Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
At 01:14 PM 1/17/2008, Danny wrote: >Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox >sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes >up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq >(which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). >The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other >ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that >caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had >a "busy signal" capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while >other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and >from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people, >if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can >do the same. > >Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as >there is no "busy signal" detection. > >Danny Douglas >N7DC >ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA >SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB >All 2 years or more (except Novice) >Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, >I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for >those who do. Well, even IF I am at the keyboard, I do not know IF someone is about to connect.until they do. When that happens, do I just switch the box off? Yep, I could do that and the station at the other end would scratch his head and wonder what is going on, like he connected and next minute he is cut off by me. If it was me trying to connect.then I would keep trying, just like he would. Looking for contacts in this hobby, is what its all about. I mean, this kind of operation was done on HF Packet for many years, BBSs forwarded on frequencies and everyone simply got along, generally :-) A busy signal scheme will only work while there is a signal present, the moment there is a break in the signal being heard, the busy detect would drop and.the station would fire up, unless the busy detect had a timer, which counted x time after loss of heard signal, before the station transmitted. Danny, I think you are asking for a perfect solution, when given all the modes we now have..its a big ask. Unfortunately, we have to accept some QRM at some time or another and thats it, in the real world. I think the Pactor mode has been somewhat "tainted" by the WinLink wars, to a large degree. I mean, I could set up a Packet Mailbox and start beaconing, looking for contacts :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hi Danny, I replied up here 'cause I wasn't sure what I was going to snip out from your message, yet. Why not apply the rationale to transmitters in general? YOU can't transmit for your thrice-weekly sked because your station detects VERY nearby signals and will not transmit...until the current "interferring" QSO terminates? THEN, you can transmit on the sked frequency. Or, you just come up on frequency, very close to 14.236 Digi voice group or very close to 3.713 Digipix group and you're going to want to ask if the frequency is use (albeit you can aurally sense the ongoing comms nearby) - only you can't because of the "Busy Guard" and thus, nothing transmitted to interfere with the pix or voice transfers. O, you come up to 3.713 and want to key up to declare that the digital NOISE is crap!, and then whistle or whatever - only you can't 'cause of the "Busy Guard." I can see all sorts of possibilities for the technology. Hmmm, now when the folks on 3.713 stop transmitting the digital pix and there's silence. and then you CAN transmit your anti-digital pix diatribe, you can continue to spew out explitives and NONE of the folks can transmit until you stop (because of their own "Busy Guard" protection). I wonder if my example is as "incomprehensible" as another was said to be that I wote for a different subject. Don't ask me what my point is. I was just musing over your scenario and this blossomed out of that. First the BOTS, then.. the rest of the interference. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot > Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox > sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes > up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the > freq > (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there > operating).
Re: [digitalradio] calling CQ
Hey John, Been listening, John. Didn't hear a peep from out your way. I was copying some "5s" and "7s" on PSK on 7.070 area, perhaps it's simply the propogation beast that's at fault. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:41 PM Subject: [digitalradio] calling CQ > Calling CQ 7077.7LSB Pactor one at this time. >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hey, Bill, NO, John isn't alone in the experience. It happens frequently enough as to catch the attention. Is it simply because the PACTOR mode is being used? I dunno, but it does happen with enough frequency to raise the "ear brows." This is especially so when the signal is quite strong. Just my $ .02 worth which will not buy you even a plain donut hole. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot Hello John, Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
No Bill and you will not see others on this list. 99.5% are sound card *ONLY* operators and have no clue what the non sound cards modes are all about. Other then what they have read, such as it's all "bad" and that is why pactor has such a bad name. Not all of us pactor operators are robots stations and MANY can't see that for some reason. I really don't done know what to say other than that. John, W0JAB At 09:16 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >Hello John, > >Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when >operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. >I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm. As I have posted often, >it is sad some think Pactor modes are the issue when it is the Winlink >system that is at issue. >I too have been operating Pactor only to get a station right on top of >me...when queried they sometimes say, "I thought you were a PMBO bot" >... no excuse but I do understand why they think so. > >73, > >Bill N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hello John, Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm. As I have posted often, it is sad some think Pactor modes are the issue when it is the Winlink system that is at issue. I too have been operating Pactor only to get a station right on top of me...when queried they sometimes say, "I thought you were a PMBO bot" ... no excuse but I do understand why they think so. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with > a waterfall display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) > QRM that ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO? > > It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone > that *only* knows that is a pactor signal to QRM it. > > John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had a "busy signal" capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people, if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can do the same. Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as there is no "busy signal" detection. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
Re: [digitalradio] test ignore
ignored
Re: [digitalradio] test ignore
test 2 On Jan 16, 2008 9:50 PM, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > test 2 > > > > At 08:42 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: > >test > > got it... > > -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] test ignore
At 08:42 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >test got it...
