Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Good points, Dave, Considering that RTTY, the oldest digital mode (not counting morse code which goes back to spark), is still one of the most common modes, and PSK31 is the most common of the newer modes, it appears that there is only a small interest in any new digital technology. When I ask other hams why they don't do digital, (which is most hams), some indicate they don't want to do anything with interfacing their computer or they don't type and have no interest in such things. As a promoter of digital modes at least I am on the schedule for our local ham club to do a digital presentation next November, so you can see it is not exactly high priority, HI. (I did a demo last summer using Judy's HF mobile station with one of our quick setup NVIS HF antennas and showed several hams her computer/rig/interface for digital). The HF Digital Procol Survey done by Paul, W4RI, Chief Technology Officer Officer of ARRL, suggested that: - few hams were interested in this information as the results were shockingly low ... only 83 of us responded between the Request for Information date of Feb 22, 2007 and July 2007. Very telling. - many of the responses were non-technical comments, although supportive of ARRL's initiative to develop new non-proprietary HF protocols - but he did indicate that some hams did not seem to support ARRL being involved in such an endeavor and instead use existing protocols - there were were widely varying views on whether OFDM or single tone modems were the best choice. - In other words there was not a lot of consensus that came out of the RFI from a technical perspective. There was consensus on any new developments being OS neutral and independent of having a specific hardware platform. Bottom line was that is an interest in new non-proprietary modes, but no specific direction for the actual technical features. He felt that there was a small but growing interest in MIL-STD HF protocols including ALE, but realistically this does not seem to reflect the majority of digital interest on discussion groups or on the air. One thing not mentioned was that MIL-STD-188-110(x) type modes primarily focus on single tone modems with high baud rates that are not legal here in the U.S. HF ham bands (at least not in the RTTY/Data portions), so 39 tone parallel modems would need to be used and some felt OFDM may not be the best choice. In the final analysis, it is fair to say that there was no groundswell of interest, no consensus of specific technology, that came out of the RFI so it may be a dead issue. What continues to happen (and it is logical that it does) is that specific interests by one or more developers causes them to focus on something that they personally like or believe will fulfill a niche. In the last year or so we had NBEMS and FAE400 as the breakthroughs. This year it will likely be WINMOR for e-mail and if it works as well as I think it will, and if others incorporate this technology into other programs that can go far beyond just the e-mail part, it could be the next big thing. 73, Rick, KV9U HFDEC yahoogroup moderator (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communications) Dave Bernstein wrote: If I recall correctly, the context for that still-true assertion was a discussion of what it would take to create new digital modes as effective as PSK31 with panoramic reception in gaining traction with the amateur community. Clearly lots of experimentation is required; PSK31 didn't spring up out of nowhere. While many modes being developed will clearly never gain broad adoption, the effort may still be worthwhile for the experience, or to satisfy a niche requirement. Awhile back, the ARRL announced an effort led by then CTO Paul W4RI to develope a new protocol. W4RI has subsequently retired. Does anyone know whether this new protocol effort remains alive, and if so what progress it is making? 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73, Dave, AA6YQ Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.7/1983 - Release Date: 03/04/09 07:41:00
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Rick and Dave, NBEMS was created and submitted at the eleventh hour as a reply to Rinaldo's search for an HF protocol, but instead as a VHF system, mainly for emcomm. We afterwards expanded it to include HF messaging for extended range where VHF does not work, but is still primarily a digital messaging system, which only a few have any use for. I am now working with Navy MARS to help them incorporate the benefits of point-to-point digital communications, but much of their activity is already focused on messaging, so it is a good fit. For messaging, transmission of a message phonetically is much less efficient than digitally, but still important to have when no computer is available, or when your computer batteries run down. However, hams in general are apparently much more interested in contesting or ragchewing than in either emcomm or mailboxes (including leaving messages using ALE). So, for most, a computer may only be used for logging, which is not hard to understand. Nothing is simpler than just picking up a microphone, or if you know Morse Code, sending with a bug and listening with your ears. Digital modes are also more enjoyable if you can type than if you cannot, so typing proficiency is another drawback to using digital modes. However, the release of fldigi after this next one will incorporate both speech-to-text and text-to-speech, making using narrowband digital modes somewhat like using phone (with macros for callsign exchanges), but