[digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?

[obrienaj]

Anyone have a link to the old LPDA DOS software?  I found a couple of on-line 
calculators  but they do not seem to allow for custom designs as much as the 
olf DOS application did.  

AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Surely the decoding and other things are more important

I see that sometimes you have 2 or more versions uploaded so I see you ARE
working hard on the soft … I didn´t wanna hurry you up .. it is a hobby
always so excuse me PLEASE!!

Dg9bfc

Sigi

By the way jose … did you think about a different qrg list … a bit easier
please …. Last digits zeroes 3600 3603 3606 etc….update your hp if you have
the time

Why exclusice 1 baud here 16 baud there if you have an auto mode???

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 22:10
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Patient please. I am working in details more important, please believe in
me.

 

  _  

De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 20:46
Asunto: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  

Ok for the pilot tone ….. what about the rest userselectable macros , f-keys
??

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
] Im Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:49
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Hi, Sieg,

 

This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-)

 

  _  

De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  

Hello Jose

 

1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 … in the info and on the upper
gui-line

 

2. Had my first qso last night ….. yippie yeah :-D

 

3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right
mouse … a macroeditor starts …. 

 

4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or
not….like in the soft mftty (see here: http://www.polar-
  electric. com/MFTT/
index.html )

 

5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys

 

Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Please download the latest version.

 

 

[digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

[Alan Barrow]

KH6TY wrote:
> The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is
> that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has
> no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still
> appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six
> letter "N"'s in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of
> an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. "N"'s created new carriers
> depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data
> dependent.
>
> If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at
> idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time
> in transmit.

It's pretty common in modems to randomize the data to prevent carriers
when sending all zero's or ones. Phone modems do it, I'm pretty sure P3
does, and other RF modems do.

I know of another amateur RF modem that had randomized spectra by
design. By this test it would have been considered spreadspectrum, but
it was not, it was mfsk with a randomizer. The randomizing algorithm was
provided to the FCC, and life was good. This was before SS was allowed
at all, and there was not a bit of discussion that it might have been
spread-spectrum.

If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?

All I know is, this is not the spread spectrum everyone is worried is
going to ruin the bands! IE: traditional spread spectrum with bandwidth
expansion of 100-1000.


Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

[digitalradio] Re: VHF and UHF Scanning of public service bands

[W8RIT]

Hi Andy, my name is Dave and my call is W8RIT. I do not know of any recent 
advances in technology regarding public service V/UHF scanning. The most recent 
upgrade in this area is relatively old, approx 5 years or so. This is the APCO 
Project-25 digital format.
It is used pretty extensively here in Michigan. From what I have been able to 
gather from reading radio magazines (Pop Communications and Monitoring Times), 
is that it is a pretty well engineered system. I have heard snippets from other 
municipalities that have sued Motorola and gone back to analog V/UHF systems 
they had in place. Personally, myself I would not want to rely on the MSPCS 800 
MHz system, especially if my life might depend on it, like a police officer or 
fire fighter. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice luxury features and it 
looks good on paper, but when the "fit hits the shan", I think they'll say 
Thank God for amateurs.
Anyways, I use a free software program called Pro96COM (which also has a Yahoo 
group). This software program can be found here: http://www.
If you have a P-25 digital trunking scanner it can enable you to see more of 
the information on how the controller is handling talkgroups, and a host of 
other system information. I use the RS Pro-96 that I picked up at Dayton almost 
as soon as they came out. I can use a home-brewed Icom CI-V level converter to 
use with this software. One drawback with this particular radio is that I 
cannot listen to the audio of the communications while the software is running. 
I do believe that you can listen with the Bearcat/Uniden and GRE P-25 trunking 
scanners. I'm not an expert on the scanners, (there are some relatively simple 
commands on the Pro-96 I still have to refer to the manual for), but my 
personal recommendation would be to purchase the GRE line. All 3 of these 
manufacturers, Radio Shack, Uniden/Bearcat, and GRE, have handhelds and 
mobile/base scanners for P-25 trunking. A few years back I had talked with Don 
Starr about the GRE. and he explained the revolutionary concept for programming 
the radio with objects. The objects could be frequencies, talkgroup ID's, 
channel banks, etc. Also you were not limited to a set number of channels in a 
bank, or talkgroup ID's in a talkgroup bank like you are with "conventional" 
scanners, like the Pro-96, (or possibly even the Uniden/Bearcats). I recall 
from a review in one of the radio magazines a few years back about the 
Uniden/Bearcat 396?, and one feature that I recall that I personally liked with 
that is that it had a way to tag GPS location to software on your current 
location and other information, such as the number of hits (# of times the 
scanner stopped on a frequency or channel) and the signal strength. I use Win96 
software to program the Pro-96, and it's a blessing compared to having to do it 
all manually on the radio itself. That's a bit of info for you Andy. Hopefully 
I didn't tell you what you already knew. That's about the most important 
development that I can think of offhand.