[digitalradio] calling CQ
Calling CQ 7077.7LSB Pactor one at this time. Looking for W6VZV and QRZ DX
[digitalradio] test ignore
test
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > > So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with a waterfall > display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) QRM that > ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO? > > It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone that > *only* knows that is a pactor signal to QRM it. > > John, W0JAB A complete non-sequitur, John. The problem is robots acting as low-budget email providers QRMing ordinary amateurs. Not the reverse. Ordinary non-Pactor digital mode ham ops never intentionally QRM anyone. Anyway, the number of Pactor QSOs is so small that I doubt it ever happens. By doing what they do, these Robots are violating Asimov's First Law of Robotics. [see generally "I, Robot"; see also "The Robots of Dawn"]. This is not permitted, John. It has to stop, John. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
So tell me (and others) how someone operating a mode with a waterfall display and seeing a signal (so be it a pactor signal) QRM that ongoing keyboard to keyboard QSO? It seems to be that *any* pactor signal is fair game for anyone that *only* knows that is a pactor signal to QRM it. John, W0JAB At 07:06 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >1. A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human >being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed. > >2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order >does not conflict with the First Law. > >3. A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does >not conflict with the First or Second Laws. > >So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First >Law. Can't do that. > >Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor. Some of my best friends are >Robots. > >de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
>Jack Chomley wrote: > > > > The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet > > mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you > > did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my > > hobby... > > > > 73s > > > > Jack VK4JRC At 11:06 AM 1/17/2008, Roger wrote: >We understand, Jack. But please remember the Three Laws of Robotics >that govern the behavior of you Robots: > >1. A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human >being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed. > >2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order >does not conflict with the First Law. > >3. A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does >not conflict with the First or Second Laws. > >So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First >Law. Can't do that. > >Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor. Some of my best friends are >Robots. > >de Roger W6VZV I can't deliberately QRM anybody! My SCS PTC-IIPro Mailbox can sit here active, for 100 years and do nothing, UNLESS someone tries to connect to it. Once a connection is established, it lasts as long as the "connectee" wants to stay connected :-) They choose when to disconnect, not the mailbox. So.my "Robot" mailbox is controlled essentially by any people connecting to it. It does not just fire up by itself :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
Jack Chomley wrote: > > The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet > mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you > did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my > hobby... > > 73s > > Jack VK4JRC We understand, Jack. But please remember the Three Laws of Robotics that govern the behavior of you Robots: 1. A Robot shall not harm a human being (including QRMing a human being) or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed or QRMed. 2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being but only if such order does not conflict with the First Law. 3. A Robot must protect its existence, but only if such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. So, you see, when a Pactor robot QRMs others, it is violating the First Law. Can't do that. Hey, sorry for the sad attempt at humor. Some of my best friends are Robots. de Roger W6VZV
[digitalradio] I, am a Pactor Robot............
The subject says it all. I run a Pactor mailbox, just like the Packet mailbox that I used to run, many years agojust like MOST of you did, back then too. I am just another Ham, TRYING to enjoy my hobby... 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Pactor Callsign???
