RE: [digitalradio] Help with FLDIGI ..

[Bob Donnell]

Hi Ron,

Not clear from your message is if you've got sound card connections made up
also.  I'm having to guess that if MixW and HRD are working for you using
data modes over the air that you do have a working sound card setup.

The CAT cable is only going to be able to set and read the frequency of your
radio, and control or retrieve mode information - and that direct-connection
operation will only work if nothing else is using the serial port at the
same time as fldigi is trying to use it.  PC hardware inherently allows only
one software program or driver to use a particular serial port at a time.
So you might need to close one or more other programs before fldigi can
capture the serial port for CAT operations.

Hope that helps, and 73

Bob, KD7NM

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of swlstation
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:46 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Help with FLDIGI ..

Hello, Reader (s)

I am trying to get startet with FLDIGI and my FT897d, i am using a simple
cat cable, that works oke with HRD and MIXW, but i cannot get it working
with FLDIGI.

So, the question is, ? must i use some kind of extra file, or must i use a
special start procedure ?

Perhaps someone can and will help me .

Thanks

Ron PD1ANB ( pd1...@amsat.org ) 






Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Boot discs for emcomm/ham radio

[Bob Donnell]

30 years seems a stretch - since I think Linux first saw the light of the
Internet in about 1992.  Let's see - 30 years ago - that's just after people
started pirating paper tapes of Microsoft Basic... 

73, Bob, KD7NM

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Simon (HB9DRV)
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:54 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Boot discs for emcomm/ham radio

- Original Message -
From: "Steinar Aanesland" 


> Rick, I think Windoze is some sort of  "Lunix" clone

In the history of Windows there is some Linux - about 30 years ago or so. 
It's a long and involved story, not suited for this mailing list.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
www.ham-radio-deluxe.com 





Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Recommended digital mode software:  Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk
Logging Software:  DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe.



Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] Question for the Linux gurus

[Bob Donnell]

Hi Dave,
 
First would be to make sure there really isn't support for it.  If you can get 
to a bash shell, and get logged in as root, you can run ifconfig, and see if it 
lists the USB ethernet adapter.  I say this from the perspective of an even 
older laptop, for which I had (of all things) a parallel port to ethernet 
adapter - and the installation I did recognized the presence of the adapter, 
and initialized it.  Run ifconfig -a and note what interfaces it comes up with 
- probably just the loopback interface, but if the laptop has an infrared port, 
it might also be reported.  Then plug in the USB ethernet dongle, wait 10-15 
seconds for Linux to enumerate the device, or if you're running from CD, 
perhaps longer - wait for the CDROM drive to spin down?  Then run ifconfig -a 
again and see if there's a new interface.  At that point, if it's connected to 
a network with a dhcp server, you'll probably have a working network connection.
 
Hope that helps!
 
73, Bob, KD7NM

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Dave 'Doc' Corio
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:09 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Question for the Linux gurus


 


Thanks for the response, Rik. Not having any idea how to run Linux from a 
USB stick, I tried the next best thing. I booted up under Linux from the CD and 
plugged the stick in. I can look at the contents of the stick with no problem, 
so I do know the USB port works. But how on earth can I connect to the internet 
through the USB adapter with no driver for it?
 
Tnx es 73
Dave
KB3MOW
 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on 
Behalf Of Rik van Riel
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:46 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Question for the Linux gurus



Dave wrote:

> There is no NIC, however it does have two USB ports. I have a USB interface 
> that connects to my cable modem, but it doesn't have a Linux driver available 
> for it. Can anyone guess if it will work? It's a Linksys model USB10T
> 
> I'm trying to locate additional memory for the laptop, but unsure if I can 
> find any. 

You may be able to fix both of these at the same time by running Linux
from a USB stick. USB sticks may be slower than hard disks for huge
transfers, but they are faster for small transfers (no seek time).

That also allows you to try out whether the USB ethernet interface
works, without having blown away the OS that is currently on the
laptop.

-- 
All rights reversed.

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Using CTSS on a digipeater?

[Bob Donnell]

Your situation is creating for you a huge hidden transmitter problem.  

Is there anything that says you can't do either of these things:

1) Use a directional antenna - reduce the signal strength from the far-away
mountains.  Using down-tilt to both better illuminate the valleys close to
the digi, and at the same time, reduce the strength of signals on the
horizon, by tilting enough to put them well down the main lobe.

2) Move the antenna or digipeater site to a lower location, perhaps where
you can gain some benefit from putting the mountain between the digipeater
antenna and the most likely interferers

3) Use a different band entirely.  It's usually easier to find underutilized
frequencies to use for packet, on 222 and 420-450 MHz.

