ham Radio's Digital Future with Jeff Reinhart, AA6JR
http://www.therainreport.com/rainreport_archive/rainreport-8-30-2007.mp3
computers.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
Any thoughts on a wide screen PC monitor versus a standard screen?
I'm thinking of adding a 21 inch wide screen.
Andy K3UK
to be a consultant who did a fair
amount of document development and needed to compare docs and cut and
paste, etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Brian A wrote:
Rick,
I am really bothered by loosing still more lines of text with these
wide screen beasties. The present OS's are like Stephen Kings
Langoliers
and text digital modes are
limited in supporting that need. DV might be OK, but that would be
something to consider maybe a decade or two from now. Maybe much longer.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
1. Stick CD into computer
2. Reboot
How much simpler can it get?
On Sun, 2 Sep
as a FAX and should be allowed on voice frequencies.
Should I ask the FCC for clarification on this? Has anyone else ever
done this or know of anyone who has and was told no?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
-Go for the changes and then lobby our Division Directors to get the
ARRL
? Or do you need to send the text down in the text digital part of
the band and the separate image in the voice/image part of the band?
Personally, I think that the rules are not reasonable.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve wrote:
I think it would be best not to ask. Some things are purposely left
out
/ttyUSB3 in the Device box which should match
this virtual COM port location. I have tried many others, but no luck
either.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Tony wrote:
All,
Is it possible to run PSK-Mail from a Knoppix Live
CD? If not, how does one use PSK-Mail with a
Windows OS?
Thanks,
Tony - K2MO
work flawlessly in order to use an ARQ mode.
Is there any place you can point us to in order find out how to make
this work from a Live CD? Not much information on the fldigi site.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
Vesa works here, Xorg has a problem. 1024x768 is a good resolution.
Rein
?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
Hi Rick, the QEMU emulator only emulates a simple Cirrus Logic GD5446 Video
card with vesa extensions.
I am no QEMU specialist, only a simple user, and I have to my XYL's windows
PC to test this
software :)
The puppy windows version does not need rig
in FCC regulations. And maybe they really work well on
HF, even with what seems like impossible waveforms.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
I guess, from my point of view, PSK mail won't really take off until it is
written for windows as well as Linnux.
Despite the linnux user's best
it on
the voice frequencies where there does not seem to be any baud rate
limitation.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
The key...a change in FCC regulations.
There are commercial modes that have a user throughput of over 2000 WPM with
ZERO errors and can provide 100% copy at a -12 dB
as done in P2
- keep the constellation simpler at only 2PSK and 4PSK, not even 8PSK
- avoid ASK modes which they found years ago did not work well on HF
- use multiple tones that can be dropped off when conditions get rough
in order to have wider spacing
73,
Rick, KV9U
-
Andrew
the
FEC modes other than perhaps MFSK16. I suspect most just use whatever
seems to work OK and is readily available and commonly used so that they
have a better chance for a QSO.
73,
Rick, KV9U
schuetzen wrote:
Rick, a big plus to me is FEC, I do not see that you mentioned that in
your
the problem so it is likely still there. I used to make frequent
backups because just making one little maneuver with multiple pages of
tables in Word would trash the entire file:(
But in the final analysis, when you compare free with $500 or so, I will
go with OO:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose
that these modes do not work all that well
below zero dB S/N.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
Pactor uses convolutional encoding with Viterbi decoding, which allows
maximum likelyhood detection. Which means that the decoder knows,
taking into account the history of the stream what symbols
of
us use for digital modes, typically running at 25 watts or so with a 100
watt transmitter.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jose A. Amador wrote:
Rick wrote:
Hi Jose,
Do you see any difference between the convolutional code of Pactor and
the Viterbi code in MFSK16 or Patrick's use of Viterbi code
have a good frame.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Vojtech Bubnik wrote:
Let me describe what I learned from the documents published about Pactor.
For memory ARQ to work, the frame frequency and time position and
frame length must be known with a lot higher probability than the
frame content. Also frame
that would
replace it.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Claudio Ruben wrote:
A rookie question: What program let use Pactor 3.