Hi All, Someone has tried to call my system today, twice. Using MY callsign The connect crashed both times with errors and timeout.. Dial Frequencies USB: 14.078, 14.079.5, 18.100, 18.105, 21.078, 21.093, 24.920, 24.925, 28.105, 28.110 The scan rate is 3 seconds per frequency, and the tones are Mark 1600 Space 1400 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Danny Douglas wrote: > > And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered > with the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its > continuance will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he > isnt likely to go to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of > venem. The subject IS the major discussion here, and this IS about > digital radio. Without the discussion, it would not be a free > discussion of what digital radio is doing today, or should be doing. > Frankly, those who have no interest in the subject, must not really > be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each and every one of > us. Danny Douglas N7DC It appears as though those of us who do not favor, and do not appreciate, the practice of Winlink stations to transmit QRM indiscriminately are being told to either shut up or leave. I might point out that most of the discussions about Pactor originate when one of the Pactor advocates posts something to the effect that the rest of us must make way for robot Pactor stations whenever necessary, Pactor robot operations are more important than what the rest of us are doing, Pactor Winlink stations own certain frequencies, etc. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
>Obviously some folks have not learned how to skip over threads that >do not interest them. Others I'm sure don't want to hear what they're >doing may be incorrect. Sad. I hope it survives and does well but it >of no interest to me. The way this is handled on QRP-L mailing list is simply to preface an off-topic post with OT: and those who do not want to be bothered with off-topic posts can simply filter them out, or use the Delete key. Doesn't work with digests, but those can be scanned visually and OT: skipped over. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Rick, I agree with you completely. I wouldn't have researched the propnet group without hearing about it here. I see where they are operating "probes" as they call them below 10 meters. Not sure how legal that is. After watching their 30 meter beacons for a while and seeing them come up over pactor stations in the automatic part of the band, no wonder winlink hollers. Just the sort of thing you can get discussed when folks are interested in operating not only within the rules but in a considerate fashion. However, it appears this group is most interested in having a forum with 4 or 5 posts a day about who is operating what and when. This does me little good since I use the digest that is 6 or 12 hours late. Obviously some folks have not learned how to skip over threads that do not interest them. Others I'm sure don't want to hear what they're doing may be incorrect. Sad. I hope it survives and does well but it of no interest to me. To those who think the US rules will not have an effect upon them, I simply say, just wait! We are now in a new sunspot cycle. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you can not discuss the most critical digital radio issues of the > time on a given group, then they will migrate to some other group, > often along with other things you might have wished have remained. > These issues will not just go away by themselves and to actually > want to prevent discussing them before they go to the FCC, seems > about the worst idea I have ever heard. Completely contrary to why > you would have a discussion group which is the only source of this > kind of information for most of us who are not insiders with their > respective national groups (ARRL here in the U.S., etc.) > > Many of my current views on digital radio issues, are different than > they were several years ago, precisely because of the ability to > sift and winnow these issues on a larger group. I would never have > even been aware of some of the issues without this group, and now > some other groups that have come along since. Small groups can be OK > for narrowly defined subjects, but they simply don't work for issues > that affect large numbers. > > The foreign hams who seem to be the main ones complaining about > discussion (which they don't have to even read if they choose not > to), will be also will be affected by future decisions that are made > in other countries. > > One thing I discovered as a moderator of a large worldwide > discussion group (unrelated to ham radio), is that even though some > complain, very few members will leave a group with "too much > discussion," even if they say they will. In fact, you will lose more > members not having discussions that interest them. And closing down > discussions, inevitably result in some of the key posters to migrate > to other groups and you lose that input. > > The nearly 99% of a group's membership wo will rarely, if ever, > provide any real input, may not realize how much effort and energy > goes into posting to a group. Especially if well thought out and > formatted to good readability. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Danny Douglas wrote: > > And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with > > the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its continuance > > will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he isnt likely to go > > to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of venem. The subject IS the > > major discussion here, and this IS about digital radio. Without the > > discussion, it would not be a free discussion of what digital radio is doing > > today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who have no interest in the > > subject, must not really be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each > > and every one of us. > > Danny Douglas > > N7DC > > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > > All 2 years or more (except Novice) > > Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, > > I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for > > those who do. > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > > > DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi all, Following this discussion I could help but notice the frontpage of this group. It mentions DIGITALRADIO GROUP International. -- DIGITALRADIO GROUP A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air activity. DigitalRadio is for ALL digital modes... JT65A PSK MFSK OLIVIA PAX CHIP64 THROB ALE DIGI SSTV DIGI VOICE RTTY PACKET DOMINOEX HELL THROB ALE PACTOR OFDM ARQ SS DATA AND MORE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Digital QSOs and experimental modes are encouraged on the DIGITALRADIO GROUP international ham radio center-of-activity frequencies: -- Really what the FCC will decide concerns the american hams not the rest of the world. If this group is only for americans then fair enough. 73 de Demetre SV1UY Thanks for that Demetre I would, as a compromise, suggest that the Professional debaters go away to another group for their discussions, and after reaching a consensus ( if that is possible) then come back to this group and let us know what that consensus is. Kevin VK5OA