A thought associated with hidden transmitters, that we've had huge success
with here, but is more complicated, and that's to get a repeater allocation
and put up a repeater dedicate for packet communications.  This has a number
of benefits:

1) No hidden transmitters - at all.  Collisions are pretty much
non-existant.

2) Everyone connects to everyone "direct".  No digipeating needed, which
instantly doubles your throughput.

3) All fixed operations can use beam antennas for packet because they don't
need to be able to hear or talk in multiple directions.  Additionally, using
beams usually means that if multipath is a problem, you can usually find a
direction to point the beam to eliminate the multipath.  Movable resources
can be equipped with a beam, which can be set up if multipath at that site
is a problem. 
 
4) If you don't provide any "services" on the repeater, like a public BBS,
node, or DX Cluster, chances are the repeater won't see a lot of use,
meaning it'll be available.

The biggest down side is that a repeater is more complicated than a
digipeater.  There are more pieces to go wrong.  But the repeater doesn't
need a fancy controller.  In fact, using the TNC DCD indicator line (with a
KPC 3x set for software DCD) or any other TNC with True DCD, provides the
"COR" line to key the transmitter.  Further, the TNC can act as the repeater
ID'er - just to send an ID packet every 10 minutes.  That has been confirmed
to constitute a legal same-mode ID, when the repeater is intended for packet
use.  If that's an interesting option, I can provide more details.  We've
had a number of packet repeaters over the years, one of which has been on
the air since 1985 or so.  The others were on 9600 baud, which is a can of
worms I don't recommend, because so few radios that claim to be 9600 baud
ready really are not.

73, Bob, KD7NM


-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Terry Breitenfeldt
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:00 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Using CTSS on a digipeater?

Let me thow out a couple more issues about this problem:

1) The Digi would be located on a hill over 10,000ft high, in an
   area prone to immense RF inference.  Because of its height
   and the nature of digital signals, I'm concerned that a KPC+
   would be overwhelmed hearing multiple signals from
   hundreds of miles away that might make the TNC unavailable, just
   when it needs to be available exclusively for ECOM.
2) The purpose of the Digi is specically for RACES traffic and
   needs to pass ECOM traffic from mobile command posts back to the
   EOC, for both large and small events. There are other circuts
   available for non-RACES traffic, so I'm not really concerned that
   other hams would be excluded from this "one" Digi. The goal would
   be to provide the County with a high point that doesn't currently
   exist.

>From a technical stand point, I would be concerned if a CTSS tone would be
counter productive to the radio reponding quick enough for reliable packet
communications.  I was also concerned about packet collisions that could be
caused by the TNC not hearing all packet traffic on the frequency.

I guess the best solution would be choose a packet frequency thats used very
rarely by other groups and leave the Digi as a open machine.

Thanks.


 
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Donnell"  wrote:
>
> I'm with Vince on a number of points.  
> 
> If there's really a serious emergency, that will benefit from
packet radio,
> chances are that the hobbiest hams are not going to be on the air,
unless
> it's in support of your goals.  I think it's far better to have the
local
> community exercising your digipeater for you, so you know if it
fails.
> 
> If you're truly insistent on having the ability to lock out
stations, it'd
> be better to do a couple of things to achieve that:
> 
> 1) Use a TNC that allows performing over-the-air settings
modifications
> 
> 2) When a

RE: [digitalradio] Using CTSS on a digipeater?

[Bob Donnell]

I'm with Vince on a number of points.  

If there's really a serious emergency, that will benefit from packet radio,
chances are that the hobbiest hams are not going to be on the air, unless
it's in support of your goals.  I think it's far better to have the local
community exercising your digipeater for you, so you know if it fails.

If you're truly insistent on having the ability to lock out stations, it'd
be better to do a couple of things to achieve that:

1) Use a TNC that allows performing over-the-air settings modifications

2) When an event happens, and you determine that the level of emcomm traffic
vs. regular user traffic requires it, set up a beacon that frequently (every
minute or two) informs all users that the digipeater has been configured for
emcomm operations, and create a buddy list of stations that are allowed to
connect and digipeat via the digipeater, and implement it.  Another
alternative that can be done remotely is to change the "MYDIGI" setting to
respond to something else, but that's only a short-term fix, since anyone
that's monitoring can see the digipeater callsign.

Perhaps the most important thing, is if the operation is of a limited
period, remember to set operations back to normal operations before shutting
operations down, or when the emcomm traffic volume is reduced enough to
support normal operations.

>From a technical perspective, using CTCSS as an operational modifier is a
poor solution, for the reason Vince mentioned, and additionally, depending
on the TNC and radio combination, having the the CTCSS tone present at the
input to the TNC may cause it to make more reception errors than if it's not
present.  Also, anything that delays the digipeater (especially) from being
able to tell that the channel is busy, and that to wait for the channel to
clear before transmitting, is going to kill performance and require many
more retries than leaving the digipeater open.