with a synthesized voice. This is now my top priority for 2009. The competition from email, text-messaging, email reflectors, and the now almost everywhere broadband Internet access, has probably relegated the popularity of BBS and radio mailboxes to the dust bin of history. Why then should programmers spend a lot of time writing code for such a shrinking audience? It is even hard to interest teenagers in radio itself, since they are so accustomed to text messaging or picture transfers instantly with their cell phones (which is also radio of course). They do not understand the appeal of random contacts like we hams do on radio, and neither do many hams that only work repeaters, as that is just too easy. I hope that taking some interest in FM DXing will provide a deeper glimpse for some repeater users into what ham radio is REALLY (mostly) about, and has always been. If anyone is not familiar with the idea of FM DXing, see page 95 of the March QST. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Two areas where there is a need for digital comms: 1) Satellite / deep space 2) Boat owners far away without internet (let's ditch PACTOR please) I'm indirectly involved with 1) and am following the WINMOR project which looks very interesting. Here in central Europe there's not a huge need for emergency comms as we have a good infrastructure. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: kh6ty Rick and Dave, (Chopped)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
let's ditch PACTOR please -no la5vna Steinar Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: Two areas where there is a need for digital comms: 1) Satellite / deep space 2) Boat owners far away without internet (let's ditch PACTOR please) I'm indirectly involved with 1) and am following the WINMOR project which looks very interesting. Here in central Europe there's not a huge need for emergency comms as we have a good infrastructure. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: kh6ty Rick and Dave, (Chopped)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Simon, The problem is not with Pactor, per se, but with the arrogance of those who consider retrieval of their precious email more important than the QSO that is already on the frequency. They just happen to be using Pactor, but since Pactor is an ARQ mode, and usually linked to a robot, by using ARQ they can, and usually do, keep transmitting, even in the face of QRM until anyone else using the frequency first is run off. This is why we designed the NBEMS system to REQUIRE listening operators on BOTH ends of the link, and a facility (Plain Talk) to coordinate moving to a different frequency if necessary. The Winlink VE2AFQ mailbox is using Pactor 3 and constantly covering up the lower part of the historical PSK31 activity on 20 meters. I had two different QSO's at 14070.5 obilterated Monday when they came on. Use of Pactor 3 is illegal in the US outside of the automatic subbands, but because VE2AFQ is Canadian they are not under FCC regulation, and the Winlink Administrator still gives them access to the Winlink RMS servers on 14069.5, even knowing they could not do that if they were FCC licensed. Arrogance is the problem, not Pactor, and there is no shortage of arrogance among those mailbox users! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity let's ditch PACTOR please -no la5vna Steinar Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: Two areas where there is a need for digital comms: 1) Satellite / deep space 2) Boat owners far away without internet (let's ditch PACTOR please) I'm indirectly involved with 1) and am following the WINMOR project which looks very interesting. Here in central Europe there's not a huge need for emergency comms as we have a good infrastructure. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: kh6ty Rick and Dave, (Chopped)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
I am not necessarily opposed to other hams using Pactor modes, but the one issue that is consistently ignored seems to be the transmission of fax/image data when using the wide bandwidth modes. If kept at 500 Hz or less, the changes in the rules a few years back finally allows fax/image to used in the RTTY/Data areas. But it does not allow it for any modes greater than 500 Hz such as when using P3. And just for those who think that I am opposed to being able to send wide fax/image in the RTTY/Data areas, I am most definitely am not. What I would like to see is a return to everyone following the same rules. This goes for other very questionable digital activities in the past few years. Either make it legal for everyone or don't do it. Is that really too much to ask? It seems that it is. Without a sea change at the FCC there is little that can be done about the automated station transmitting over the top of other stations since it was decided many years ago that it was an acceptable tradeoff, at least in part because the FCC at the time stated that future advancement of technology would solve that problem. Pactor operators have at least some of the technology to prevent transmissions on busy frequencies, by the automated station, (especially with P2 and P3 from recent information), but it appears that it is not used that much. Maybe with the change of enforcement leadership this could happen? But it is probably wishful thinking to halt these kinds of scofflaw behaviors. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: Simon, The problem is not with Pactor, per se, but with the arrogance of those who consider retrieval of their precious email more important than the QSO that is already on the frequency. They just happen to be using Pactor, but since Pactor is an ARQ mode, and usually linked to a robot, by using ARQ they can, and usually do, keep transmitting, even in the face of QRM until anyone else using the frequency first is run off. This is why we designed the NBEMS system to REQUIRE listening operators on BOTH ends of the link, and a facility (Plain Talk) to coordinate moving to a different frequency if necessary. The Winlink VE2AFQ mailbox is using Pactor 3 and constantly covering up the lower part of the historical PSK31 activity on 20 meters. I had two different QSO's at 14070.5 obilterated Monday when they came on. Use of Pactor 3 is illegal in the US outside of the automatic subbands, but because VE2AFQ is Canadian they are not under FCC regulation, and the Winlink Administrator still gives them access to the Winlink RMS servers on 14069.5, even knowing they could not do that if they were FCC licensed. Arrogance is the problem, not Pactor, and there is no shortage of arrogance among those mailbox users! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
[digitalradio] Anti-Digital Hams
Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity and misinformation being spouted about various digital modes and methods by those who profess to be proponents of digital ham radio? Why is it necessary for a person who advocates some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean and nasty against another flavor? I ask these questions, because I've watched so many positive people and technology innovators driven away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham radio forums. Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices of some of the most positive and beneficial individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a rough place to begin with, but aren't the same individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing the same thing here on digitalradio? If we let the negative people control the level of discourse in forums for discussion, where will this lead the future of ham radio digital? What have we already lost in digital technlogy? What will we lose in the future? Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Anti-Digital Hams
There would be no mode wars if people take the time to understand the benefits and limitations each mode has and make it a personal rule to test the mode fully in a live setting before applying negative comments. So much understanding can be gained from experience. The same goes for sound card interfaces and digimode software too. 73 Sholto. expeditionradio wrote: Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity and misinformation being spouted about various digital modes and methods by those who profess to be proponents of digital ham radio?
[digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Steinar, I think the 'request' may be based round 'access for all' and not the banishment of the mode .. In a abstract way, this seems to fit the bill :) The time has come, the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html Not that I'm comparing like with like but .. some may talk of thing's that others may not ... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: let's ditch PACTOR please -no la5vna Steinar Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: Two areas where there is a need for digital comms: 1) Satellite / deep space 2) Boat owners far away without internet (let's ditch PACTOR please) I'm indirectly involved with 1) and am following the WINMOR project which looks very interesting. Here in central Europe there's not a huge need for emergency comms as we have a good infrastructure. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: kh6ty Rick and Dave, (Chopped)
[digitalradio] NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2009-06
The NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast #2009-06 has been published on Thursday 03/05/2009 at 1800 UTC, valid UTC Saturday 03/07/2009 through 2359 UTC Friday 03/13/2009 at http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm . 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com LF/MF/HF/VHF Frequency Radiowave Propagation Email Reflector: http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/kn4lf NZ4O Daily Solar Space Weather Geomagnetic Data Archive: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm NZ4O Daily LF/MF/HF/6M Frequency Radiowave Propagation Forecast Archive: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf6.htm NZ4O 160 Meter Radio Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm Harmful Man Induced Climate Change (Global Warming) Refuted: http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
[digitalradio] the time to understand the benefits and limitations each mode