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Rick, are you a politician? A standard rethoric trick of politicians is to phrase something as a statement which has not been made and then start to complain about that attitude ... I am not against a discussion about the most critical digital radio issues as you state it. I have a problem when there are always the same arguments by always the same persons which means that in fact they haven't reviewed the opinion of other participants of the discussion at all. This was one of the reasons why I raised the question about the purpose of this group. Two more comment: If I would live in the US I would react in the same way because this is independent from nationalities. Sedond: I am aware of the possible impacts of decisions in Region 2 on other IARU regions as well. This is one of the reasons why I have a clear opinion on that petition (please read my previous posts). As said before: The purpose of the group is not only one topic, and I am aware of the fact that if I leave this group it won't be an issue at all and nearly nobody would care. But before doing this I wanted to make many of you aware of that what's happening here. Everybody can and will make his own mind on this. I will not comment any further on this topic in this group. Those who will may send me a direct mail. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you can not discuss the most critical digital radio issues of the > time on a given group, then they will migrate to some other group, often > along with other things you might have wished have remained. These > issues will not just go away by themselves and to actually want to > prevent discussing them before they go to the FCC, seems about the worst > idea I have ever heard. Completely contrary to why you would have a > discussion group which is the only source of this kind of information > for most of us who are not insiders with their respective national > groups (ARRL here in the U.S., etc.) > > Many of my current views on digital radio issues, are different than > they were several years ago, precisely because of the ability to sift > and winnow these issues on a larger group. I would never have even been > aware of some of the issues without this group, and now some other > groups that have come along since. Small groups can be OK for narrowly > defined subjects, but they simply don't work for issues that affect > large numbers. > > The foreign hams who seem to be the main ones complaining about > discussion (which they don't have to even read if they choose not to), > will be also will be affected by future decisions that are made in other > countries. > > One thing I discovered as a moderator of a large worldwide discussion > group (unrelated to ham radio), is that even though some complain, very > few members will leave a group with "too much discussion," even if they > say they will. In fact, you will lose more members not having > discussions that interest them. And closing down discussions, inevitably > result in some of the key posters to migrate to other groups and you > lose that input. > > The nearly 99% of a group's membership wo will rarely, if ever, provide > any real input, may not realize how much effort and energy goes into > posting to a group. Especially if well thought out and formatted to good > readability. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Danny Douglas wrote: > > And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with > > the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its continuance > > will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he isnt likely to go > > to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of venem. The subject IS the > > major discussion here, and this IS about digital radio. Without the > > discussion, it would not be a free discussion of what digital radio is doing > > today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who have no interest in the > > subject, must not really be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each > > and every one of us. > > Danny Douglas > > N7DC > > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > > All 2 years or more (except Novice) > > Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, > > I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for > > those who do. > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > > > DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
I believe you're right! It was set up to be a VENT group. Don't think it ever really accomplished anything nor did it really get off the ground! Rod Chris Jewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rodney writes: > Just did a Group search and it's there. It's called, "FCCSUCKS", but there's > only ONE message on it and who knows if it even has a moderator!. > > I agree, someone (NOT me) needs to start an FCC Rules discussion group! > > Rod > KC7CJO It appears that the digipol Y!-group was set up for exactly this purpose, but there seem to be no members or messages. I have a vague recollection that our moderator may have established that group so he'd have someplace to which to banish the endless flamewars about the FCC subbands-by-bandwidth NPRM, WL2K sucks|rocks, automatic busy detection for bots "should is mandatory"|"is infeasible", etc, but I'm not sure I'm not confabulating here. :-) 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW) -- Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 1396 Gualala CA USA 95445 - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[digitalradio] Re: New file uploaded to digitalradio