Hope that helps!

73, Bob, KD7NM  

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Terry Breitenfeldt
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Using CTSS on a digipeater?

If I wanted to setup a "closed" Digipreater on 145.09 Mhz on a high mountain
peak, so that I could limit activity to only ECOM traffic, would the use of
a CTSS tone decode be a viable option?  Would a CTSS tone interfere with
Packet operations?  
 





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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?

[Bob Donnell]

And further, this thought should be considered as VHF FM, or VHF SSB?  In a
base/mobile or mobile/mobile environment, SSB on VHF works over much greater
distances.  

With voice communications, VHF SSB benefits from having flutter resulting in
the desired signal amplitude going up and down, while the background noise
level is held pretty constant, by the AGC in the receiver.  FM is opposite
in that regard - when the signal gets weak, the background noise level comes
up, at least until the squelch closes.  In my perception, I seem to be
better able to fill in the gaps in syllables when the signal drops out, than
when it's filled with noise.  

VHF SSB also has the benefit of probably not requiring the mobile station to
have to take time to set up an antenna.  If the mobile station is parked in
a null, chances are that moving the vehicle a few inches will change a
multipath situation enough to provide good copy.  If there's benefit to be
had by setting up a portable (v.s. mobile) antenna, putting a VHF
omnidirectional stick up 10-20' is a pretty trivial task.  While there can
be benefit to be had by using horizontal antennas, unless you're into
serious weak-signal work, it's not necessary to realize large gains in
coverage, even using omni antennas on both ends, using SSB.

Digital modes that are designed to work well in weak signal circumstances on
HF SSB rigs will similarly work well on weal signal VHF SSB rigs, because
the same "linear-mode" technology is involved.  Probably the biggest caveat
to that will be frequency accuracy and stability.  Radios on a net will need
to be well warmed up, or have high stability oscillators, if they are
operating unattended, and expected to be able to be received by the sender.

I've encouraged those that are working on upgrading our regional hospital
network to use the IC-706's that they already have set up for HF pactor, to
try VHF pactor using the SSB mode, as a way to gain from the more readily
available spectrum, so they don't have to compete for access to the very few
frequencies available on HF for digital operations.  It'll be interesting to
see how they do.

73, Bob, KD7NM

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Z.
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:59 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?

Is the volunteer out of VHF range?

If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be
able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get
back to you.

Or he may be out of VHF range.

HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas.
HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal.  I'm not sure
there exists an NVIS antenna for a car or truck.  Maybe something horizontal
can be setup in the bed of a pick up truck?  In general HF antennas for
vehicles do not perform very well - but they are better than nothing.

There are portable NVIS HF antennas available that can be setup rather
quickly.  Perhaps this is something to be done when he arrives at his
destination, and then call the base on HF?

Also keep in mind that HF radios typically cost over a thousand dollars
compared to maybe two hundred for a VHF radio.

Howard
N3ZH


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The following questions are asked to the amateur radio Emcomm 
> community... how can we work together on this?
> 
> THE TYPICAL SCENARIO
> It is a dark and stormy night...
> You are an amateur radio operator, volunteering with a relief 
> organization, for communication to set up shelters in a hurricane 
> disaster.
> 
> There has been no power in the area for 24 hours.
> There is no mobile phone service, and all the VHF/UHF repeaters and 
> digipeaters in the area are out of range or out of service.
> 
> It is 3AM. You are driving in your vehicle, half-way to your first 
> shelter destination, making your way on back roads. The main highway 
> is flooded. You use your chain saw to pass a downed tree. The road 
> ahead looks worse.
> 
> THE CALL
> The relief organization wants to call you now. 
> They have new information since you left on your mission, and they now 
> want to change your destination, to divert you to another shelter 
> location not far from your route. They want you to give the workers at 
> the other shelter a list of supplies that are on the way. They want 
> you to check the shelter's status. They want to know where you are, 
> and if you can possibly divert to the other shelter, so they won't 
> need to send out yet another expedition to the other shelter.
>  
> THE QUESTIONS
> How will the relief organization call you?
> How will they get the actual message to you?  
> How will they know where to route the message to be sure it gets to 
> you?
> How will they get urgent feedback from you?
>  
> THE BACKGROUND
> In the 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: High speed packet

[Bob Donnell]

Martin:

I'd bet you were thinking of ISA instead of IDE - and probably the dual
opto-SCC card developed by your countrymen back then.  