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher sho...@... wrote: There would be no mode wars if people take the time to understand the benefits and limitations each mode has and make it a personal rule to test the mode fully in a live setting before applying negative comments. So much understanding can be gained from experience. The same goes for sound card interfaces and digimode software too. 73 Sholto. Hi Sholto, are you overseas or still in the USA? I agree with your point. The irony is that ALE in its purest sense is designed for exactly what you suggest. Make the link, select the best mode Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular mode (Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as you say there's a lot of misinformation being propagated. Its particularly disgusting when the defenders of transmitting without listening characterize any criticism of it as anti-innovative. In point of fact, the application of 3-year old technology would largely mitigate the problem. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionra...@... wrote: Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity and misinformation being spouted about various digital modes and methods by those who profess to be proponents of digital ham radio? Why is it necessary for a person who advocates some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean and nasty against another flavor? I ask these questions, because I've watched so many positive people and technology innovators driven away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham radio forums. Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices of some of the most positive and beneficial individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a rough place to begin with, but aren't the same individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing the same thing here on digitalradio? If we let the negative people control the level of discourse in forums for discussion, where will this lead the future of ham radio digital? What have we already lost in digital technlogy? What will we lose in the future? Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Anti-Digital Hams
What I would like to know is what negativity and misinformation was even mentioned. From now on lets be fair about making such statements by actually quoting the alleged negative and misinformed statement so the rest of us can make an informed decision whether such claims are even appropriate. Sometimes individuals making such statements are reflecting their fears and negativity in their own minds and extrapolate it far beyond what is reasonable. Thank you. Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: The *only* ill will I've seen expressed is over the use of automatic stations that transmit without first verifying that the frequency is in use. This has nothing whatsoever to do with modes. It is unfortunate that one particular mode (Pactor 3) is conflated with this style of operation, but as you say there's a lot of misinformation being propagated. Its particularly disgusting when the defenders of transmitting without listening characterize any criticism of it as anti-innovative. In point of fact, the application of 3-year old technology would largely mitigate the problem. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionra...@... wrote: Why is there a need in ham radio for mode wars? Is it counterproductive to have so much negativity and misinformation being spouted about various digital modes and methods by those who profess to be proponents of digital ham radio? Why is it necessary for a person who advocates some particular flavor of digital, to be so mean and nasty against another flavor? I ask these questions, because I've watched so many positive people and technology innovators driven away by vociferous personal attacks on several ham radio forums. Digitalradio has certainly lost many due to this. QRZ.com is another forum that has lost the voices of some of the most positive and beneficial individuals in ham radio digital. Yes, QRZ is a rough place to begin with, but aren't the same individuals who perpetrate negativity there, doing the same thing here on digitalradio? If we let the negative people control the level of discourse in forums for discussion, where will this lead the future of ham radio digital? What have we already lost in digital technlogy? What will we lose in the future? Bonnie KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.8/1985 - Release Date: 03/05/09 07:54:00
[digitalradio] NTS Digital
Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in past years (now SK) was involved at some level, perhaps Pactor. At least one of the daytime region voice nets is struggling to survive. I suspect that CW nets are having some similar problems and if not, they surely will have as more CW competent OTs become SK. I don't see anywhere near enough new hams becoming proficient in CW and also having an interest in traffic handling. So I suggested that if there was any interest, maybe we could try using some of the new technologies that have only recently become available to us. That means either using an extremely robust mode such as Olivia which can compete with CW from some of my experiences, or using an ARQ mode with NBEMS or possibly Multipsk's FAE400. Eventually, it is possible that WINMOR may become available for peer to peer but that is likely far into the future from what they are saying. Are any of the NTS digital stations using sound card modes or are they staying with the NTS/D (actually the old Winlink system) and Pactor? Any recommendations, or even better, any actual experiences with getting area, region, or even section nets using some of the newer digital sound card modes? 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Oh thank the Gods, Here I was thinking that you was one of the anti wide - anti hardware type guys, At 04:07 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote: I am not necessarily opposed to other hams using Pactor modes, but the one issue that is consistently ignored seems to be the transmission of fax/image data when using the wide bandwidth modes. If kept at 500 Hz or less, the changes in the rules a few years back finally allows fax/image to used in the RTTY/Data areas. But it does not allow it for any modes greater than 500 Hz such as when using P3.
