Re: [digitalradio] Re: I second the motion
Mark T Egan wrote: Let's continue the experiment in the true spirit of HAM radio. So far no one has tabled an actual piece of legal document stating the legality of the mode. So continue to use the mode until otherwise told. Mark (VK2KLJ) I'm with you Mark, Unfortunately I think that Jose now has to suffer yet more from various directions. This is why I still point out that Jose is one person and the people who have taken against, in one form or another, are a multiple, so don't be surprised if the one seems to be raging against the many at times. Even if Jose seems to raging against you remember that 'you' are now just one amongst many against him. If the roles were reversed, how would 'you' feel against so many people who were, or seemed to be, against you? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
Dave AA6YQ wrote: However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS operating frequencies on 20m
KH6TY wrote: Julian, In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150. The current UK band plans can be found at http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/bandplans/ There's an online version and an Excel version that you can download. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
KH6TY wrote: Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of speech on the subject seems to be curtailed. Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want to vet my posts to this group? My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were allowed to be posted. I wonder if this will be allowed? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote: Though I have some doubts that there actually was a debate. There have been arguments as in all debates. But the figurative meaning of the arguments was getting the overhand over the literal meaning of arguments in a debate...HIHI Marc, on many occasions I have had to decide will anything I say alter their opinion and, would anything they say alter mine? If the answer to both parts is 'no' then there is no debate, it's just an argument where neither side will back down. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! Unfortunately, Marc, it has happened so many times in the past. In the end, it all boils down to 'do you want to use it, or do you not want to use it?' If you do, then do, if you don't, then don't... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Alan Barrow wrote: And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. And so it was in the UK over the endless debates about Packet/AX:25, PSK31 and the use of satellite transponders from VHF to UHF. In the end, all of those debates were ended by a 'don't be so silly' statement that changed not one rule, but told people to 'play nice', in effect. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
KH6TY wrote: Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be stupid. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I misunderstood, when you were talking about VHF/UHF I read that as if you were suggesting that 1 baud was being given only a 20M frequency. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
sholtofish wrote: With a 500Hz narrow filter certainly it would be far enough away but I suspect that many of the monitoring stations might be using a wider bandwidth, especially the automatic monitors. I know for a fact the FAROS program requires a wider bandwidth than 500Hz and I remember reading somewhere it needs about 2KHz for optimal detection of the NCDXF signals. I don't know the reason why but if so then it is conceivable that ROS on 14.101 is indeed causing a problem. If they are using USB and are looking to detect in a 2kHz bandwidth, as some programs do, then they should be setting their dial to 14.099MHz to cover 14.100MHz. If they are setting 14.100MHz and covering up to 14.102 then they are not using their system correctly. Let's assume that they are using it correctly from 14.099 to 14.101 then the 1st ROS tone, for a dial setting of 14.101MHz, will be on 14.102.4MHz at least 1.4kHz higher than their highest required frequency, so I still don't see how it is interfering. However, it's academic now that they have another 1 kHz of separation. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID MSG-ID with SDR
sholtofish wrote: I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an SDR radio? I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go. Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly, if you have step by step instructions that would help. If it's reasonably straight forward to do I may have it configured later this evening. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. That has always been true Jose. Unfortunately, some people think that they either have 'the right of might' or 'previous occupancy' rights on a frequency. The right of might involves using high power and big antennas and, I think, comes from SSB and CW on the 'DX' bands. (Here I speak as an enthusiast for CW as well as data modes, but not for imposing your own will in either case) Previous occupancy now seems to come from various other modes. As if we were here first was an argument for excluding other people who have the same rights to use the bands that they have. 'They' might say that 'We' are interfering with them, but equally 'We' might say that 'They' are interfering with us. After all, no one owns the bands. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM
Tony wrote: Sholto, The silence is deafening... I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network ( www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've witnessed. I'm very surprised... I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been trying to persuade people to move up the band a bit anyway. So, the deafening silence has been the art of persuasion rather than big boots stomping up and down on a new experimental mode. I do hope that you will be figuring out who and what that packet or TOR mode is that is below 14.101, and nearer the beacon frequency and stomping on that as well? In fact, if ROS is on a dial frequency of 14.101MHz, and like most digital modes it transmits HF of that frequency by some offset, probably about 1.2kHz or so, wont it be far out of the passband of even a wide/normal CW filter? If so, please explain how you are so sure it is ROS that is causing a problem. Even if the '1st tone' was some 400Hz above the dial frequency, that is still 1.4kHz, and only transmitting that 400Hz tone infrequently, so, again, I would have thought way above a 'standard' CW filter width... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
KH6TY wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?
Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 06:12:07 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. LPDA? I googled, but couldn't find anything related to digitalradio. It's not specific to Digital, but I guess useful for some people using digital modes? Anyway, there's an online calculator at http://www.changpuak.ch/electronics/lpda.html If anyone is interested. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. Jose, I should give up on this discussion if I were you. The genie is out of the bottle and you wont be able to get it back in on this forum, whatever the technical arguments are. My advice would be to forget the debate, let those in the USA sort out their own administration problems by *them* petitioning the ARRL and/or the FCC (not sure which way round it has to go) if they want to use the mode. If I were you I'd just concentrate efforts on developing the program and let those of us that are fortunate that we don't live in the USA use and develop the mode. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
graham787 wrote: Up to 1-9-1 but dont see sound card select ? is there a way yet ? No, not yet. You still have to set the sound card that you want to use as the Windows default sound card. Jose, the program owner and developer, has said that he intends to add the option to select the sound card from within the program, but I think he's been busy with a couple of other issues. Let's face it, the 1st ever recorded QSO using ROS was completed on the 18th of this month, just 6 days ago, so I think we, the users, do need to be a little bit patient. HI. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say the rest is history. John, W0JAB I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)? He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that I worked at when in my late teens and I used to pop in to see him when I could. Mike now lives in Shropshire and it's been a long time since I last spoke to him, so not sure if he still uses AMTOR or RTTY anymore. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
KH6TY wrote: Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. I've just made a suggestion on the ROS Yahoo Group that the discussion may warrant its own Yahoo Group to debate the ins and outs of this question. It may be that, in the not so distant future, debates from others who are pro and anti the mode, based upon their reading of a variety of licence conditions in various countries, could then be directed to the area for debating these issues. Thus leaving the Digitalradio and ROSMODEM groups free to discuss the practicalities and enjoyment of using digital modes and ROS free from the endless debate about what is 'Illegal, immoral, or makes you fat'. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Unfortunately John, you cannot so easily put the genie back into the bottle. This is why I think you now need your own Yahoo Group to debate these questions, as it seems to be a USA centric debate that is almost taking over two Yahoo Groups some of whose users, I would suggest on my own behalf only, are now getting a bit tired of the debate. If you had your own group those who were interested could join and debate, organise their lobby groups, both for and against, rehearse their arguments and make their pontifications without troubling those who either could care less, or just want to get on with using Digitalradio modes on the air. Or, would the rest of the users of Digitalradio like to see this debate go on, and on, and on, as I think it will from my personal experience of such debates within the UK Amateur Radio population. Most notably the old uk.rec.radio mail group of fond, if acidic, memory... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Thanks Jose .. Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is what is causing such an uproar that is eliminating the use of your program on HF frequencies here in the USA. Oh dear, John, If you think that the people that oppose this in your country will just roll over now that Jose has made a statement that ROS is no longer Spread Spectrum, then I think that you are in for a bad surprise... In all my Amateur Radio life I have come to realise that some Radio Amateurs are intent on telling other Radio Amateurs what they (the others) can and cannot do. ROS has stirred up the 'You cannot do that' crowd and they have gained a victory in getting someone to say that it is illegal. The idea that Jose now says that it isn't what it was that he said it was originally will cut no ice with them, if I am any judge of the politics of Amateur Radio. The cry of 'It's illegal, it's immoral, or it makes you fat' has been raised and taken up by certain people who 'know best' what you all need to do in the USA. Now they have 1st blood in that it seems that 'someone' has come out and said it is illegal (whether or not they have the authority to say that is immaterial, someone with referent power has said it) and now you are on the defensive in trying to say that it was all a big mistake, Jose never meant to say what he said and it's all legal, honest... Until the UK licence was effectively deregulated, we used to get these debates all the time. In fact we still get them when people don't read the new conditions and refer back to old conditions, but that's just because it takes a while for some people to realise that the rules have changed. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Hi HI Dave .. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the author claimed it to be spread spectrum. It makes the transmission of spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. 73 sir Please, don't call me 'sir', in modern day UK, I don't call anyone 'Sir'... That may now be a cultural difference that I have to confront when I visit the Dayton Hamconvention later this year, but few people call other people 'Sir' over here now, unless it's a deference in a shop where a shop assistant is trying to pretend that the customer is King. As in Yes, Sir, what would Sir like? The pin-stripes might suit Sir best You are probably correct in saying that this whole debate was based upon a misunderstanding, but unfortunately that misunderstanding has now grown. Which is why I still suggest that, until it is properly resolved, it is probably off topic and needs its own forum. Regards Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
silversmj wrote: I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC Mi Mike, Not been involved with Chip64, so I cannot comment. However your comments about apparent bandwidth, if we are intending to be good neighbours, is valid, n my opinion. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: So sorry Dave IN my country, it is still an expression of respect. Here we go with those pesky language barriers again ... HiHi I will try to be more irreverent, condescending, or rude when addressing you in the future . LOL John KE5HAM Please do, I appreciate your more open and honest approach. I remain, as ever, your most obedient and humble servant. You see how it can go? Believe me, English understated condescension of you when we seem to be so very polite is an art form. LOL Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A
Steve wrote: I keep returning to DM780 as my main digi mode program. It does NOT support Olivia 32/500 or 64/500. I'm running v5.0 beta. I think one of the older releases had an option to set the tones/baud parameters separately. Version 4.1 of DM780 does allow these Olivia modes to be selected. That's what I use if I'm going to use Olivia. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
Steve wrote: The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters. On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable. Are there any radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off' buttons difficult to operate? ;-) Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW as well, saying that people with digital modes can, and should, listen 1st and look at the frequencies around them, the same should be true for CW operators. In my opinion. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
Toby Burnett wrote: Now Dave, C'mon I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II The on / off button is a challenge. Loljust messing with you now. No offence. On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to answer a QRL back in cw, providing you at least have 2 wires and a paper clip to slap together if no key hi hi. (I do have some keys now, but I used a paper clip on the desk for my 1st cw qso ) Also isn't there something about sending your ID in SSB /CW anyway. I also read this and thought, hey most digi mode software will send an cw id and or you could use computer generated cw to check if the frequency is in use. Yes, I had an IC706MKIIG for a long while. Maybe it was the poor location of the filter button that made me get rid of it? HI. Here in the UK the requirement for CW ID was removed several years ago and the latest UK licence is a much simpler and very cut down document. There's not even a legal requirement to keep a logbook anymore and the /M or /A or /P suffixes are 'recommendations' that people 'may' use. These are mentioned in the notes to the licence, not even in the main body... If anyone wants to see a modern UK licence, a draft copy is available on the OFCOM website, go to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/amateur/Licences/samplelicence07.pdf Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