Ross:  

JNOS is probably the most actively maintained version of NET which became
NOS, back in about 1990/1991 time frame.  Current versions of it can be run
under either Windows or Linux.  JNOS has KISS as one of its historic
interface methods.  As long as you have a more modern serial communications
chip in the computer you're using (16550-compatible) you should be able to
configure it to have adequate communications with the TNC at either 57.6kbps
or 115.5kbps, if the TNC supports it. 

The SV2AGW family of programs may also support that fast serial data rate -
I don't have an easy way to check where I'm entering this email.  The AGW
Packet Engine (AGWPE) definitly also understands how to do KISS.  My home
Airmail station is using a shim to talk to AGWPE, which is talking to an AEA
PK-96 using KISS, which is then interfaced with the radio.

Perhaps I've not been watching the list carefully - what over-the-air data
rate are you using that makes performing serial communications at 57.6kbps
an advantage?  Unless you're sending quite large AX.25 packets (1k or 2k) on
a radio link at 38.4kbps, there's probably not much performance advantage to
going that fast.  And if your on-air data rate IS that fast,
congratulations!

73

Bob, KD7NM

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of martin beekhuis
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:38 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: High speed packet

Hello Ross

Here we have already for years running the packetnode using ax25 drivers in
linux.  http://sharon.esrac.ele.tue.nl (sorry in dutch) Different speed up
to 76800 however we use SCC IDE controlers I think via the serial port ttyS0
ax0 will do also.

Before we switched from DOS-6.11 to linux we used NOS or NET

No GUI all very basic but reliable from 1987 till now

73 matin pa3dsc
  

>
> I am looking for a packet program, which I can use to operate my
Symek TNC3S at 57600
> but which has the kiss mode.
> Any one any ideas.
> 
> Packet was in favour a few years ago and all the programs I can find
are very old,  dont like the kiss mode,
> or cant talk to the TNC3S at 57600.
> 
> Regards to all
> Ross
> ZL1WN
> .
>





Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] No Moving Parts (was Fast ARQ Hardware)

[Bob Donnell]

I think part of the problem is that in the marketplace, high power PIN
diodes that have a carrier lifetime for operation down to 1.5 MHz, and can
also handle a couple of hundred watts, don't appear to be easy to find.
It's probably one of those problems where the market has moved to higher
frequencies, and the parts manufacturers don't mass-manufacture the parts
that HF applications need.  It's either that, or we need to figure out what
the military HF fast-ARQ high-power radios use, then convince the radio
manufacturers that they need to use the same design approach.  Of course,
the military might be using seperate transmit and receive antennas.  I know
there's at least one company out there that manufactures broad-band
wide-dynamic-range low-noise-figure RF->fiberoptic->RF conversion, so the
receive antenna can be "losslessly" connected to the receiver over a
distance of miles.  That approach eliminates T/R switching.  Not practical
on a city lot though  
 
73, Bob, KD7NM

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brown
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:43 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] No Moving Parts (was Fast ARQ Hardware)


Tim, I wondered the same thing but my experience with various rigs is
limited.  When I got my TS-2000 I was surprised with the relay switching it
does.  

Perhaps the devices that can replace the old RF switching relay are not so
long-lived?  At any rate they also have a finite lifespan so we should take
that into consideration when considering fast switching modes.

Howard K5HB


- Original Message 
From: Tim N9PUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 8:56:40 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fast ARQ Hardware



This is a sidebar to the current discussion but I've always been 
surprised at the amount of mechanical T/R switching that goes on in 
modern transceivers vs. a "no moving parts" approach.

Tim, N9PUZ

Howard Brown wrote:

> You are an engineer so you know that there is a finite limit to the 
> number of times a rig can switch until the switching devices fail.



 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes

[Bob Donnell]

Recollection is that the SignalLink has its own internal VOX circuit, so can
be independent of the VOX settings of the rig - except if the user makes the
mistake of turning VOX on in their rig, and the rig has a longer delay time
than the SignalLink does - which is likely.

Either way, I cringed when I heard that the SignalLink uses VOX, with no
direct control option.  But hey, I'm one of those that has VHF/UHF radios
and TNC's that are fast enough to reliably work 1200 baud packet with 40 ms
of TXDelay.

73, Bob, KD7NM
Operating in the land where one can send a ack packet while other's slow
radios are still locking their PLL's up...

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes

Hello to all,

About "slow" asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet
there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because
due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers,
and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margins (several hundreds
of ms or even seconds depending of the mode or the number of repeaters used
in Pax, for example). So this delay is not critical.
And as Rick said, it is a positive point about asynchronous ARQ modes which
are flexible. Moreover they are economical as they transmitted only when
requested and not everytime (transmitting padding characters).