> File: /psk31_tips.pdf > Uploaded by : valuedprofile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Description : Tips on using PSK31 Would someone like to step up and take credit for this? John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Hi all, Following this discussion I could help but notice the frontpage of this group. It mentions DIGITALRADIO GROUP International. -- DIGITALRADIO GROUP A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air activity. DigitalRadio is for ALL digital modes... JT65A PSK MFSK OLIVIA PAX CHIP64 THROB ALE DIGI SSTV DIGI VOICE RTTY PACKET DOMINOEX HELL THROB ALE PACTOR OFDM ARQ SS DATA AND MORE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Digital QSOs and experimental modes are encouraged on the DIGITALRADIO GROUP international ham radio center-of-activity frequencies: -- Really what the FCC will decide concerns the american hams not the rest of the world. If this group is only for americans then fair enough. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Very will put Rick, I would like to have the chorse to read the discuss and then I delete it, than to not have to right at all, we all have that right to read or not to read, with out a chorse it is over. Russell NC5O --- Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you can not discuss the most critical digital > radio issues of the > time on a given group, then they will migrate to > some other group, often > along with other things you might have wished have > remained. These > issues will not just go away by themselves and to > actually want to > prevent discussing them before they go to the FCC, > seems about the worst > idea I have ever heard. Completely contrary to why > you would have a > discussion group which is the only source of this > kind of information > for most of us who are not insiders with their > respective national > groups (ARRL here in the U.S., etc.) > > Many of my current views on digital radio issues, > are different than > they were several years ago, precisely because of > the ability to sift > and winnow these issues on a larger group. I would > never have even been > aware of some of the issues without this group, and > now some other > groups that have come along since. Small groups can > be OK for narrowly > defined subjects, but they simply don't work for > issues that affect > large numbers. > > The foreign hams who seem to be the main ones > complaining about > discussion (which they don't have to even read if > they choose not to), > will be also will be affected by future decisions > that are made in other > countries. > > One thing I discovered as a moderator of a large > worldwide discussion > group (unrelated to ham radio), is that even though > some complain, very > few members will leave a group with "too much > discussion," even if they > say they will. In fact, you will lose more members > not having > discussions that interest them. And closing down > discussions, inevitably > result in some of the key posters to migrate to > other groups and you > lose that input. > > The nearly 99% of a group's membership wo will > rarely, if ever, provide > any real input, may not realize how much effort and > energy goes into > posting to a group. Especially if well thought out > and formatted to good > readability. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Danny Douglas wrote: > > And who will go to that group? Probably only the > ones being bothered with > > the interference! Those who are happy with > WinLink, and its continuance > > will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he > wants, he isnt likely to go > > to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of > venem. The subject IS the > > major discussion here, and this IS about digital > radio. Without the > > discussion, it would not be a free discussion of > what digital radio is doing > > today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who > have no interest in the > > subject, must not really be into digital radio, > because it DOES impact each > > and every one of us. > > Danny Douglas > > N7DC > > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > > All 2 years or more (except Novice) > > Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, > > I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL > for > > those who do. > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive > Sked Page at > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > > > DRCC contest info : > http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair NC5O Skype-Russell Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
If you can not discuss the most critical digital radio issues of the time on a given group, then they will migrate to some other group, often along with other things you might have wished have remained. These issues will not just go away by themselves and to actually want to prevent discussing them before they go to the FCC, seems about the worst idea I have ever heard. Completely contrary to why you would have a discussion group which is the only source of this kind of information for most of us who are not insiders with their respective national groups (ARRL here in the U.S., etc.) Many of my current views on digital radio issues, are different than they were several years ago, precisely because of the ability to sift and winnow these issues on a larger group. I would never have even been aware of some of the issues without this group, and now some other groups that have come along since. Small groups can be OK for narrowly defined subjects, but they simply don't work for issues that affect large numbers. The foreign hams who seem to be the main ones complaining about discussion (which they don't have to even read if they choose not to), will be also will be affected by future decisions that are made in other countries. One thing I discovered as a moderator of a large worldwide discussion group (unrelated to ham radio), is that even though some complain, very few members will leave a group with "too much discussion," even if they say they will. In fact, you will lose more members not having discussions that interest them. And closing down discussions, inevitably result in some of the key posters to migrate to other groups and you lose that input. The nearly 99% of a group's membership wo will rarely, if ever, provide any real input, may not realize how much effort and energy goes into posting to a group. Especially if well thought out and formatted to good readability. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: > And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with > the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its continuance > will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he isnt likely to go > to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of venem. The subject IS the > major discussion here, and this IS about digital radio. Without the > discussion, it would not be a free discussion of what digital radio is doing > today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who have no interest in the > subject, must not really be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each > and every one of us. > Danny Douglas > N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB > All 2 years or more (except Novice) > Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, > I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for > those who do. > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[digitalradio] Pactor Operations.....