Toby Burnett wrote: Dave, I knew about the logbook but not the cwid or /m /p etc hmm. I am getting out of touch. The only time I can see not using a log book though is when /m but that's just me. I love looking back over the past 6 years at old qso's and seeing if I have a (new one hi hi ) I do tend to keep a record of stations that I work, but I no longer log every CQ call, as we used to have to do. I guess it's a case of not being a legal requirement, but a nice record to have. OK on 2M, it can be the same down here at times. 2M SSB only seems to get going in the summer and those of us that prefer CW tend to have to wait for Aurora and Meteor Scatter to really kick in. Anyway, I think were getting off topic for this thread now. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
KH6TY wrote: 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Glenn L. Roeser wrote: I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good as using JT65a With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is a very slow throughput though. Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV) You have to be the patient sort, maybe a WSPR QSO fan, to use ROS 1 baud. It does, however, allow you to nip down, get a pint and get back before the other person has finished calling CQ though. :-) Yet to receive an email confirmation for 1 baud as yet. Has anyone received one from me for 1 baud yet? I've see full email addresses for at least one station, IW1GJJ, tonight. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
KH6TY wrote: Jose, I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month. I'd be interested in those results as I hope to fix a problem on my 1296MHz antenna soon, and aircraft reflection (Doppler) is definitely a problem on many other data modes on 23cm. Now, if we could crack extreme doppler, like Aurora on VHF or rain/hail/snow scatter on 10 and 24GHz, that would be a real step forward... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking
Andy obrien wrote: It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes... nothing that says gee...this is way better . It is GOOD, and a mode to add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app. The software interface is very nicely done, Jose should be congratulated on this. I'll place a few modes in a robustness category for us all. I'm not sure things tend to boil down that way, to be honest Andy, Otherwise why so much RTTY on the bands? Even AX:25 is getting a bit long in the tooth now, but people still struggle on with it... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
sholtofish wrote: Hi Andy, I have a real G-TOR modem here so will test with you. I remember a friend of mine, back in the mid-1980s I think, running AMTOR. He graduated from RTTY and ran something like an FT-101ZD with a dual beam scope showing when the two tone signals were correctly spaced. I guess RTTY goes back even further though. Then Packet (AX:25) came on the scene and I went for that instead. Although I did own a KAM+ at one time, I never did get the hang of the TOR modes. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Version 1.0.6 crashing
My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Version 1.6.5 crashing
Dave Ackrill wrote: My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument Sorry, that should, of course, be version 1.6.5! I'm getting my program versions mixed up... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug
Andy obrien wrote: It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com This is happened at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal. Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ? Thanks Andy, Looking at the screen grab I made of what was showing when the error occurred, I don't see two emails merged, but the last email address was missing the final '' and some garbled letters are showing. So, maybe ROS tripped up over that as a problem? I'll upload a copy of my screen grab to the pictures area. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] 10M open at the moment
Just worked ZS6WAB using JT65A on 10M. Am calling CQ using ROS on 28.300MHz if anyone is interested in trying out the mode on that band? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan
k...@arrl.net wrote: I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful to have a guide to where they might be. Obviously, if the frequency is already in use by someone else, or there's too much noise on a particular frequency, then people will move a way off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. And for the attended stations? Given the 2.7kHz definition, attended stations would use the same area. I think the band plans only mention 'unattended' to indicate where 'unattended' stations, if allowed, would be found. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Ok so what if it is... This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this has happen. My question is where do they all come from? Why would someone take the time to write the program if it can't be used? Probably because, in other countries, it isn't illegal and we are quite happily using it. Seeing the following on 80M at 1 Baud. RX: 20:47 UTC 0.5 Hz. IW7DF= DL5SDG JN48KQ OOO STOP RX: 20:51 UTC 1.5 Hz. CQ DL5SDG JN48KQ STOP RX: 20:52 UTC 2.4 Hz. DL5SDG TF3HZ HP94AD OOO STOP RX: 20:54 UTC 2.0 Hz. TF3HZ D RX: 20:55 UTC -25.4 Hz. CQ DF2JP JO31JG STOP RX: 20:57 UTC 2.4 Hz. DL5SDG TF3HZ HP94AD OOO 73 STOP Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16
Andy obrien wrote: My station is listening for ROS signals on 14080 USB (dial). Oh, and I meant to ask if you were using 16 or 1 baud Andy? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16
Andy obrien wrote: My station is listening for ROS signals on 14080 USB (dial). Seems to be too much RTTY about at the moment as well. One of the WARC bands might be quieter? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16
Andy obrien wrote: I missed their rumblings, but did not know anyone was using ROS near the JT65A campsite, I will be tuned to 14080 until Man U and Everton match starts. It's the usual doom and gloom and rumblings about the frequency chosen. Some people see any new thing as a potential threat, and it's always a conspiracy against them personally, of course... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: R: [digitalradio] QRV 18105 ROS 1 and 16
iw1awh wrote: Hi DAVE group ! Nice to work you this morning with this mode. I got your email too. Unfortunately there is too much qrm on 20m due to many rtty stations. Thanks for the contact Rick, Yes, I struggled with the RTTY as well but the move to 14.101 may help a bit. I just managed to crash my PC. I forgot that I get too much RF in the shack on 17M and if I run more than 20 Watts the PC shuts down! That's not the fault of ROS, it happens on PSK and JT65A as well of course, so I shall have to keep the power low until I sort out the RF problem here. Just going to TX on 18.105 with ROS a couple more times and then may go back to 14MHz to see if anyone is about on that band. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: AW: [digitalradio] A new Mode !
Siegfried Jackstien wrote: Okay guys in the group …. A new star is born :-D Now let´s make some on air tests … and … what about a simulation on a rf path simulator??? The 1st part is starting to happen, I've not got the capability to do the second, but I'm sure there are people who can. Dave (G0DJA) Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS M
DAVID wrote: WHEN I USE THE CQ MACRO THE OUTPUT HAS THE LETTER M IN FRONT OF MY CALL SIGN I CAN REMOVE IT BEFORE I TRANSMIT AND IT RUNS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE M That doesn't happen here. This is my CQ call TX 14:44 UTC CQ CQ CQ de G0DJA G0DJA G0DJA pse k Are you sure that you did not accidentally put an M in when you entered your callsign? If you are anything like me, I can often accidentally hit another key that is next to the one I want and The 'M' is just below the 'K' of course... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS
I've thought of another feature to add to the list. A button that stops transmission during a transmission period. The reason is I just came back to the PC and my 16 Baud 'CQ' call was loaded ready to go. However, whilst I was away, someone must have transmitted in 1 baud mode and, because my system was in 'Auto' it had changed to 1 baud. I did not realise this until I hit the PTT button and wondered why it was taking so long the transmit! Other than closing the program down and restarting it, I couldn't see a way to stop the transmission of a very long CQ string in 1 baud. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] ROS crashed
