Patrick,
Just checked the peak amplitude of the RSID / Call ID clips and they are both
within 0.2db of each other. These are the audio files I used to determine the
100% throughput SNR for each mode using PathSim. I am sending you the files so
you can test them at your leisure. The RSID (Mode I
OK you can use the DXLab programs, Winwarbler allows an LPT port, as does MixW
(I think - I havent used ti for some time now).
Danny Douglas
N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
All 2 years or more (except Novice)
short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU
CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM
Thank you all- my laptop does not have a 9 pin port. The 25 pin is the only
available parallel port. Any Ideas?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kg4kri" wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I am trying to set up my computer to key my radio rather than the el cheapo
> way of using vox. I have built a ci
Patrick,
> Hello Tony, What are the numbers that you get? In fact, from my measures, the
> first
> decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and -16 dB in Call ID (but respectively
> -16 and -13 dB
> for almost 100 % success).
I get the following SNR figures for 100% decode:
RS ID -20db
Call ID
Hi, I thought that I would try & help Brian out but I don't know the answer my
self, so I am passing this along.
Thanks.
73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster
SKCC #5322
John 3:16
Proud member of the;
ARRL
NRA
Handihams
LiveFreeUSA
60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60)
Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W)
Anyone want to test FLARQ with varying modes this weekend, please consider the
following dial frequencies. 10147, 7082, 3583, and 14073 USB (all dial
frequencies ).
2 years ago I met with Skip KH6TY (or was it three years ?) and he gave me a
beta copy of NBEMS FLARQ. I thought it would becom
Hello Phil,
Tony (K2MO) is preparing a paper about the way to use ALE400. Here is a
first draft that Tony sent to Digital radio some time ago. I added some
modifications.
73
Patrick
>From Tony:
All,
Received several emails asking how to setup Multipsk and work ALE-400 ARQ
chat mode so here
Hello Tony,
What are the numbers that you get?
In fact, from my measures, the first decodings appear at -19 dB in RS ID and
-16 dB in Call ID (but respectively -16 and -13 dB for almost 100 % success).
>SNR tests
I think it must be a bit difficult to measure S/N for bursts. What I do, on my
si
I agree that there were positive aspects to the ARRL's "regulation by
bandwidth" proposal. However, expanding the range of frequencies available
to unattended stations without including a requirement that they verify
their frequency to be clear before transmitting was a showstopper, in my
opinion.
I meant any frequency where RTTY/data is allowed. The objection that people
had then seems to be that a wider bandwidth was allowed for semi-automatic
stations in the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth segments.
However, the proposed rules would have pushed the wideband semi-automatic
stations up in fr
Andy,
Thanks for the Flarq tests last night. That was really fun. I can see
how useful this can be in emergency communications in addition to a
program like Winmor. Winmor with its capabilities to send email through
the Winlink network and NBEMS with its peer to peer capabilities to send
er
Quite true, but there is a network of ARES and RACES groups slowly beginning
to see that FLARQ is quite effective. When WINMOR moves to peer-to-server
operations, it will be interesting to see what happens. WINMOR also has the
Telnet and packet capabilities.
Andy K3UK
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 6
Definitely apples to oranges, Andy. One doesn't even need to get into a
discussion of speed (although I've finally tweaked things so that I reliably
get ~1Kbyte/min on a 1.6KHz mode S9 connection with 1-5K payload).
The most important difference is that there is no promise of FLARQ being
suppor
If people want to use those other modes ...go for it. I did not include
THOR or ALE400 because they are not common to all three software packages.
Andy K3UK
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Phil Williams wrote:
>
>
> What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used. I have finally
Your assertion below that current rules allow an automatic station to
operate on any frequency is incorrect. See ยง97.221
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#221
With a bandwidth of 500 hz or less, such stations can can only operate
wherever RTTY or data emissions are a
What about ALE-400? This is a mode that I have never used. I have finally
installed mutlipsk which offers this mode. I would sure like to get some
hands on with ALE-400.
Oh yeah, I second the motion on Feld Hell. Thanks KT.
philw de ka1gmn
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Kurt Tuttle wrote:
I just reread it and it seems to be more restrictive than the current rules.
The current rules establish segments for automatic forwarding between
digital stations on all HF bands and these were eliminated below 28 MHz in
the ARRL proposal. The current rules allow for an automatic station that
Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range
of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency
detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs
opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it.
73,
Dave, AA6
18 matches
Mail list logo