73 de W8RIT Dave

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj"  wrote:
>
> I wonder what the latest is in the state of art scanning of the VHF and UHF 
> bands.  What digital modes and sued and what are the modern scanners up to 
> these days ?  
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum (then Why ?)

[KH6TY]

Russell,

Here is a screen shot of Olivia 32-1000, which is also a FSK mode. 
Notice the pattern at idle and in the middle, where I send six "N"'s. 
There is a repetitions pattern, just like in MFSK16, but wider.


http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG

What is apparently missing from ROS is any pattern at idle, which I 
assume means that the frequencies are generated randomly, and 
independently,  and not by the data as in MFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000. In 
other words, the data is probably applied to each tone wherever it 
happens to be at the time.


I hope I interpret this correctly. Maybe someone else has a different 
interpretation.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Russell Blair wrote:
 
If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it 
(SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose 
Albert Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use it and 
knowing that the FCC will not show up at my door, but they might send 
me a letter and ask me why and to show cause why.
How that ROS has been labeled as SS, and all the others that might 
have use ROS is standing back just not knowing what to do it best just 
to now do anything yet.
 
Russell NC5O 
 
1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving 
door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong 
enough to take everything you have.

- Thomas Jefferson

" IN GOD WE TRUST "


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693



*From:* jose alberto nieto ros 
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thu, February 25, 2010 6:36:59 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 


In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes.


*De:* Siegfried Jackstien 
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29
*Asunto:* AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 


Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes

That is what i think

So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in 
the digiarea


Dg9bfc

Sigi

At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at 
a given short time in lower as 500hz


So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere

My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is 
experimental!


 

 

 




*Von:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups. com ] *Im Auftrag von *max d

*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53
*An:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Betreff:* [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 

 



Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, 
D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as 
the third symbol. "


Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these 
symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website.


For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, 
it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should 
say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions.


After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.


And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not 
determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as 
it is defined in the rules."


Just my thoughts,

Max
NN5L

Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum (then Why ?)

[KH6TY]

Russell,

Here is a screen shot, using DigiPan as an audio spectrum analyzer, 
comparing MFSK16 (bottom half) with ROS 1 baud (top half). During the 
top half of the ROS display,  I sent data as six letter "N"'s.


http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG

The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is 
that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has 
no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears 
to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter "N"'s 
in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. 
Note that the data (i.e. "N"'s created new carriers depending upon the 
data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent.


If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at 
idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time 
in transmit.


Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I am can interpret this better, 
or  perhaps make their own  test.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Russell Blair wrote:
 
If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it 
(SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose 
Albert Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use it and 
knowing that the FCC will not show up at my door, but they might send 
me a letter and ask me why and to show cause why.
How that ROS has been labeled as SS, and all the others that might 
have use ROS is standing back just not knowing what to do it best just 
to now do anything yet.
 
Russell NC5O 
 
1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving 
door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong 
enough to take everything you have.

- Thomas Jefferson

" IN GOD WE TRUST "


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693



*From:* jose alberto nieto ros 
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thu, February 25, 2010 6:36:59 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 


In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes.


*De:* Siegfried Jackstien 
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29
*Asunto:* AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 


Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes

That is what i think

So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in 
the digiarea


Dg9bfc

Sigi

At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at 
a given short time in lower as 500hz


So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere

My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is 
experimental!


 

 

 




*Von:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups. com ] *Im Auftrag von *max d

*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53
*An:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Betreff:* [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 

 



Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, 
D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as 
the third symbol. "


Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these 
symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website.


For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, 
it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should 
say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions.


After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.


And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not 
determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as 
it is defined in the rules."


Just my thoughts,

Max
NN5L

Re: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

[KH6TY]

Sorry, I meant to write, "For example in SSB, the RF frequency at any 
time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed 
carrier frequency (USB)".


I did not mean the tone frequency at any time...etc.

73 - Skip KH6TY




KH6TY wrote:
 


Max d,

The distinction is simple - If the carriers or tones which create the 
bandwidth expansion (or spreading), are accomplished by means of a 
spreading signal , i.e., a separate code signal, which is independent 
of the data , then it is spread spectrum no matter what you would like 
to call it. If the tone frequencies are DEPENDENT on the data, then it 
is NOT spread spectrum. For example in SSB, the tone frequency at any 
time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed 
carrier frequency (USB). Viewing the signal on a spectrum analyzer 
both with and without data input will probably reveal this, which the 
FCC will certainly do, now that the question of whether or not ROS is 
spread spectrum has been raised.