I managed to crash the program today. During a contact the program swapped over from 16 baud to 1 baud and clicking the baud button would not change the mode back to 16 baud. Then I kept getting an error message saying Tocando Limite Superior. When I clicked on 'OK' it just came back again. Each time I clicked OK it immediately came up again and the only way I could stop it happening was to shut ROS down by going to Applications and clicking on 'End Task' and restarting the program. I have now switched Symbol Rate from 'Auto' to 'Manual' in case it was someone transmitting in 1 baud that switched my system over to that rate instead of 16 baud. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file
W3NJ wrote: Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode. Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good to know what I'm listening for. Haven't heard anything unique at this point, just the few high-ender CW contesters, Winlink. tnx es 73 Bruce I'll fire up Spectrum Labs and see if I can collect a good sample for you Bruce. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file
Dave Ackrill wrote: W3NJ wrote: Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode. Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good to know what I'm listening for. Haven't heard anything unique at this point, just the few high-ender CW contesters, Winlink. I'll fire up Spectrum Labs and see if I can collect a good sample for you Bruce. I've thought of another way. I will turn up the volume on the monitor function of the Navigator and record that, which will avoid all the CW and other modes that tend to get captured as well... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote: Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /ROS Audio/ROS 1baud.WAV Uploaded by : g0dja dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk Description : ROS 1 Baud Beware! These is was recorded straight from ROS to Spectrum Labs using VAC, so they are very loud. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Dave Ackrill wrote: Beware! These is was recorded straight from ROS to Spectrum Labs using VAC, so they are very loud. Sorry, I changed what I was going to write as I realised I had not ticked the 'notify people' button for the 16 bit file. What that should say is Beware! These were recorded straight from ROS... I should read things back before I hit send! Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] ROS QRV now on 3600kHz
I'm leaving ROS monitoring 3600kHz for a while. I did receive this when I sent a CQ, but no callsigns RX: 17:17 UTC -7.8 Hz. My name is: BOB My QTH is: Durham,England, Locator: nz33 STOP Later I received a reception report email that said M0ZEM has received your Radio Message sent at: 17:16 UTC Received Message: 'CQ CQ CQ de G0DJA G0DJA G0DJA pse k My email is: d...@g0dja.co.uk d...@g0dja.co.uk d...@g0dja.co.uk' Operator Info: Callsign: M0ZEM Name: BOB E-mail: mo...@btinternet.com QTH: Durham,England Locator: nz33 Station: Kenwood TS-B2000 ROS Version: 1.6.3 Beta Signal Info: Symbol Rate: 16 bauds Frame Acquisition: 20/20 Final Acquisition: 15/16 Frequency Shift: 0.0 Hz Symbol Errors detected by Viterbi: 0/50 Metric: -5 dB Vumeter Level: -14 dB CPU Usage: 43 % --- So, I guess it must have been him, but I didn't get any callsign information at the time and he may have been trying to work someone else of course. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS
Toby Burnett wrote: Eaxctly the same thing happened to me yesterday David. I couldn't see a way other than closing the program. I'm sure Jose will update it soon. I'm glad it wasn't just me Toby. :-) I see ROS as a great opportunity to have an input to develop another great digital mode. I had the great honour of being able to help in the development of UI-View a few years ago and, I hope, added to the project by trying it and reporting what did, and did not, work. Unfortunately the developer of that program is no longer with us, but I think that ROS could be another very interesting development in digital communication. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode !
Hurray! Got it working this morning. :-) Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
David Boniface wrote: I have installed the program after using WinRAR to open the archive. However, when trying to run the program I get this error message Run-time error '53': File not found: Switch(16638-29712).ocx I got the Runtime error until I extracted the files to their own folder and ran it from there. I also got a 'file not found', but I had the same with another program I tried to install the other day, exactly the same file not found - something about a 5MHz log.msi file, and by cancelling the error message several times both programs eventually loaded up OK. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
nietorosdj wrote: Hi, tomorrow i will change PTT from COM1 to COM6, but i dont know if it'll run. Does any one know if it is possible to make the soundcard selectable and increase the options for the COM port? I use a US Interface Navigator, and computer control is on COM3 with PTT on COM4. so the switch that allows just COM1 or 2 isn't much use to me and I don't really like having to make the soundcard that I use for digital modes the Windows default either. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
Giedrius, LY2CG wrote: Some minutes before I had a QSO in ROS mode on 14080 with Dan, YO4CVV... Giedrius, LY2CG I'm listening at the moment but there's a loud RTTY signal just above 14.080MHz. Until I find my old home made opto coupler/audio isolator, I wont be able to transmit as I cant set the PTT to COM 4. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
nietorosdj wrote: Hi, With the New Version 1.6.2 you can select from COM1 to COM6. For the future versions, i will make soundcard selectable, no problem. Thank you all for testing ROS. I hear your suggestions. Thank you for that update, will save me going through my junk box looking for my old interface. HI. I'll leave ROS monitoring 14.080 as I have to do a bit more work and collect Kate from work. The ROS alarm just went off, so it looks like I can hear someone already. ;-) Cheers - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
Just got back in and found the following lines on the screen... RX: 13:41 UTC -46.9 Hz. iQ CQ CQ de YO4Ctp³;O4CVV YO4CVV pse k STOP RX: 13:50 UTC -7.8 Hz. CQ CQ CQ de WB2LMV WB2LMV WB2LMV pse k STOP So the RX side seems to be working. I'll see if I can put out a few CQs of my own later. It looks like it might be a good mode to try on 10, 17 or 12M as well. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !
Toby Burnett wrote: Dave, your the only other G station I see testing this. What are your thoughts on the 500hz digi mode band allocation and this type of signal, certainly blasted by rtty but cant help think we are doing the same? Hi Toby, I have to say that, given the 'width' of the transmitted signal that it would probably be better to move up to the area that the wider digi-modes use. As with all transmissions, you should listen before transmitting to make sure you are not clobbering someone else. However, it seems that courtesy isn't always given at times as I hear/see various modes and people transmitting on top of each other and, at times, even people using the same mode transmitting right on top of others. There were some bizarre transmissions on JT65a on 20M this morning... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Go here to download ROS
Andy obrien wrote: http://*rosmodem*.wordpress.com/ That URL will only work if you take out the '*' of course, as in http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode
Gary wrote: How do I select a specific sound card? Some of us are using external USB sound card devices for digital operation. At present it uses the Windows default soundcard, although this may change in future releases. So, you will need to open Control Panel, then open Sounds and Audio Devices and click on the Audio tab. There you will find a pair of drop down menus called Sound playback and Sound recording. Select the card you want to use, click Apply and close Sounds and Audio Devices and run RIO again. Now it should be using the sound card you selected. Personally I'm not keen on this system but the author (Sorry, I've not latched onto the authors name and I guess it was mentioned in an early post and I didn't pick up on it) did post a message here, when he uploaded V1.6.2 with the COM port additions, that selectable sound cards would come in a later release. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?
