Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

[Howard Brown]

This is rude.  Where is the moderator when you need him?






From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 8:59:00 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

   
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.




 De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

  
Hi Warren,

I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it 
in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle 
and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the "seared" middle 
part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum 
analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral 
analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 
had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the 
signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the 
frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic 
of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find.

Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG

73 - Skip KH6TY



Warren Moxley wrote: 
  
>Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the 
>widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Warren - K5WGM
>
>
>--- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY  wrote:
>
>
>>From: KH6TY 
>>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
>>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>>Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM
>>
>>
>>  
>>Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you 
>>when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS 
>>as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is 
>>for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the 
>>USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of 
>>a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is 
>>illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as 
>>PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area.
>>
>>Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. 
>>JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters "N"), and you 
>>can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it 
>>is not
>> FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same 
>> thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, 
>> obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is 
>> requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies 
>> ROS is FHSS.
>>
>>If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC 
>>to allow it.
>>
>>73 - Skip KH6TY
>>
>>
>>
>>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
>>
>>  
>>>If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not 
>>>trying help. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 De: KH6TY 
>>>Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>>>Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36
>>>Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
>>>
>>>  
 jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
 things in this group.
>>>
>>>Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first!
>>>
>>>Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really 
>>>is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim.
>>>
>>>This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG
>>>
>>>Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. 
>>>
>>>I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an 
>>>honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish.
>>>
>>>
>>>73, Skip KH6TY SK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
>>>
>>>  
My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is.
 
If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead 
of criticism ROS.
 
I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid 
things in this group.





 De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

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

Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this quest

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

[Howard Brown]

Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the 
limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the 
waveform?  If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get 
it accepted. 

Howard K5HB





From: J. Moen 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

   
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations 
issues regarding ROS and SS really well.  It's the best description of the 
US problem I've seen on this reflector.
 
After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, 
I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does 
(and none of us has seen the code),  then even though it 1) uses less 
3 kHz bandwidth,  2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal 
and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC 
jurisdictions.
 
As Bonnie points out, ROS "doesn't hop 
the VFO frequency," but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is 
SS.  This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead 
of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth.  So I 
have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case.
 
Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations 
focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment.  
 
   Jim - K6JM
 
- Original Message - 
>From: expeditionradio 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 
>  PM
>Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology 
>  Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>
>  
>Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping 
>  Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio 
>  operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use 
> of 
>  ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, 
> hams 
>  will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. 
>
>Sadly, this may 
>  lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.
>
>If ROS Modem had simply 
>  provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it 
>  "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a chance for it to be easily 
> adopted 
>  by Ham Radio operators in USA. 
>
>But, the ROS modem designer is 
>  rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound 
> by 
>  FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising 
>  might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. 
>
>But, as they 
>  say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".
>
>ROS signal can 
>  be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK 
>  presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal 
>  process and format could simply have been documented without calling it 
>  Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal 
>  (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) 
>  within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS 
>  description as a conventional wideband technique. 
>
>It probably would 
>  not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC 
> rules. 
>  It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable 
>  algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. 
>http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html# 307f3 
>
>This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, 
>  keeping USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams 
> move 
>  forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of 
>  the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!
>
>But, 
>  for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" against 
>  Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates 
>  to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth".
>
>There is the other issue of 
>  "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other 
>  forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think 
> that 
>  there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" in the FCC rules for data/text 
>  modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or 
> not 
>  operate it. 
>
>FACT:
>"There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on 
>  HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band 
>  edges."
>
>FACT:
>"FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on 
>  "content" of the emission, not bandwidth."
>
>New SDR radios have the 
>  potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz 
>  SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology 
> in 
>  the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit 
>  innovation and progress for

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Super narrow filter: PSK31 with HB9DRV SDR-RADIO

[Howard Brown]

One other technique is to leave the rig in USB mode, crank the Hi / Shift down 
to 1400 hz and tune the frequency until the interfering signal is at 1500 hz 
(or use the Lo / Width if the interfering signal is on the low side).  The 
minimum width is about 400 hz this way, not 50 hz, but it is very effective in 
reducing the interference.


Howard K5HB



From: Andy obrien 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 5:49:49 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Super narrow filter: PSK31 with HB9DRV  
SDR-RADIO

   



On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:29 AM, aa777888athotmaildo tcom  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  >
>
>>
> 
>>  
> 
>If you are using an IC7000 this is as easy as adding a filter "slider" control 
>to either HRD, DM780 or both. It's not too hard from the front panel, either. 
>There are also three filter presets. I'll leave one at full bandwidth and 
>another at the bandwidth of the mode I'm using. 50Hz is no problem. Watch the 
>entire waterfall, pick on a signal, hit the QSY/center button, hit the filter 
>button and answer. If I wasn't so lazy I'd write a macro.
>yes, the Icom rig's make this easier.