However, for quick ARQ modes (as RFSM2400 or  110A) it is certainly an other
story, as the margins might be very low...and, moreover, I'm not very sure
that the VOX delay is really constant... It might depend on a filter
associated with a threshold. The delay with which the threshold will be
switched will depend on the sound level at the input.

The best is the direct switching from the serial port, then the Cat system
and afterwards the VOX system.

73
Patrick


- Original Message -
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes


>> Sholto Fisher wrote:
>> I can't believe it makes any significant
>> difference at least for ALE400 FAE.
>
> Hi Sholto,
>
> Whether you believe it or not, that's
> up to you. But the math doesn't lie,
> and neither does the oscilloscope.
>
> IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your
> transmission, for whatever mode, should
> be returned to the manufacturer for refund :)
>
> 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 




Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Check our other Yahoo Groups
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor

[Bob Donnell]

Looks interesting.  I wonder if enough information will be made available to
allow duplicating the modem under other operating systems and platforms.
Hopefully, the development team is actually doing parallel development for
use in *nix environments.

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:05 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1

Re: [digitalradio] Newbie ? PDA instead of computer?

[Bob Donnell]

Hi Mike,

I suspect that the USB port on your phone will not be useful for using the 
phone to control anything.  That's because most USB devices are not 
configurable to act as USB host devices.  Most likely, your phone is in the 
same category - it's able to be supported by a host computer, as a client, but 
not able to be configured itself to act as a host.

If the phone is able to be configured as a host, then you could potentially do 
serial port control of a TNC, or the PTT signal of a Rigblaster, but only if 
the phone also knows how to be the host for a serial port USB adapter.

Using the sound ports on the phone are probably the more likely possible means 
of connection.  The use of VOX for EMCOMM generally is intended to apply to 
actual live-microphone circumstances, which if you have the SignalLink plugged 
into the speaker/mic connector on the radio, probably doesn't apply, since it 
the radio will still be in PTT mode, and the SignalLink will generate the PTT 
signal.

If you elected to use the internal VOX in the radio, there are a couple of 
ramifications:  One is that you'd want to make sure that plugging connectors 
into the speaker/mic jacks on the radio disables the radion's internal 
microphone.  You would want to test it to make sure that with the radio set 
for VOX, that talking loudly near it doesn't trigger the transmitter.  The 
other is that the VOX delay has to be minimized as much as possible, if you're 
going to be using packet.  Further, for other ARQ modes, the VOX will almost 
assuredly be too slow - it's unlikely that the radio itself will handle T/R 
switching times, with or without VOX.

Hope that gives you an overview of what are likely hurdles to overcome, or 
that may not be possible to overcome.

73, Bob, KD7NM


On Thursday 31 July 2008 09:38:04 Mike Souza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’m just starting to explore digital radio and have some basic questions. 
> Setting up my old Kenwood HF rig looks easy enough but let’s try something
> a bit harder.  I’d like to setup a fully portable, battery operated, 2m
> digital system based on the following equipment:
>
> FT-60R HT
> AT&T – Tilt (aka HTC TyTN II, aka HTC Kaiser, aka HTC-8900) Phone/PDA
> Mystery box(es)
>
> My goal is to use my smart phone as the terminal or computer replacement
> without using a cell connection or Bluetooth – PDA mode only to save
> battery life.
>
> The phone has a mini-usb connector with connections for mic and speakers. 
> I’ve looked at using PocketDigi on the PDA but I'd like to know about other
> options.
>
> So do I use ?:
> 1: Small TNC: Kantronics KPC-3+ running on 9v cell
> 2: SignaLink SL-1+ sound card/interface
> 3: West Mountain Radio RIGblaster nomic
>
> Pros/Cons?
> 1: Standard TNC functionality (I assume) but requires terminal mode on PDA.
>  How do I do that without using the phone?   The phone’s OS has TTY
> support.
>
> 2: SignaLink uses VOX technology for switching.  Not recommended for emcomm
> work.
>
> 3: What software, if any, would work on the PDA to control a RIGblaster? 
> Is PocketDigi the only game in town on PDAs?
>
> I’m assuming a direct connection to the PDA will be needed via the mini-usb
> port.  I really, really don’t want to go Bluetooth.  The FT-60 does support
> digital operation but does not have a built-in TNC.
>
> I do some field work with the Red Cross on occasion and I’d rather not drag
> a lap top around when my phone has more than enough computing power and
> much longer battery life when used only in PDA mode.  This kind of setup
> would have solved a big problem I had working on Katrina.
>
>
> KI6PDJ
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Diagnosing issues with dropped PC

[Bob Donnell]

One of the other things I'd do, sooner rather than later, is to remove the 
hard drive from that PC, and either install it in another PC (like the ham 
shack machine) or in a USB hard drive enclosure, and see if the drive is 
recognized at all on the other PC.  If it is, then copy over to the other PC  
everything on it that you consider not replaceable, while you can.  The drive 
may not be dead, but if it's in any way physically damaged, it's only going to 
get worse, never better, and it's demise will probably happen pretty quickly.  
If it's actually not damaged, at least you got a backup of the important 
stuff, something very few home PC users actually do.