Andy obrien wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, N8FQ... http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of part 97 I am missing ? Andy K3UK I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia. I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than RIO does. Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of the song... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?
Dave Ackrill wrote: I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia. Sorry, I meant ROS of course. Mark it down as my senior moment for today. ;-) Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
KH6TY wrote: All, If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as Olivia and various other data modes... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Claudio wrote: HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply. claudio-LU2VC Sorry Claudio, things seemed to be getting quiet and I went to 30M using JT65a. Dave (G0DJA) Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
KH6TY wrote: Jose, We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out. I hate to say this, as I'm sure I'll be called all sorts of names that I don't deserve, but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European stations, as well as the US ones, in the first few years of this new mode, we might also attract less of the other people who seem to not know how to operate the mode, but seem intent on working the DX at any price... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Dave wrote: Jose (and all), My two-cents worth: Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS is not. It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. So, American Radio Amateurs are, now, more restricted than other Radio Amateurs in the world? Forgive me. Ever since I was a CBer the USA seemed to have less restrictive laws compared to here in the UK and now we've had more allocated bands than in the US and less restrictive modes than in the US. The land of the free? LOL Sorry, I couldn't resist this after all the years of being told that I was living under an oppressive government. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode !
Andy obrien wrote: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com is announcing a new mode, weak signal. Web site is down currently ...anyone tried the new mode ? You know me Andy, always a sucker for something different to try. ;-) Just downloaded the file and instructions and wondering where to start trying for a two way contact? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Introduction and question
sholtofish wrote: Following on from this thread and reading some of Peter's comments makes me wonder what method is best for 300 baud HF packet with a TNC? FSK or AFSK? Or won't it make any difference? Will FSK result in a wider bandwidth? The main advantage of FSK, so I am led to believe, is that some radios allow better filtering as standard for FSK than the SSB system used for AFSK. I don't think that either is, necessarily, wider bandwidth. Unless there's some problem with the audio drive for the 'A' in AFSK. Both should be the same in terms of baud rate and the spacing between the Mark and Space ratio, I would think. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode ! ROS QRV
Andy obrien wrote: I'M QRV now with this software... will look for you Dave. I failed at the 1st Fence Andy. Downloaded something to be able to cope with RAR files and I'm getting a runtime error when I try to run the executable. So, I obviously need to sort out some problem with running the exe file 1st. Dave (G0DJA) Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?
Andy obrien wrote: Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ? Why would it not be Andy? If it is Audio Phase Shift Keying then it's no different to PSK31, if it is more like WSJT then as long as JT65A (and all the other WSJT modes) are legal, then what makes this one any different? I know there's a debate in the USA about MCW, but ROS strikes me, at first viewing, as probably being PSK, or at least AFSK, and just as legal as all the PSK, AFSK type modes and RTTY using an audio soundcard system. I wonder if anyone asked if FSK RTTY was legal when the first RTTY terminal units were used with Amateur radios with FSK terminals provided, in the USA? ;-) Here in the UK some people tried to say that Packet (AX:25) was a 'code or cypher' which, at that time, was proscribed by the UK Amateur Licence. However, in the end, common sense prevailed and we were allowed to use Packet, and no rules were changed to allow that to happen... To go off topic a bit, in commerce companies look at the law and say what does this allow us to do, because it is not actually described as illegal, where as, in Amateur Radio, the mind set seems to be what can I say is illegal, because I don't like it personally and then other Radio Amateurs look at the rules to try and decide what they don't say is permissible and their immediate reaction is to ask some authority, which could probably care less, to make a ruling when, in fact, it's all a moot point and actually probably completely legal and harmless. Unless you are one of the people who have decided, on no authority except their own, that you don't like it and it should be 'banned' forthwith, who cares? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?
Andy obrien wrote: The description says it uses spread-spectrun How wide is 'wide'? Not got to grips with this as yet, obviously. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions
graham787 wrote: .. but most of the EU stations are limited to 100 Hz b/w .. Sorry, I may be missing something here, but which EU stations are limited to 100Hz bandwidth, and why? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions
graham787 wrote: Ok John ... EU 500 Khz allocation that is (appart from SM) most seem to have a 100 Hz tx limit the Uk has 501504 with no defined BW appart from the expected 'dont interfear'and no talking .. SM allows ssb as well The idea of 'Don't interfere' is understandable, but where does this Uk has 501504 with no defined BW appart from the expected 'dont interfear'and no talking come from? It isn't in the current UK regulations, and it wasn't even in the old regulations... There are no regulations in the UK licence conditions, and there were no such regulations in past years, restricting the bandwidth of the transmissions within the various Amateur Bands. You had to keep within the band edge of course, but this limit as stated makes no sense and seems to have no basis in any real licence condition here in the UK at all... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] off topic, 3819Khz
Steinar Aanesland wrote: It turned out to be a real hate network. It vomit up extremely bad things about the Obama administration. I am not going into the politics here, but is this type of network allowed in US on the HAM band ??? There is a widely held misconception about what is, and is not, allowed to be discussed on air. There is always the good sense point of view that certain topics will be likely to stir up bad feeling and argument and are, therefore, best avoided in the interests of good manners and avoiding embarrassment. However, legally it is usually the case that politics, religion and sex, for example, are not actually banned as subjects for discussion. That said, from the reports of the group in question, you have to say that a) they are talking to other people who hold their views and are unlikely to welcome any constructively opposing views and b) once you know their callsigns you can avoid having anything to do with them, so it's going to be a self inclusive group that is going to show its prejudice to anyone that listens for a while. A long time ago I stopped arguing with people with whom I was unlikely to persuade of my argument, or who I wasn't likely to ever be convinced of their point of view, as just being a waste of time on both sides. I suspect that groups such as those mentioned fall into this general category and I would also include groups who hold similarly extreme points of view on the other side of the political argument as well... A good case in point was a colleague of mine, who was espousing his own political point of view about how he thought people should vote in the UK the other day. In conversation over a pint or two I gave him my point of view, which he didn't accept, but I guess we agreed to differ and left it at that. Maybe that sort of conversation might be 'OK' on air, but I wouldn't want to have it because personally I don't think the Amateur Bands are the place to have conversations that you have in the Pub. But that's just my point of view. HI. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Super narrow filter: PSK31 with HB9DRV SDR-RADIO