Claudio-LU2VCD
program being using these waveforms on
a daily basis since they legally can? Wouldn't it take one demo to show
how well they work?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick,
Take any non-GUI or even a GUI OS that has been tailored down for the
embedded application at hand that is running
.
Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about
testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how they work?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- At least one person who
, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF bands.
Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for
SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Hi Rick,
Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
free
working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF.
Additional testing would be helpful. Also, is anyone else testing this
mode? Any results to share?
73,
Rick, KV9U
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
Yet I have one friend who it is hard to interest in any of the newer
modes because he loves
at the computer simulations done by Rick, KN6KB, the SCAMP
inventor (using an average of ionospheric conditions) he shows:
At the best conditions of +10 dB, P3 at 225 cps, SCAMP 97 cps, P2 50
cps, P1 20 cps, MT-63 20 cps
At +5 dB -- P3 ~ 150 cps, P2 ~ 40 cps, P1 20 cps, MT-63 20 cps
At zero dB
Nothing heard here in midwest U.S. but am calling CQ in FAE mode with
Multipsk at 1800 Z.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Hi all,
I am scanning 14.109 and 14.112 with multipsk in 141A mode.
Is the someone out there who wants to try to contact me in ARQ FAE ?
73 de LA5VNA
For those interested, I had written an e-mail to Paul Rinaldo, W4RI,
ARRL CTO, and asked several questions on the legal and practical
implications of digital modes. I posted this information, with my
questions and his responses on the HFDEC yahoogroup.
73,
Rick, KV9U
operation where there is no
requirement (as their currently is) to insure that you are not
intentionally interfering with an ongoing busy frequency as has been
recently suggested. I certainly would not support such an idea
considering that the technology has made it unnecessary.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Thanks for your clarification of the GPL use in this case, Rud.
The reason for expecting Rick to GPL the code is because he said that he
was going to GPL the code. Pretty clear cut.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rud Merriam wrote:
The SCAMP testing only used the RDFT executables, not the original source
would be quite impressed with the ability to not
transmit except on a clear frequency.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Thompson wrote:
Specifically, if someone was already holding a SSB QSO (one of the
more difficult standard cases), would it successfully hold off until
they abandoned the frequency
several levels of multiple PSK ARQ tones to meet the different
conditions and operate reasonably fast in poor conditions and very fast
in good conditions, we would have a mode comparable to Pactor 3.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
But isn't 375 bps too little for 2khz width? Pactor 3
cards. After all, the Pactor box is basically a
dedicated computer with the equivalent of a sound card to send the tones
to the rig. Because it is a real time kind of system, it is much easier
to provide exact timing for switching speeds but we don't need to do that.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre
the clear channels that government/military typically have.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
Rud k5rud wrote:
My recent readings indicate that the ALE standards
are _NOT_ good for ham use because the military is not power
limited. They can attain good SNRs because of this.
Hams
is that we will have sound card systems that are
open source, can connect directly to the internet with a server
software but can also connect to peer stations, and be competitive in
speed and robustness with Pactor.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Rick;
please let me know where you
and comparing against existing modes?
Does anyone hazard a guess why this is so?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Hello Rick,
It is a crude waveform, it isn't very fast for its bandwidth, it can not
change speeds or parameters to meet conditions, but it will work for
some messaging. We need
and linking and then you switch over to the
other PSK modes? If they do, then what is he saying in his above statement?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick,
Patricks FAE ARQ is an excellent protocol, it is the best example to
date in my opinion of a PCSMD based ARQ protocol developed
using the 8FSK125 waveform?
When I use the term ALE, I am using it as a sort of shorthand for the
whole series of protocols, some of which may be adopted by radio
amateurs. When I use the term 3G, it refers to the newer protocols.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
Hi Rick
. on
the text data portions of the bands, they can use them on the
voice/image portions if they are sending images or fax. Curiously, I
have heard no experiences with SSTV or other image operators using these
modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote:
Hi All
Maybe some of you Digital Data movers
to be over zero dB,
but it could at least give you a feel for the capabilities (or not) of
the mode, relative to other digital modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote:
Hi Rick
Well so far with the testing we are doing on RFSM8000
it appears to work very well -
below are some transfer
waveform 141A?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote:
Hi Rick
Yes relative S/N reports are given for each paket - but what
they relate to is any ones guess and since I have no really good test
equipment that would do this cant really answer - but yes good data can
still be passed with signal
Is this 30 meter beacon activity legal?
