Just to make myself clear, I am not suggesting that we actually use the standard ALE digital mode for calling CQ. I'd be fine with it, but it is quite wide and would start a debate all over again. I'm also not suggesting we use ALE-style soundings that are unattended. What I like about the general concept of ALE is a standard calling mode and then use of received data to establish what mode can be used to maintain the current QSO (or "link" ) . The recent ROS debate quickly educated me about band plans and preferences, it is clear to me that the variance in suggested bandplans between IARU regions is such that the world is really spit in to "wide" and "narrow" band segments. The world is also split in to "favourite" modes where people try to find a niche within a band for these modes. The result is competing debates about which mode should park where. PSK , PACTOR, RTTY, and PACKET are the dominant modes with JT65A and WSPR as the next most used modes. That leaves Olivia, Throb, MFSK16, ROS, PAX, Domino, Contestia, WINMOR, Standard ALE, Hell, ALE400 and PSK variants, as the remainder. . While I would love to change the habits of PSKers and RTTY folks, I doubt I could do it. I think there is enough room to accommodate PSK, RTTY. PACTOR , JT65A/WSPR, and PACKET and then have a good segment of each band for the rest. The plan would be that "the rest" all agree to use one mode for a CQ/
Andy K3UK On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 PM, ed_hekman <ehek...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Howard, > > With PSK all the activity is concentrated in a small segment of the band > that we can monitor on the waterfall. If someone calls CQ outside that > segment there is a very low probability that someone else will happen to be > tuning there, hear the CQ and respond. > > I think the concept that Andy was suggesting is that we have one common > mode and frequency for calling CQ. After a response to the CQ is received > the two parties select a different mode and frequency for carrying on the > QSO. This is the idea of ALE. It is intended for establishing a link. > > I tried ALE a couple years ago but it didn't fit my operating style. Being > able to monitor two different frequencies (dual watch) or a wide bandwidth - > 48KHz or 96KHz (as in SDR receivers) - would facilitate this type of > operation. If we had a common CQ mode, such as ALE, we could decode a CQ > anywhere in that bandwidth. Or we could also agree on a common CQ frequency > so the software would not have to scan the entire spectrum for CQ calls. > > Ed > WB6YTE > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, > "W6IDS" <w6...@...> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Ed! > > > > How would ALE serve well as a CQ Calling Mode? > > > > Howard W6IDS > > Richmond, IN Em79NV > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ed_hekman" <ehek...@...> > > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:45 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode band plans- > > reducing the number of tongues in the tower of Babylon > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy, > > > > > > Some great ideas there. I had also suggested a couple months ago the > idea > > > of a universal CQ mode that could be an extension of the RSID/CallID > that > > > Patrick has developed. The software should include S/N measurement that > > > > can be used to suggest some the possible modes to switch to for a QSO. > > > > > > In general, good operating practice suggests that we should use the > > > minimum bandwidth necessary for the purpose of the contact. PSK31 is > the > > > best mode in most cases for live keyboard QSOs. It would be nice to be > > > able to easily switch between modes to adjust to the band conditions. I > > > > would like to see PSK31FEC and PSK10 become widely available for > > > situations where PSK31 is marginal copy. > > > > > > I think wider bandwidths should generally be reserved for weak signal > > > operation or for situations requiring stored data transfer (email, > images, > > > documents). Wide modes can be used for QSOs if they include multiple > > > access features for frequency sharing. > > > > > > I agree that ALE would work well as a CQ calling mode but we need to > > > develop some skill at finding and QSYing to an open frequency for the > QSO. > > > A dual receiver would make that much easier. > > > > > > Ed > > > WB6YTE > > > > > > > >