Andy obrien wrote: So, tonight, I decided to see how that would be addressed with my new SDR-IQ receiver and Simon Brown's preview release of SDR-Radio . I was very happy to be easily able to dial in narrow filters, til my heart's content. Have a go with Winrad or WinradHD as well Andy, you'll find that both those programs allow you to widen and narrow the bandwidth and adjust the filters. The use of click and hold whilst sliding the filter skirts is very useful. Using VAC you can send the audio to DM780 or any other digital mode program that recognises the VAC drivers. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Initial thoughts on SDR
Andy obrien wrote: I have not had an SDR even 24 hours yet, but here are some random initial thoughts. Hi Andy, Welcome to the wonderful, strange, and slightly surreal of radio reception that is 'SDR' radio. The basics are all the same, as in 'you canna change the laws of physics, Jim' but the old world of limits because of RF filtering or AF filtering are not exactly gone, but may be swerved around. 3 Yrs ago I contemplated a Flex radio and talked to a neighbour who owned one. He loved his, but warned my that they were very much a work in progress and not for someone who wanted a has to do everything box. I decided to put my hard earned cash in to a TS2000 instead. I went that route as well, but rapidly learned that the FlexRadio 'One Hardware' idea became 'Many hardware boxes that we sell to you because the original, and new hardware, and next hardware, we decided to improve upon, is the new hardware. I also went the TS2000(X) route as being a good compromise for what I wanted to do. Ah grasshopper, you begin to learn... After 24 hours, almost... I think I will conclude that seeing a whole bunch of spectrum at once is very useful but something you will lose interest in on average ham days, perhaps only when hunting a specific DXpdition will actually WATCHING the PC screen be something you want to do. What we think we want, and what we really want are often very different things. Forgive me Andy, in your next couple of paragraphs you do cover a lot of ground. But, here goes nothing... After 24 hours, almost... I think I will conclude that seeing a whole bunch of spectrum at once is very useful but something you will lose interest in on average ham days, perhaps only when hunting a specific DXpdition will actually WATCHING the PC screen be something you want to do. Erm, yes, but no, but yes, but... Andy, like the rest of us, you need to define what you are trying to do. See every signal in a section of the band, or only the weakest? Or, just a particular signal that you want in every other signal that is on the air. Given time, and processing, I guess you will be able to tell the program what callsign and on what frequency you want it to tell you about if it hears it. That's not to say that it will be just that easy. You could wait 10 years before that callsign came up on that frequency, and you heard it, but the software would be that patient and would tell you when it heard it. CW Skimmer is great piece of software, but it really works best on HF, in my experience, and if it doesn't work on the bands you like then it is expensive. Broadcast band DXing with any SDR that covers the HF bands, together with DRM software decoding, can be very good. However, you will also start to learn about optimal Signal to Noise plus Noise ratios when the program you are listening to just suddenly drops out of lock. The radio displays derived from the receiver software will, I agree with you, need to adapt to the wishes of the users but the users do need to see 'something' against which to base their wants. This is a bit of a catch 22 I know, but we users do need to start to play with the signals that we receive and tell the programmers how we would like the SDR Data to be presented to us so that we can feed back to them, and vice versa. However, no matter how good this all gets, I'll still use a simple CW transmitter and receiver and I guess that there will always be someone out there to make contact with. Even the programmer who just coded the latest FEC narrow band signal that can produce an almost error free message transfer wont give me quite the thrill of exchanging contact details on the 23 or 3cm band via aircraft or rain scatter modes by ear with a new country or square. That is the bit that the computer, for me, can never replace. Dave G0DJA
Re: [digitalradio] Olivia Contacts on 40m ? ! ?
Simon HB9DRV wrote: Pawel Jalocha's daughter. Simon Brown http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rotten Robbie Who is OLIVIA? And it's the middle name of my grand-daughter. Her Mum must have better taste than I gave my daughter credit for... Joking aside, Olivia is a very nice mode, if only a few more people would use it. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Which Digi Program ??
Andy obrien wrote: I will jump in on this topic.. with the TS-440. Using the TS440, one can use the RCA Phono jacks on the back of the TS440 labelled AFSK In and AFSK out.Then use vox to key the rig via software like DM780 , Fldigi. or Multipsk. Using this method with plain audio cables results in NO isolation between rig and computer and increases the chances of ground loops causing distorted or noisy transmitted tones. If you keep the transmitted power to around 25 watts or less , you can usually get a clean signal. You can use home made circuits to isolate the rig-PC or buy some commercial products usually made for car stereo systems that eliminate ground loops. I deliberately sat on my hands when I read the 'I don't use an interface' posts, so I'm glad Andy made the points he made. If only people would realise that it's not always problems to their own reception that is the problem, then the rest of us might enjoy cleaner bands... Please don't accept IMD reports from people who measure the IMD on a modulated signal, please also don't accept IMD reports from someone who you don't know isn't over driving their own audio input to their soundcard. They could be telling you things are bad when they are not, and vice versa. You wouldn't be happy living next to someone who over drives their radio by screaming into the microphone, so why do the same to others on digital modes just because you think you are immune to all over drive problems? There are not enough sales of IMD meter and PSK meter in the world... Dave (G0DJA) Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NEW : Digitalradio 2010 Challenge via Clublogs
obrienaj wrote: This shows I am ranked number 1 among digitalradio ! That is because I am the only digitalradio member to participate. You are still at the top of the league Andy... RankCallsign160 80 60 40 30 20 17 15 12 10 6 4 2 70 Total Slots Range 1 K3UK3 7 2 53 25 135 54 112 15 235 2 0 0 0 245 643 23 yrs 2 G0DJA 35 34 4 47 52 58 64 45 39 30 50 11 18 3 104 490 27 yrs As I couldn't get the cut and paste to stop wrapping round, it might be easier to see by clicking on this link. http://www.clublog.org/browse.php?club=49 Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NEW : Digitalradio 2010 Challenge via Clublogs
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I guess I really need to take a good look at some of the newer sound card modes. I just got so turned off by that do nothing PSK 31. The various WSJT modes can be quite entertaining, especially if you are into VHF and UHF and JT65 is gaining support on HF as well. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Clublogs... see standings versus others
Dave AA6YQ wrote: There have been several reports on the DXLab reflector that Club Log ignores the DXCC entity uploaded with each QSO, attempts to determine the DXCC entity itself from its database, and sometimes gets it wrong. From what I can make out, a message on the Club Log forum will often get the problem sorted out. I've certainly found that Michael (G7VJR) is very responsive and willing to sort out things and the messages on the forums indicate that Alan (5B4AHJ) responds quickly to any concerns raised about validation. What happens when you upload your ADIF is that you get an emailed message back telling you the callsign, date and time of the QSO and what you had the country logged as, and then what Club Log thinks is correct. If you can provide evidence that you are correct then an exception is created to cover the new information. One of mine was as follows Callsign: RK6FS Date: 2000-08-27 10:45:14 Band: 10QSL: Yes Your log claims GEORGIA. Overriding your choice and using EUROPEAN RUSSIA. Now, I reckon Club Logs is right about that, so I've amended my log to show what I now believe is the correct country. If I didn't, I could contact 5B4AHJ and provide whatever proofs I had to say it wasn't as the system thinks, and these conversations are going on so it's not that Club Log is ignoring what you think it's just that it believes its own database until someone provides evidence to the contrary. Dave (G0DJA) Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] G3OBU's antenna with digital mode DX