Jose's original paper on ROS and FHSS defined the three requirements 
very clearly.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



max d wrote:
 



Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, 
C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X 
as the third symbol. "


Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these 
symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website.


For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, 
it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should 
say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions.


After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.


And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not 
determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as 
it is defined in the rules."


Just my thoughts,

Max
NN5L

Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum (then Why ?)

[Russell Blair]

If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it (SS) 
Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose Albert 
Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use it and knowing that the 
FCC will not show up at my door, but they might send me a letter and ask me why 
and to show cause why.
How that ROS has been labeled as SS, and all the others that might have use ROS 
is standing back just not knowing what to do it best just to now do anything 
yet.

Russell NC5O 
 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door!
2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to 
take everything you have. 
- Thomas Jefferson 


" IN GOD WE TRUST " 


Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell.Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693 





From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 6:36:59 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

  
In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes.





De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

  
Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes
That is what i think 
So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the 
digiarea
Dg9bfc
Sigi
At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a given 
short time in lower as 500hz
So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere
My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is 
experimental!
 
 
 



Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im 
Auftrag von max d
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
 
  

Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, 
H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. "

Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It 
can be found on the ARRL website.

For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would 
have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not 
meet the other specific definitions of emissions.

After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.

And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not determine if a 
particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the 
rules."

Just my thoughts, 

Max
NN5L




  

Re: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

[KH6TY]

Max d,

The distinction is simple - If the carriers or tones which create the 
bandwidth expansion (or spreading), are accomplished by means of a 
spreading signal , i.e., a separate code signal, which is independent of 
the data , then it is spread spectrum no matter what you would like to 
call it. If the tone frequencies are DEPENDENT on the data, then it is 
NOT spread spectrum. For example in SSB, the tone frequency at any time 
is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed carrier 
frequency (USB). Viewing the signal on a spectrum analyzer both with and 
without data input will probably reveal this, which the FCC will 
certainly do, now that the question of whether or not ROS is spread 
spectrum has been raised.


Jose's original paper on ROS and FHSS defined the three requirements 
very clearly.


73 - Skip KH6TY




max d wrote:
 



Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, 
D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as 
the third symbol. "


Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these 
symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website.


For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, 
it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should 
say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions.


After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.


And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not 
determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as 
it is defined in the rules."


Just my thoughts,

Max
NN5L

Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

[jose alberto nieto ros]

In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes.





De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

  
Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes
That is what i think 
So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the 
digiarea
Dg9bfc
Sigi
At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a given 
short time in lower as 500hz
So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere
My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is 
experimental!
 
 
 



Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im 
Auftrag von max d
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
 
  

Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, 
H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. "

Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It 
can be found on the ARRL website.

For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would 
have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not 
meet the other specific definitions of emissions.

After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.

And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not determine if a 
particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the 
rules."

Just my thoughts, 

Max
NN5L



  

AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Bw lower as 3kc and fsk . like many other modes

That is what i think 

So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the
digiarea

Dg9bfc

Sigi

At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a
given short time in lower as 500hz

So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere

My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is
experimental!

 

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von max d
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

 

  


Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F,
G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third
symbol. "

Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols.
It can be found on the ARRL website.

For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it
would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it
should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions.

After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.

And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not determine
if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in
the rules."

Just my thoughts, 

Max
NN5L

[digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum

[max d]

Part 97.3 "Definitions" defines: "SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using 
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, 
H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. "

Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols.  
It can be found on the ARRL website.

For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would 
have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not 
meet the other specific definitions of emissions.

After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be 
"officially" defined as Spread Spectrum.

And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or 
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not determine if a 
particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the 
rules."

Just my thoughts, 

Max
NN5L

Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Bo problem, It is the number by defect. After always i have to rename, but this 
time i forgot it :-)

Donwload new version





De: Andy obrien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 22:37
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull

  
Nice email feature.  By the way, the version info says v2.1.1 but the exe file 
says 1.3.1 ?


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:50 PM, nietorosdj  wrote:

  
>Download here: http://rosmodem. wordpress. com/
>
>And configure the Email menu
>
>




  

Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull

[Andy obrien]

Nice email feature.  By the way, the version info says v2.1.1 but the exe
file says 1.3.1 ?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:50 PM, nietorosdj  wrote:

>
>
> Download here: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/
>
> And configure the Email menu
>
>  
>

Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Patient please. I am working in details more important, please believe in me.