Can you reference where Part 97 permits this here in the U.S. below 28.0
MHz?
Appreciate your help in understanding this.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Don wrote:
Please join us to promote 30m PSK and Propagation Study on 30 meters
(PropNet anchor freq= 10.1395
out later that
you could have been doing something legally all along.
I do want to ask about how they view the operation of automatic stations
that do not listen before transmitting, particularly the ALE sounding
and calling and the various mail systems.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote
with SCAMP and I was quite surprised and pleased how well it
worked with good signals.
It will be interesting for you to provide us with more information with
the weaker signals, especially those below zero dB S/N since that is the
where the difficulty lies.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Les Keppie wrote
. They are
just sending out unconnected packets or data which would seem to be a
beacon.
Does anyone have insight into this and how the rules cover these modes?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Don wrote:
Hi Rick KV9U,
You bring up a good point actually and don't blame you for asking the
question. First I must
(except for CW and voice).
Even having an identifier would not help if they do not realize that the
two stations are having a QSO.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Hmm unattended soundings?
John
VE5MU
*From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
member believes that I am not understanding Part 97
correctly, then please point out my error(s). I have asked this several
times, and except for private e-mails on the subject, no one seems to
want to deal with this issue.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
PC-ALE , and I assume Multipsk
frequency that you are just monitoring
before transmitting would be considered by most reasonable hams to be
exceptionally poor operating procedure at what most would consider a
true lid level.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Thompson wrote:
A couple of minor comments:
97.3(a)(9)/ Beacon/. An amateur
of this
recently and my rig transmitted right on top of another station. This
was a test so I had the power turned to minimum (a watt or two at most).
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio wrote:
A few weeks ago, during the discussion about busy detectors, I
described some of the different busy
euphemisms for the actual terminology that we are working with in the rules.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Robert Thompson wrote:
It would seem that automatic is a word that provokes un-helpful
discussion. Since no meaningful discussion can be held without shared
terms and meanings, maybe we could consider
in the
last few days that many of us even knew that some hams cannot use wide
bandwidth modes on 30 meters that we can use here in the U.S. and you
probably can in Canada.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Allrighty, then! (climbing up on soapbox)
I guess I am getting a little tired
to back off a bit and rethink what the
amateur bands are all about ... which is shared spectrum. Not shared for
one mode, but shared for everyone.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I have found that I could NOT transmit once. This was during the
presence of a strong broadcast band
have. I could do another SWAG on this
with say, -5 or -10 S/N.
73,
Rick, KV9U
these protocols in the voice portions of the bands. Also on 6 meters and
up. There has been absolutely no measurements of S/N in real world tests
on the amateur frequencies that we have heard thus far.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
Tnx fer the note, Howard
Over the next week or so
used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am sorry to
report that, because I really thought that I would like it, considering
the intense hype about Linux.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Well exactly! In ham radio we need a robust mode that can function in
bad
, Thunderbird, Firefox, Media Monkey, and many ham programs.
It is a constant progression from where we were at the beginning of
computers. It won't suddenly stop, but will continue to evolve.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
We already have plenty of narrow soundcard modes for QSOing so I
Demetre,
What you are recommending is completely unacceptable to 99.9% of all hams.
Many of us operate various digital modes, both narrow and wide and in
between. In the U.S., the text digital sub bands are anything that is
not the voice/image sub bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote
.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
Winlink's continuing refusal to deploy this solution can only be
interpreted one way: our traffic is more important than your
traffic; if we QRM you, too bad
clear that no one owns a frequency. It is a shared
resource. Not even the stations operating automatically can legally
ignore that rule but there are some who wish the rule did not exist.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Then why you should transmit any other mode in the wide digital
1 - 100 of 696 matches
Mail list logo