obrienaj wrote: John, I read with interest your web pages describing your vertical antenna. Please keep us informed on how it does on digital mode DX. I had to look twice at what I thought was a balun at first. I realise that we will probably be off topic, but a 9:1 UnUn is often used in random length wire antennas for frequencies under about 1MHz. There are often various arguments for and against the 9:1 UnUn, some people preferring the 4:1 version and others saying the 4:1 doesn't work well for them. A quick google for '9:1 UnUn' will give quite a number of sites with designs and arguments about what type of earth connection/wire/antenna to use it with. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Grid Locator
kr5tham wrote: Thanks Dave, I am using HRD. From that I presume you mean DM780? HRD is the computer control program, DM780 handles the digital modes TX/RX side... If you go to Program Options and click on the QSO:Receive tab there is an option called Display Distance and Bearing from my locator. If you select this and put your locator into the 'locator' setting under Tabs then, when DM780 detects a valid IARU/Maidenhead locator, it will calculate and display the distance and bearing and print it in the received window just after the received IARU/Maidenhead locator. You can select distance to be displayed in either Miles or kilometres. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Grid Locator
kr5tham wrote: When working dig modes I see stations send their grid locator followed by a single number represented in degrees followed by a number represented in kilometers. What is this and how was it calculated? Many digital modes programs will either auto detect an IARU locator (usually in the format IO93if - which is my locator) as it comes in, or the operator manually enters it into another part of the program. This is then used, together with the stations own locator information, to calculate the distance and bearing from the station being worked. Many programs then allow this data to be entered and sent as part of the transmitted message. Often referred to as a macro you can set up an automatic message with tokens that will call up the details and put them into the message automatically. If you want details of the IARU Locator, otherwise known as the Maidenhead locator system, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidenhead_Locator_System If you tell us which program you use for digital modes someone will be able to tell you if it will do this for you and, if it is possible, how to set it up. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital
Phil Williams wrote: If you got the license, you have every right to be here as these they do. It's one of my own points of view that you have to meet the licence requirements as they stand when you apply. So, Einstein or Hawkins would have had to take the same entry exam when or if they decided to apply for an Amateur Radio Licence as every other applicant would have had to at that time. So, if either Einstein or Hawkins were to apply now for an Amateur Radio Licence, and pass, would they be seen as some how less of a Radio Amateur than others? Doing down people because they pass an exam and you do not think is as rigorous as the one that you passed does not prove that they are less able than you. In my opinion. Dave (G0DJA) Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: This all may sound like sour grapes to those who are pushing these innovations, but I do really worry about the future of this hobby, and where it is heading, but I have heard others saying the same things. As one who has enticed young people into the hobby, taught classes and encouraged operating: I am having more and more problems convincing them that this is something that they want. They already have computers, cell phones, blackberries, whatever berries, so why do they need radio? I could let them read about cognitive radio systems, but I still wonder if that is enticement, because they can already pick up the phone, or key the keyboard and talk anywhere in the world, without worry about sun spots. It seems, to me, that the predictions of the death of Amateur Radio have been around since well before I obtained my licence in the early 1980s, and I've seen articles in magazines going back to the 1930s predicting the imminent demise of the hobby for various reasons as well... In fact, maybe what we are saying is that my interpretation of what the hobby is to others is either going to have to change, or die? At various times new modes or ways of communicating have been deemed to be 'not Amateur Radio' or 'not in the spirit of Amateur Radio'. Often, about ten or twenty years latter it seems to me, those people new to the bands who were using the new fangled modes or systems are, themselves heard to bemoan new modes or systems in use as being not what they joined the hobby for. Digital modes, such as AX:25 and even PSK31 were treated with a great deal of suspicion when they came out. I remember people who didn't like them questioned whether they were 'illegal' codes or cyphers. But, here we are decades later still with predictions of the death of Amateur Radio. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's much more to amateur radio than just operating - at least over this side of the pond. Here self-education is important. Despite all the code I've written there's nothing I enjoy more than listening to 160m CW. And that's why the predictions of the death of Amateur Radio often fall down, in my experience, Simon. Like a lot of hobbies people start on one thing but then move onto other things. Some of these other things may be older modes of communication like using Morse code or Hellscriber etc. I can think back to people who started out with an FM only 2M radio bolted into the car and chatting on the local 2M repeater in the 80s. Often decried as 'not Amateur Radio' but many moved onto HF and alot even onto CW on the HF bands. I've also heard the arguments about mobile phones and other modern technologies like VoIP 'killing' the hobby but I think this misses the point, for me anyway, of Amateur Radio. For me it isn't just about talking to someone a long way away, it's the fact that it isn't always possible to do it and finding why it isn't possible some times but possible at others. It's not even about always communicating only with someone I already know either. I'm not knocking the development of systems that allow communication to occur by finding the best frequency as some work has to go into developing it and implementing it. I've heard the arguments that the people who eventually use the system didn't put in that work, but like the 2M FM repeater system example it might get someone talking to someone else about the delights of using some other mode, or making a sked to try something else just to see if it might work. Like most hobbies and interests, Amateur Radio will always develop and change and one mode or system of communication is not going to persuade everyone, or even every new comer, to use only that mode of communication. Otherwise, they wouldn't use Amateur Radio, they would use a mobile phone or VoIP... Personally, I do enjoy a whole range of different digital modes. I'm not really set up for fast band hopping and I tend to use the Internet to arrange skeds, but I don't see them as the ultimate threat to Amateur Radio either. I also do think that it would be just as bad to have everyone, say, on 20M all at the same time, or any other band come to that. A range of different modes and interests keeps everyone spread out a bit. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Fwd: Update to my website digimode pages
Andy obrien wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: g4ucj sean.gilb...@o2.co.uk Date: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM Subject: [30MDG] Update to my website digimode pages To: 30...@yahoogroups.com Hi all, I have just been updating my website and have added a great deal in the digital modes page, including some screenshots taken from Spectrum Lab, which I have had running and monitoring mostly 30m. Each shot shows an hours worth of activity and the results are very interesting, as was the clear appearance of OTHR, wiping out the band for a few minutes. You can also see what happens when someone turns on the tv here and how I remove the QRM enough to still hear some weak signals. I have included some info and screenshots of WSPR, if anyone is interested. The URL is below: *http://www.hfradio.org.uk/html/digital_modes.html* - don't forget to have a look around the rest of the site too! 73 de Sean Gilbert, G4UCJ - G4001SWL Nice website, good find Andy, Just one omission in the WSPR section for the 60M frequency of 5.2872MHz I'll email Sean to ask if he will consider adding the 60M band details. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A jolly good idea !