De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 20:46
Asunto: AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  
Ok for the pilot tone ….. what about the rest userselectable macros , f-keys ??
 



Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im 
Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:49
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
 
  
Hi, Sieg,
 
This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-)
 



De:Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  
Hello Jose
 
1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 … in the info and on the upper 
gui-line
 
2. Had my first qso last night ….. yippie yeah :-D
 
3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right 
mouse … a macroeditor starts …. 
 
4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or 
not….like in the soft mftty (see here:http://www.polar- electric. com/MFTT/ 
index.html )
 
5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys
 
Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi
Greetz
Dg9bfc
Sigi
 
 



Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im 
Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
 
  
Please download the latest version.
 



  

AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Ok for the pilot tone ... what about the rest userselectable macros , f-keys
??

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:49
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Hi, Sieg,

 

This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-)

 

  _  

De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  

Hello Jose

 

1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 . in the info and on the upper
gui-line

 

2. Had my first qso last night ... yippie yeah :-D

 

3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right
mouse . a macroeditor starts .. 

 

4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or
not..like in the soft mftty (see here: http://www.polar-
  electric. com/MFTT/
index.html )

 

5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys

 

Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Please download the latest version.

 

AW: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Tone not for sync of the soft but maybe for others to tune in if you are not
using "channels" like 3.600, 3.603, ..

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von jose alberto nieto ros
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 18:49
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Hi, Sieg,

 

This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-)

 

  _  

De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  

Hello Jose

 

1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 . in the info and on the upper
gui-line

 

2. Had my first qso last night ... yippie yeah :-D

 

3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right
mouse . a macroeditor starts .. 

 

4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or
not..like in the soft mftty (see here: http://www.polar-
  electric. com/MFTT/
index.html )

 

5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys

 

Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
] Im Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Please download the latest version.

 

[digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull

[nietorosdj]

Download here: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

And configure the Email menu

Re: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Hi, Sieg,

This mode dont need a tone for the synchronization. Is auto :-)





De: Siegfried Jackstien 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: jue,25 febrero, 2010 18:36
Asunto: AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

  
Hello Jose
 
1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 … in the info and on the upper 
gui-line
 
2. Had my first qso last night ….. yippie yeah :-D
 
3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right 
mouse … a macroeditor starts …. 
 
4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or 
not….like in the soft mftty (see here:http://www.polar- electric. com/MFTT/ 
index.html )
 
5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys
 
Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi
Greetz
Dg9bfc
Sigi
 
 



Von:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] Im 
Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta
 
  
Please download the latest version.



  

AW: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Hello Jose

 

1. Downloaded the 202 but soft says it is 201 . in the info and on the upper
gui-line

 

2. Had my first qso last night ... yippie yeah :-D

 

3. the macrobuttons should be settable by the user (klick on them with right
mouse . a macroeditor starts .. 

 

4. the macobuttons should have selectable if you wanna send a new pilot or
not..like in the soft mftty (see here:
http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html )

 

5. associate the macrobuttons to the f-keys

 

Maybe you can grab some ideas from the other soft hi hi

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

 

 

  _  

Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von nietorosdj
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 03:46
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

 

  

Please download the latest version.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[kq6i]

 http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/

-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:w...@mchsi.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:33 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta



Hi, where do you go to download the software?
Thanks--- Bob C  WU9Q


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "nietorosdj"  wrote:
>
> Please download the latest version.
>






Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 
21073,24923, 28123 .  Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000,
ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088.
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: New ROS Version 2.0.2 beta

[Chris]

Hi, where do you go to download the software?
Thanks--- Bob C  WU9Q


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "nietorosdj"  wrote:
>
> Please download the latest version.
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS discussion: Ending 25/2/10 1200 UTC

[n1gke]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Discussion of ROS' legality was allowed to continue because of the
> news from ARRL and FCC.  The topic will be closed as of 25/2/10 at
> 1200 UTC.  Get you final say in on the issue , if you wish.  After
> that, leave the topic alone for a while.
> 
> Andy K3UK
> Andy
>
I am looking at two sample ROS files.
One is 1 baud and the 2nd is 16 baud. 
Observations using Spectrum Laboratory.

I have a screen capture of both samples and if you look at Olivia signals on HF 
and a variety of other digital signals we are allowed to employ, I do not see 
all that much of a difference.

I am still listening/watching for stations from the other regions who are using 
this new protocol and will log them as often as possible.

If I may suggest something, I would think it would also be used in the USB mode 
and not LSB as has been suggested in a few forums. That will keep it in line 
with the rest of the world.

I can't wait to try it. Now, if only I could find folks in Rhode Island that 
were willing to experiment with digital modes on VHF.