Hi All, Sorry, made a mess of the time in the last post. The system is on, from 1300z to 1200z. 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Pactor Operations.....
Hi All, Pactor running from 2000z to 1900z on following freqs being scanned, Pactor I & II connects accepted. Call is VK4JRC and mailbox is "on" while I am busy here at home. Dial Frequencies USB: 14.078, 14.079.5, 18.100, 18.105, 21.078, 21.093, 24.920, 24.925, 28.105, 28.110 The scan rate is 3 seconds per frequency, and the tones are Mark 1600 Space 1400 73s Jack VK4JRC
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
H- OK When you do that, please discontinue me as a member of the group. The main reason I have remained a member is the free wheeling discussion of the subject of digitial radio. Is it not amazing that the major number of members who oppose the subject are outside the USA? I thought the major portions of the world had gone to freedoms that we here in the USA have started taking for granted - and one of the most important is the freedom of speach. That does not seem to be taking, especially in Europe. It apears to me that if you cant win, silence the opposition, much like the Korean parlament, which we view on the TV from time to time. More fighting there, than was on the DMV, and simply because one doesnt like what the other said. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
And who will go to that group? Probably only the ones being bothered with the interference! Those who are happy with WinLink, and its continuance will NOT. Why should they? If one gets what he wants, he isnt likely to go to an anti-subject group to get his daily dose of venem. The subject IS the major discussion here, and this IS about digital radio. Without the discussion, it would not be a free discussion of what digital radio is doing today, or should be doing. Frankly, those who have no interest in the subject, must not really be into digital radio, because it DOES impact each and every one of us. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
[digitalradio] Re: Continuing evolution of HF Ham radio communications:
Thank you and very well said. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
[digitalradio] Feld-Hell Club Sprint: This weekend.
Feld-Hell Club Sprint Rules: Date: The third Saturday of every month, from 1500 - 1700Z Open to:Any licensed amateur and SWL participants Mode: Feld-Hell (any flavor) Bands: 160 through 10 meters. No WARC bands Power: Limited to 100 watts Exchange: Feld-Hell Club members send: RST, S/P/C, Feld-Hell club number Non-Members send: RST, S/P/C, age (YLs may use 00) QSO Points: Member = 3 points Non-member = 1 point Multiplier: State/Province/Country for all bands. The same station may be worked on multiple bands for point credit. Bonus points: Bonus points will vary each month. Check the club email reflector for the monthly announcement. Final Score:Points (total for all bands) X SPCs + Bonus Points Suggested Frequencies: 1.804, 3.574, 7.084, 14.074, 21.074, 28.074 Log Submission: Please use the Sprint Autolog system If you don't have access to the Autolog system, please send a printed copy of your log and a score summary to: John Graf, WA6L 23085 Old Ranch Rd Alpine, CA 91901 Certificates: A certificate will be awarded to the top North American and Top DX station, and top SWL
[digitalradio] K3UK JT65A HF Monitoring for past 24 hours.