Hope that helps, and 73

Bob, KD7NM

On Monday 21 July 2008 19:27:23 Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Please excuse the non-ham question but hopefully folks here will have
> an idea or two.
>
>
> One of my household PCs (not the ham PC thankfully) was dropped during
> a move to another room .  Out spilled the memory cards , wireless PCI
> card, and the CPU heatsink fan.  After reinstalling  I get the PC to
> briefly boot up and then it shuts it's self down.   The shutdown is
> too quick to get a any beep codes, the first couple of attempts I
> heard a European siren-type noise for a few seconds.  Anyone here have
> any guesses what the issue would be?  I wonder about CPU overheating
> but the fan snapped nicely back in to place and the fan appears to
> work fine.  Any chance the bang to the PC would cause the CPU heatsink
> to lose a seal with the CPU?  I have not taken the CPU heatsink off
> yet, it looks firmly in pace  and apart from some dust in the heatsink
> fins, it looks OK.
>
> On the most recent attempt I took one of the memory sticks out and the
> PC boot-up lasted long enough to tell me that the "firmware had
> detected a change in memory configuration"  Then I briefly got the
> flashed message about pressing a F -Key if I wanted to access the BIOS
> .  Then it closed down.  I am taking that as a sign the hardrive was
> briefly accessed.
>
> I am wondering if one would get similar symptoms if the power supply
> was somehow damaged during the fall ?
>
> Andy
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

RE: [digitalradio] Open wire feed line length

[Bob Donnell]

Where practical and available, instead of using a split-core ferrites, use a
ferrite toroid.  The split core will never achieve the level of magnetic
coupling between the two halves that the toroid will, with its continuous
magnetic structure, and all else being equal, that makes the toroid a better
supressor.  Adding more turns through either one helps two, as the
inductance scales by the square of the number of turns.  
 
The control cable and coax for my screwdriver HF mobile antenna went to the
front bumper by way of the engine compartment.  By wrapping several turns of
each cable through a ferrite toroid, one commonly used for HF baluns, I was
able to essentially eliminate the ignition system RFI and the electrical
noise from the screwdriver antenna, located inside the antenna.  It also
allowed me to operate using this antenna on 6M, something it was designed to
do, without having the RF overload the engine CPU or sensors.
 
Further, on 20M your ground wire is close to a quarter wavelength from
ground - which causes it to create a fairly high impedance against ground.
You might be able to benefit from a tuned ground, or if possible, run 1 or 2
1/4 wave counterpoise wires from the tuner, off along the baseboards of the
room, to create a lower impedance RF at the tuner, and provide a path for
the stray 20M RF currents that's not by way of your radio coax and cables to
the computer, etc.  MFJ makes an "artificial ground" that might be employed
if none of these other things works out.  I'd try to find one to borrow
before pony up cash for one though.
 
73, Bob, KD7NM

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:39 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Open wire feed line length


I have used that multiband antenna configuration both at my home station
(140' doublet, 450 ohm ladder line, 1500 watts) and when travelling (70'
doublet, 300 ohm TV twinlead, 100 watts). My experience:
 
1. Balanced tuners (e.g. the Johnson Matchbox) work better than an
unbalanced tuner and a balun. MFJ recently introduced a balanced tuner; I
haven't examined its schematic, but it sure looks like a Johnson Matchbox on
the outside.
 
2. If you use an unbalanced tuner and an external balun, minimize the
unbalanced connection length between the tuner and balun. My travel tuner is
a small MFJ unit with a built-in balun, and it works very well
 
3. I almost always end up iteratively trimming the feedline length to enable
the tuner to find a good match on all bands; I don't know of any effective
formula or rule of thumb that would eliminate this process, so I just start
with a lot more feedline than is physically needed and lop off 3' at a time
until the tuner is happy everywhere.
 
For RFI with a PC peripheral, I'd start by shortening your tuner-to-balun
connection. If that doesn't help, then I'd wrap the peripheral-to-PC cable
around a split rectangular ferrite. These were available from Radio Shack
and are generally available at ham fests; I'm not sure who sells them now,
but Google should find them. 
 
