Hi Warren, in the latest version that problem is fixed. Now ROS no decode new station until a first station has finished.
Please, use latest version. Old version has thats problem, and when you have doubs about ROS is better you speak directly with the author of the mode. He is the only that know how it work. Thanks ________________________________ De: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 20:27 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for "real time" VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: >Hi Skip, > >Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? >I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, >WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere >with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS >that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? > >Warren - K5WGM > > >--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> wrote: > > >>From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle >>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM >> >> >> >>Hi Warren, >> >>I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted >>it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at >>idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the "seared" >>middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS >>spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS >>spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and >>Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far >>different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using >>Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and >>that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to >>everything I could find. >> >>Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG >> >>73 - Skip KH6TY >> >> >> >>Warren Moxley wrote: >> >>>Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the >>>widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. >>> >>>Thanks in advance, >>> >>>Warren - K5WGM >>> >>> >>>--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>>>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle >>>>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>>>Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you >>>>when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify >>>>ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably >>>>succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC >>>>permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not >>>>exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the >>>>phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where >>>>narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire >>>>PSK31 activity area. >>>> >>>>Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ >>>>SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters >>>>"N"), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the >>>>data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral >>>>display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the >>>>frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are >>>>independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation >>>>for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. >>>> >>>>If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC >>>>to allow it. >>>> >>>>73 - Skip KH6TY >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not >>>>>trying help. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ De: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>>>>Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>>>>Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 >>>>>Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >>>>>> I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid >>>>>> things in this group. >>>>> >>>>>Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! >>>>> >>>>>Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS >>>>>really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. >>>>> >>>>>This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. >>>>>JPG >>>>> >>>>>Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. >>>>> >>>>>I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an >>>>>honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>73, Skip KH6TY SK >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. >>>>>> >>>>>>If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead >>>>>>of criticism ROS. >>>>>> >>>>>>I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid >>>>>>things in this group. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ De: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>>>>>Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>>>>>Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 >>>>>>Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? >>>>>> >>>>>>Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. >>>>>> >>>>>>The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met >>>>>>(from the ROS documentation) : >>>>>> >>>>>>1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum >>>>>>bandwidth necessary to send the information. >>>>>>2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called >>>>>>a code signal, which is independent of the data. >>>>>>3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is >>>>>>accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a >>>>>>synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the >>>>>>information. >>>>>> >>>>>>Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code >>>>>>modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do >>>>>>not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the >>>>>>conditions outlined above. >>>>>> >>>>>>Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. >>>>>>comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is >>>>>>not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. >>>>>> >>>>>>Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS >>>>>>only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data >>>>>>segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is >>>>>>so wide. >>>>>> >>>>>>BTW, this same issue came up during the "regulation by bandwidth" debate >>>>>>when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow >>>>>>wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they >>>>>>last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, >>>>>>but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM >>>>>>signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for >>>>>>narrow modes, like PSK31. >>>>>> >>>>>>The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of >>>>>>one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same >>>>>>space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by >>>>>>both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a >>>>>>crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home >>>>>>relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must >>>>>>do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already >>>>>>been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the >>>>>>strongest try to take over the frequencies. >>>>>> >>>>>>upper >>>>>> >>>>>>73 - Skip KH6TY >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Alan Barrow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