RE: [digitalradio] NTS Digital
Rick, Army MARS is using MT-63 on mixed mode nets with some regularity. We also use Olivia when conditions warrant the slower speed of transmission. Easypal is also being used for picture transmission, as well as text broadcasts. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick W Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] NTS Digital Maybe some of you can help me with understanding the current digital state of the art with NTS. Recently, there have been some NTS yahoogroups formed for our region and the sections in that region. There is no digital presence at this time, however, at least one ham I knew in past years (now SK) was involved at some level, perhaps Pactor. At least one of the daytime region voice nets is struggling to survive. I suspect that CW nets are having some similar problems and if not, they surely will have as more CW competent OTs become SK. I don't see anywhere near enough new hams becoming proficient in CW and also having an interest in traffic handling. So I suggested that if there was any interest, maybe we could try using some of the new technologies that have only recently become available to us. That means either using an extremely robust mode such as Olivia which can compete with CW from some of my experiences, or using an ARQ mode with NBEMS or possibly Multipsk's FAE400. Eventually, it is possible that WINMOR may become available for peer to peer but that is likely far into the future from what they are saying. Are any of the NTS digital stations using sound card modes or are they staying with the NTS/D (actually the old Winlink system) and Pactor? Any recommendations, or even better, any actual experiences with getting area, region, or even section nets using some of the newer digital sound card modes? 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W mrf...@... wrote: Considering that RTTY, the oldest digital mode (not counting morse code which goes back to spark), is still one of the most common modes, and PSK31 is the most common of the newer modes, it appears that there is only a small interest in any new digital technology. It seems to me that the rapid uptake of PSK31 by the worldwide amateur community represents a significant interest, not a small interest. When I ask other hams why they don't do digital, (which is most hams), some indicate they don't want to do anything with interfacing their computer or they don't type and have no interest in such things. As a promoter of digital modes at least I am on the schedule for our local ham club to do a digital presentation next November, so you can see it is not exactly high priority, HI. I have given several presentation about digital modes to local radio clubs, and there was quite a bit of interest expressed. But perhaps only those interested in digital modes chose to attend. The HF Digital Procol Survey done by Paul, W4RI, Chief Technology Officer Officer of ARRL, suggested that: - few hams were interested in this information as the results were shockingly low ... only 83 of us responded between the Request for Information date of Feb 22, 2007 and July 2007. Very telling. - many of the responses were non-technical comments, although supportive of ARRL's initiative to develop new non-proprietary HF protocols - but he did indicate that some hams did not seem to support ARRL being involved in such an endeavor and instead use existing protocols - there were were widely varying views on whether OFDM or single tone modems were the best choice. - In other words there was not a lot of consensus that came out of the RFI from a technical perspective. There was consensus on any new developments being OS neutral and independent of having a specific hardware platform. Bottom line was that is an interest in new non-proprietary modes, but no specific direction for the actual technical features. He felt that there was a small but growing interest in MIL-STD HF protocols including ALE, but realistically this does not seem to reflect the majority of digital interest on discussion groups or on the air. One thing not mentioned was that MIL-STD-188-110(x) type modes primarily focus on single tone modems with high baud rates that are not legal here in the U.S. HF ham bands (at least not in the RTTY/Data portions), so 39 tone parallel modems would need to be used and some felt OFDM may not be the best choice. In the final analysis, it is fair to say that there was no groundswell of interest, no consensus of specific technology, that came out of the RFI so it may be a dead issue. Consensus as a prerequisite for innovation is silly. My impression is that this committee to design a protocol was a canard aimed at calming the roiled automatic stations that don't listen before transmitting waters. I've followed up with Dave K1ZZ to see what he has to say about this committee's results. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] NTS Digital
Hi Dave, I have heard of the use of MT-63 for many years on MARS circuits, but don't think I had heard about the digital SSTV program being used. It makes tremendous sense since they are often involved in sending bulletins to their members. With one to many it is possible to have 100% ARQ with EasyPal although it is after the fact ARQ. A bit cumbersome, but practical for insuring a group receives exactly correct data. Unfortunately U.S. hams can not use mixed phone and text digital in the HF bands unless they are sending fax/image. Since most of the NTS traffic is short text messages, we can not do that in the phone areas, so we have to confine it to the RTTY/data portions. 73, Rick, KV9U David Little wrote: Rick, Army MARS is using MT-63 on mixed mode nets with some regularity. We also use Olivia when conditions warrant the slower speed of transmission. Easypal is also being used for picture transmission, as well as text broadcasts. David KD4NUE