K3UK JT65A HF Monitoring for past 24 hours. Looks like I missed South Africa on 40M again, Date/Time Band RX Call RX Grid TX Call TX Grid Sig dB 2008-01-16 05:46:00 40M K3UK FN02hk PY3ARZ GF38 -12 2008-01-16 05:33:00 40M K3UK FN02hk NN6RF CM87 -19 2008-01-16 05:10:00 40M K3UK FN02hk NN6RF -9 2008-01-16 05:06:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W7DHH DM48 -14 2008-01-16 04:59:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W6SZ -22 2008-01-16 04:51:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W6SZ DM14 -17 2008-01-16 04:50:00 40M K3UK FN02hk AF6AS DM13 -18 2008-01-16 04:43:00 40M K3UK FN02hk ZS6ANZ KG43 -23 2008-01-16 04:41:00 40M K3UK FN02hk ZS6ANZ KG43 -22 2008-01-16 04:33:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W7DHH -26 2008-01-16 04:21:00 40M K3UK FN02hk VE3CDX -19 2008-01-16 04:20:00 40M K3UK FN02hk AF6AS -25 2008-01-16 04:17:00 40M K3UK FN02hk VE3CDX DM26 -19 2008-01-16 04:15:00 40M K3UK FN02hk VE3CDX DM26 -19 2008-01-16 02:48:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W7DHH DM48 -15 2008-01-16 02:47:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W4LDE EL98 -6 2008-01-16 02:42:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W7DHH DM48 -19 2008-01-16 02:41:00 40M K3UK FN02hk W4LDE -3 2008-01-15 19:04:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -8 2008-01-15 19:02:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -7 2008-01-15 19:00:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -7 2008-01-15 18:26:00 20M K3UK FN02hk WA5DJJ DM62 -8 2008-01-15 17:22:00 20M K3UK FN02hk ON6NL -21 2008-01-15 17:20:00 20M K3UK FN02hk ON6NL JO21 -17 2008-01-15 17:18:00 20M K3UK FN02hk ON6NL JO21 -9 2008-01-15 16:41:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA1FAQ IN71 -13 2008-01-15 16:41:00 20M K3UK FN02hk GW8ASA IO81 -9 2008-01-15 16:39:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA1FAQ IN71 -14 2008-01-15 16:37:00 20M K3UK FN02hk DL1ANA JO50 -19 2008-01-15 16:35:00 20M K3UK FN02hk DL1ANA JO50 -20 2008-01-15 15:24:00 20M K3UK FN02hk GW8ASA IO81 -15 2008-01-15 15:22:00 20M K3UK FN02hk GW8ASA IO81 -15 2008-01-15 15:21:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2HQ EL83 -9 2008-01-15 15:19:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2HQ EL83 -7 2008-01-15 15:18:00 20M K3UK FN02hk GW8ASA -12 2008-01-15 15:17:00 20M K3UK FN02hk WA5DJJ DM62 -6 2008-01-15 15:14:00 20M K3UK FN02hk GW8ASA -18 2008-01-15 14:32:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ EL83 -4 2008-01-15 14:31:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA7HG -18 2008-01-15 14:29:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA7HG IM87 -17 2008-01-15 14:28:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -4 2008-01-15 14:27:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA7HG IM87 -19 2008-01-15 14:26:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -3 2008-01-15 14:25:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA7HG IM87 -21 2008-01-15 14:24:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ EL83 -9 2008-01-15 14:23:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA3AQS JN01 -10 2008-01-15 14:18:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ -8 2008-01-15 14:04:00 20M K3UK FN02hk EA3AQS -16 2008-01-15 13:28:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ EL83 -3 2008-01-15 13:24:00 20M K3UK FN02hk CO2IZ EL83 -8
[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /psk31_tips.pdf Uploaded by : valuedprofile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Description : Tips on using PSK31 You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/psk31_tips.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles Regards, valuedprofile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group
Thanks Juergen , 100 % agree 73 de LA5VNA Steinar --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dl8le" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Per definition the > > DIGITALRADIO GROUP > > is > > > "A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, > applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air > activity." > > The ongoing discussion about legal or formal topics since a couple > of weeks with constant repeating of all the old arguments without > any new ideas or aspects is more than boring and for sure not in > line with the original definition. It's just repeating something and > no interest in carefully considering the other party's arguments. > And, worst of all, only one part of the different subjects of this > group, the air activity if this term can be applied at all, is > discussed over and over again with absolutely no progress. Please > count the posts on FCC regulations, fundamental (and unfortunately > non-technical) contributions to emergency communication in > particular the spending of 250 KUSD for radio equipment etc (I don't > want to waste my time to list all what I have read in the past weeks > since I joined this group), and then compare that number to the > posts on real topics of this group. The ratio between the two > figures is in my opinion completely inadequate. > > I like open discussions but there should be an end sometime, at > least that the different parties come to the conclusion that there > will be no agreement. That is at least an agreement. > > If the present discussions will continue I will for sure leave this > group. The group will survive it, of course, but I wonder if not > many others not commenting in public will look for a better > alternative to the meeting place the Digitalradio Group is offering > at the moment. > > 73 > > Juergen, DL8LE >