 73,
 
 Dave, AA6YQ
 
 
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of w4lde
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; TowerTalk
Subject: [digitalradio] Open wire feed line length



After reading several articles both on and off the WEB regarding a 
center fed antenna, only one article mentioned a recommended length for 
the feed line.

My shack is located on the second floor of a new home, (24') #8 ground 
wire to 8' ground stake with a further connection to the common ground 
point for the power and the rebar in the pored walls and flooring of the 
basement, telephone and cable. I plan on additional ground rods around 
the property and at a new tower. In a new home so progress is on-going.

The 1:1 current balum used to convert the 450 ohm balance line is 
external to the tuner, use about two feet of coax from the balum to the 
tuner.

Antenna is cut for 80 meters and using about 60-70 ft of line to center 
of the antenna. Where the antenna lines leave the shack is about four 4 
ft from the location inside of the rig and floor mounted PC.

I use the antenna on all bands until such time I complete a new tower 
installation. I want to minimize stray RF around the shack since I rely 
on a PC and digital sound card as my primary source for ham 
enjoyment. I have already had some problems with a USB keyboard that I 
think may have been effected by RF when running over 50 watts on 20 
meters only.

One article recommended odd multiples of a wave length is desirable at 
the lowest operating frequency while other articles don't address this.

I am having no problem with a match using the tuner on all bands 80-6 
meters.

Have used the center fed antenna since 1976 but always had the shack on 
the ground level and had a good and effective ground sy

RE: [digitalradio] Re: newbie wanting to make first packet contact

[Bob Donnell]

Hi Doug,

Before you commit a lot of effort to learning about how to use "dumb
digipeating", i.e. using "via", try to find out if there are still
operational "nodes" in your area.  These are generally much more efficient
at moving traffic, because they are less dependent on every single packet
transmission being received and passed along, through the potentially
several digipeaters.  

Nodes work by first accepting a connection from your station, then you
commmanding them to either connect to another node, or to a destination
station.  They maintain internal tables of the means to reach other nodes,
and unless disabled, can be commanded to list the other network nodes that
they know how to reach.  When you command a node to connect to another
station, be it a node or an end user, the node manages that connection as a
separate AX.25 connection from the one it's maintaining for you - so any
retries happen without direct digipeating - which reduces the retry
interval, and greatly enhances the reliability of the data transfer.

In the hey day of packet, some nodes would know how to reach as many as 100
other nodes.  And by using dedicated linking channels, the end user you
reach might not be on the same frequency as you are.  There's less
interested in creating and maintaining packet networks these days, probably
as a result of the ease and ubiquity of the internet, at least as one
significant factor.  

I was pretty involved with creating the packet network that started from the
Seattle area, and eventually reached into British Columbia, SW Oregon, and
as far east as the Rockies, or so, in Montana.  On that network, one of the
operating precepts was that user access nodes be on different frequencies,
so that they didn't hear (and hence interfere with) other stations at a
distance.  A "backbone" was created to tie all of the user access nodes
together.  We also made good use of repeaters for packet - they help in that
everyone can hear everyone else, to know when the channel is busy, and
allows everyone to use a beam, to hit the repeater with the best signal
possible.  We did this at 1200 baud as well as 9600 baud.  Then we did some
of these projects all over again, as we moved to using TCP/IP over AX.25 -
uaing automated routing based on the RIP protocol, and having as many as 20
IP lans in Western Washington.  'Twas a fun time.  Now packet here is mostly
used by Emergency Communications support activities.

73, Bob, KD7NM

 

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of wizhippo
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:41 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: newbie wanting to make first packet contact

Thank you.

I found one of my problems was my TNC.  Have that fixed now.

Now I just have to get the hang of how using via's work to get to a
destination.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
> 
> >> I would love an example of how to go about making a qso or 
> >> connecting to a BBS or doing email.
> If you have the BBS callsign + SSID, the most simple is to use Mixw or 
> Multipsk.
> 
> In Multipsk 4.9, after selecting Packet+APRS:
> * put yout callsign in the "Sender" field ,
> * put the BBS callsign (+SSID) in the "Destination" field (VA1XYZ-5 
> for example),
> * push on "Connect" and wait for the automatic connection,
> * when connected, type "H" (for "Help") and then type a carriage
Return to 
> have the list of the commands.
> 
> Then for details go to the Multipsk help (apart to this basic use,
you have 
> many options and possibilities).
> 
> 73
> Patrick
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "wizhippo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:51 PM
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: newbie wanting to make first packet 
> contact
> 
> 
> > Sorry i should have added this.
> >
> > I am VA3DJX Doug, located in Brantford, Ontario
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Moore"  wrote:
> >>
> >> From the info you provided, it's kinda hard to tell exactly what it
> > is you want to do.
> >>
> >> Do you want to try 2m packet?  HF packet?  Satellite Packet?
> >>
> >> Who you are and where you are would be helpful also.
> >>
> >> Jeff  --  KE7ACY
> >> CN94ib
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: wizhippo
> >>
> >>
> >> I love digital modes. I have worked psk31, rtty, sstv etc but never 
> >> packet.
> >>
> >> I have installed awgpe and UISS and have it working from what I can 
> >> tell. I can monitor the packets.
> >>
> >> Now I want to make contact. I have read lots of articles on the net 
> >> but none that have been clear enough or modern enough to get me a
> > contact.
> >>
> >> I would love an example of how to go about making a qso or 
> >> connecting to a BBS or doing email.
> >>
> >> If there is anyone willing to help me out that would be great.
> >> Unfortuanlty no one in our local club does any packet work to help.
> >>