raf3151019 wrote: I agree, its about time somebody invented an automatic overdrive controller for PSK transmissions. I don't listen to them though, I switch the sound off, but seeing them is more than enough for me ! There are at least two, the IMD Meter and PSK meter. The IMD meter is portable, but requires user input the PSK meter needs to be installed and set up correctly, but does the job automatically. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Nominations for 2009 Digitalradio Awards needed
aa777888athotmaildotcom wrote: I believe RSID is old news, 2007 if not 2006. The recent surge in RSID use is really due to its excellent implementation in HRD 5.0. Sorry to be a pedant but this is becoming an issue, HRD isn't a digital modes program but DM780 is. They might both come shipped under one package, but it is important to recognise what each program is doing and HRD is the Computer Control, or CAT if you prefer, program that also supports and interfaces to some other programs within the suite of programs which can be used as stand alone programs in their own right, it doesn't send or receive digital modes in itself. Simon has put in a lot of work on HRD and DM780 but it is important to recognise what each program does as we, on the HRD forum, are getting people asking why HRD wont 'work' with their interface/PC when they should be using DM780. Thanks Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RE
obrienaj wrote: Member removed. I'm having to close down my Hotmail account after another Hotmail user, who I didn't know had been hacked, emailed me and the spammer then hacked my Hotmail account. The trouble with Hotmail is that it's an online email system, so you don't get to preview the messages and, once you've been hacked, all your contacts then get spammed with what appears to be your address and they, in turn, then have their address book compromised if they are on Hotmail. This then results in loads of people suggesting to you that your PC has been compromised, when it's actually the MSN/Hotmail/Microsoft system that's been compromised... All in all, Hotmail is now not worth the hassle to me so I'm abandoning it once and for all. Fortunately, this email account is on my PC, so I can detect and spot the attempts to hack before they get chance to do any damage. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Interface within the rig?
Andy obrien wrote: While reading Steve Ford's QST review of the Microham USB interface, I was thinking about the enduring qualities of my Microham interface . I also began to wonder when we might see transceiver manufactures including this circuitry within a rig? Just connect a USB cable to the rig, hook audio cables from rig to PC, and off you go. Isolation circuits are reading established. I'm told that the Kenwood TS-480 already has isolation circuits in its rear panel Audio in/out circuits as well as the usual computer control port with PTT, so you don't really need an external interface for that radio. It also doesn't suffer from the TS-2000 syndrome of expecting audio input to the microphone when the computer control PPT is used. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Nominations for 2009 Digitalradio Awards needed
Andy obrien wrote: It is that time again, as we approach our 10th January in existence it is time to seek you nominations for the Annual Digitalradio Awards. The 2008 winners are listed below. What about Best Digital Interface? My vote would go to the US Interface Navigator, I use it with WSPR, WSJT , DM780, Spectrum Labs and Spectran etc., and it works just as well whatever I throw at it. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re : Interface within the rig ?
raf3151019 wrote: The inclusion of D-star was obviously considered to be an asset for the sales of Yaesu, perhaps it is popular in Japan, but I believe a PSK interface would have helped to sell more Yaesu equipment worldwide. I thought D-Star was Icom? There's a band of D-Star enthusiasts around the Sheffield/Barnsley area up here. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re : Interface within the rig ?
Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey Rochelle wrote: As for D-Star, ICOM is the maker, don't believe Yaesu has anything in their line-up, same for Kenwood (except the rebrand). I am a Kenwood man and so far I have resisted going to D-Star until I see what the other makes bring out. If D-Star was so good WHY haven't the other brands made and sold them? I would guess that D-Star is the intellectual property right of Icom, so if other manufacturers want to use it they would have to pay Icom for the right to do so. I can't see many manufacturers wanting to tie their future development to a competitor by including something that the competitor controlled... There is an alternative that implements D-Star which uses a dongle unit into the PC to interface other radios, but it isn't cheap. I guess that could be due to rights payments as well? Personally, and I am a bit of a sucker for strange new modes, I can't see what D-Star would give me that I need or want at present. Even digital audio over Amateur bands seems to have more down sides than up to me. Dave (G0DJA) Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Which radio ?
Ted Wager wrote: Thanks to all who replied to my query and for Andy High Peak is North Derbyshire where it usually rains :-( I often have to drive through the High Peaks to get across the Pennines from my home in Bolsover. Through places with names like Chappel-en-le-Frith and Dove Holes. Beautiful at some times of the year, however driving rain and fog on the tops are not so much fun... Dave (G0DJA) Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