RE: [digitalradio] Updated "APRS_easy_with_Multipsk" paper

[Bob Donnell]

On the North American continent, the APRS 2-meter frequency is 144.390 MHz.
APRS stations don't operate in the connected mode, so you're not going to
connect to other users.  However with appropriate software (and there are
several APRS-specific programs out there) you can exchange one-line messages
with some stations you see.  Many mobile stations are using what's known as
"dumb tracker" setups, where there is no computer or display present - these
stations can't see (and won't acknowledge) messages sent to them.  They
simply beacon their positions, as they move about.
 
73, Bob, KD7NM

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [digitalradio] Updated "APRS_easy_with_Multipsk" paper


Hello to all,

For the ones interested by APRS, I have updated the English paper
"APRS_easy_with_Multipsk" with examples of use of digipeaters.
It is based on the new 4.9 Multipsk version.

In this document it will be found 4 snapshots of Multipsk screen with
indications to the " how to operate ", and which show the basic functions of
APRS in Packet 1200 bauds mode (QRG : 144.800 Mhz in FM):
 1) APRS reception
 2) Map load from the APRS window (+ management of the maps)
 3) APRS transmission
 4) APRS repeaters management for APRS transmission + APRS digipeater
function

To load this paper directly, paste this adress in your Internet Explorer or
equivalent: http://f6cte. 
free.fr/APRS_easy_with_Multipsk.doc
Download the file.

73
Patrick

 

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Microphone putting audio into PSK transmissions

[Bob Donnell]

Hi Dave,

Rather than switching all eight lines (so you might be able to use a cheaper
and easier to wire switch) I'd look at which lines are used for what
purpose, and make some intellegent decisions about what you're using, and
what needs to be switched.  For example, you shouldn't need to switch any
ground connections.  You probably don't need to switch the PTT connection,
though if you key the wrong mike, (except on AM/FM) you won't get any power
output.  If you don't use the up/down functions then they don't need to be
connected.  If you can get your list of required connections down to 3 or 4,
depending on the switch, it could be a single-deck switch.  Or you may only
find a switch with 12 (or 6) positions, but the ability to put a "stop" in
the switch, to limit rotation.  That switch will have more decks, with some
(to many) terminals unused.  You'll also want to consider whether RF
suppression will be needed - such as if you use a plastic enclosure, which
(unless it's sprayed with shielding paint) will lack shielding, and could
create an RF feedback problem for you.  Just things to consider.  Unless you
like learning the hard way!  

73, Bob, KD7NM

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave 'Doc' Corio
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:20 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Microphone putting audio into PSK
transmissions

Well, my plan is to use two 8-pin mic jacks on a small enclosure, with
an 8-wire line out to the mic input of the 746. A rotary wafer switch with 8
poles and three positions should allow me to switch between the hand-held
mic, the headset mic, or a blank position coresponding to "no mic". When I'm
going to run digital modes, I'd simply select the "no mic" position so that
room audio doesn't get transmitted. In either of the other two positions,
for SSB operation, all pins would be active on the selected mic, and PTT,
audio, and controls should be functional. I don't see that as being sloppy
at all.

Tnx es 73
Dave KB3MOW


expeditionradio wrote:
>
> To mute the mic audio, you only need to short the microphone hot pin 
> to ground. A simple single pole single throw switch (normally open) 
> will work. However, you will need to manually switch it each time you 
> transmit... and perhaps that is rather sloppy station control.
>
> Bonnie
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> , Dave 'Doc' Corio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I guess unless someone tells me that a rotary wafer switch won't do 
> > the trick for me, I'm going to try to build one.
> >
> > Tnx es 73
> > Dave KB3MOW
> >
> > > CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE MOD:
> > > http://hflink.com/icom/microphone/hm36/
> 
>
>  



Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked

Check our other Yahoo Groups
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
Yahoo! Groups Links