Andy.

 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect

[Howard Brown]

I hope you are wrong this time.

All your previous comments have been right but maybe this time you could be 
wrong.

Rick Muething is putting so much work into Winmor AND it is working so well, 
that this time it may become widely used. The busy detect feature works very 
well, even detecting voice signals at times. The speeds achieved seem to be 
faster than Pactor 2.  They are not faster than Pactor 3 but the bandwidth is 
smaller too (1600 hz compared to 2400 hz).

There is no guarantee that the guys with Pactor 3 modems will stop QRMing but 
once there is a good alternative maybe we can get the FCC to issue citations to 
those who interfere.  

The testing with the peer to peer program (RMS Express) has gone well and they 
are now working on the server version.  It won't be long until that is broadly 
tested.  Hang in there and let's see how it works.

Howard K5HB





From: Charles Brabham 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 6:36:19 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect

  
I knew one of the hams who first envisioned what 
would later end up being SCAMP, followed its development with interest, and was 
thoroughly disgusted at the way the WinLink group used those efforts as 
a cheap propaganda ploy instead of pursuing it honestly. SCAMP was at no 
point intended by the WinLink group to see actual use, its development was 
stretched out and used as a talking point for political purposes. As soon as 
its 
utility for that purpose became unsupportable, it was uncerimoniously 
killed.
 
At no point did the WinLink group intend to phase 
out the use of the SCS harmful interference mills. This still holds true 
today.
 
WinMore is just one more SCAMP, unfortunately. 
Knowing the level of character and intelligence to be found in the WinLink 
group, I have not followed WinMore's development. - I already know it's fate. 
After stretching out its supposed development for as long as possible, milking 
it for political traction ( We are working on ending our widespread inteference 
- honest! ) there will come the inevitable point where it is reluctantly 
admitted that WinMore just cannot do the job nearly as well as PACTOR III and 
then all of a sudden, you won't hear anything more about WinMore.
 
The thing that the ARRL, the FCC, and all amateurs 
should understand is that WinLink will never be reformed. They hope to become 
so 
thoroughly established with delaying tactics like SCAMP and WinMore that 
eventually the FCC will throw up their hands and award them private spectrum of 
their own, or re-write PART97 so that we no longer enjoy the use of shared 
spectrum, thus bringing amateur radio to an end. They want a channelized, 
CB-like environment and the ARRL, to its discredit, is behind them 
100%.
 
As was the case with city and county entities 
forcing thier employees to get ham tickets as they pursued DHS grant money, and 
eventually starting to eye amateur radio spectrum as something to lobby for the 
possession of, our only real hope for a good outcome in this case is for the 
FCC 
to step in. We cannot hope for help or support from the ARRL, which again 
is part of the problem.
 
So no, I have not followed WinMore's development at 
all, since I already know its fate. Note how WinMore is not open source but is 
strictly proprietary to the WinLink group, just like SCAMP was. They will be 
using this control to be sure that it is not developed further or used for any 
other purpose by anyone else. When they decide to kill it, they will want it to 
stay dead. - Just as dead as SCAMP is today.
 
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
 
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at 
HamRadioNet. Org !
 
http://www.hamradionet.org
 
 
- Original Message - 
>From: Dave AA6YQ 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:50 
>  PM
>Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Digital busy 
>  detect
>
>  
>Did 
>  you evaluate the busy frequency detector in Scamp, 
>  Charles?
> 
>Have 
>  you evaluated the busy frequency detector in Winmor?
> 
>73,
> 
>Dave, 
>  AA6YQ
> 
>-Original Message-
>From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >  [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. 
>com]On Behalf Of Charles 
>  Brabham
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:55 PM
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
>Subject: >  [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
>
>  
>Packet radio gets by with a simple carrier 
>  detect, PACTOR can only detect other PACTOR stations, and from what I can 
>  tell, ALE has no busy detection at all.
> 
>Several years ago I took a serious look at 
>  automated busy detection, and always ran across the same stone 
>  wall:
> 
>A more sophisticated busy detect that 
>  can usually tell the difference between noise and a human activity like 
>  speech or digital transmissions is possible - BUT - only after the software 
>  has a fairly long audio sample to work with, and can look back upon 

Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

[Howard Brown]

GM Charles,

I recently noticed your signature line, then tried to look into hamradionet.  
When I go to the url it redirects me to the forum.  When I browse the forum I 
find some info about what the new network IS NOT but nothing about what it IS.  

Can you direct me to the description of what the network is?  I would like to 
learn more about it.

Howard K5HB





From: Charles Brabham 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 8:55:38 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone

   
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, 
or make a statement. In either case though, your post indicates a lack of 
understanding that I may be able to relieve.
 
Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 
for close to thirty years now, and was done in response to the emergence of 
digital communications on the ham bands. Part of the 'why' of this codification 
of unattended digital communications can be garnered from the introduction at 
HamRadioNet:
 
=
Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the 
world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide 
communications network, independent of the internet and commercial or 
government 
entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is 
there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves. 
We do not have to worry about how our efforts compare to others in this area, 
as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task. 
Whatever we accomplish here is the state of the art, and represents the 
combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio 
operators 
around the globe. 
To be involved in the global amateur radio network is to be a part of amateur 
radio's single greatest international accomplishment, and the true advancement 
of the radio art. 
=
The original Packet network that the new sections of PART97 and the automated 
sub-bands fostered is still functioning well after close the three decades, 
though it has suffered a setback due to the advent of internet 
communications. This setback is not due to 'competition' as many erringly 
express it, as the internet is not an amateur radio activity at all, which 
precludes any 'competition' between the two. Remember that amateurs are 
prohibited from providing any communication service in competition with 
existing 
communications services in any case, as we have recently been reminded by 
the FCC.
The internet-related setback that the Packet net experienced was partly a 
brain-drain as digital networking enthusiasts moved on to internet services 
where they could get paid for their work, partly due to over-hyping by the ARRL 
that turned into a distinct liability in the face of near universal internet 
access, and partly due to the realities of networking with amateur radio, which 
cannot really adhere to the internet model since our long-haul 'backbone' links 
( HF ) are significantly SLOWER than our access links ( VHF,UHF,SHF ) directly 
opposite to the model that wired networks like the internet are built 
upon.
That last factor, the way that the relationship 
between the throughput of 'backbone' and 'access' links is reversed from that 
of 
existing wired networks has turned out to be the biggest setback of all, as 
many 
amateurs just do not appear to be able to comprehend digital networking on any 
basis that is not identical to the internet ( wired ) model. Because of this, 
various unfortunate attempts have been made to make digital ham radio 
networking 
fit the procrustian bed of IT. ( internet technology )
 
We see that in the unrealistic and obnoxious 
attempts to obtain high-speed on HF, which always involve ultra-wide digital 
signals which have no place in limited, busy, shared HF spectrum. We see it in 
the attempts to provide 'privacy' in ham radio pectrum, where we are expected 
to 
self-police through the process of peer review, and we also see it in the cases 
where amateur radio digital networkers throw up their hands and use non-ham 
communications resources ( internet gateways ) to route around and exclude 
amateur radio digital links which do not fit well in the only networking 
paradigm they comprehend. - It is ironic but true that these confused 
individuals actually think that they are making digital amateur radio 'better' 
by taking te radio out of it, substituting non-ham resources in its 
place.
 
By the late 1980's, amateur radio operators 
had developed a digital network that spanned the globe, involving the efforts 
of 
thousands of amateurs who worked to build network resources on all of the 
commonly utilized ham bands. Besides the world-spanning HF network, there were 
large-scale VHF/UHF terrestrial networks that covered large sections of the 
USA, most of Europe and metropolitan areas of many countries around the 
globe. 
 
Some of that has gone away in response to 
widespread internet acces

Re: [digitalradio] HELP!!!

[Howard Brown]

Just in case it helps, try this: Connect the microphone to the mic jack on the 
front of the Rigblaster; 

hook the microphone extension cable from the RJ45 on the back of the Rigblaster 
to the mic jack on the front of the TS-2000; 

hook a shielded audio cable from the 'Ext Sp2' jack on the back of the TS-2000 
to the 'Line Input' jack on your sound card; (You may have to use 'Mic In' but 
'Line In' is better.)  

hook a shielded audio cable from the 'Audio In' jack on the back of the 
Rigblaster  to the 'Line Out' (or 'Speaker') on your sound card; 


hook a 12v power source to the Rigblaster power jack.

If you are using hardware PTT (as opposed to VOX) to key the rig, hook a serial 
cable from the serial port on the Rigblaster to a serial port on the computer.

Good luck, let us know how you come out.

73,

Howard K5HB



From: Don Rand 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:13:41 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] HELP!!!





I have a TS-2000 and a Rigblaster Plus.  I had it fully operational for almost 
5 years, not touching or changing a thing.  I recently moved everything, and 
now, can't get the cables right.  Can someone give me a "connect this to that" 
direction?  I do have the manual, but it really is not much of a help.  I have 
tried every possible configuration, except the right one.

I have missed a couple of contests already.

Don
KA5DON
DRCC #59
EPC #125
FeldHell #981
30M Digital Grp #0680


   

Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?

[Howard Brown]

Hi Hal,

Sometimes I am tempted to reply this way too.  Mostly I try to keep comments 
positive about Linux and trust that M$ will eventually offend their clients 
enough that they will reconsider.

My favorite distro is Ubuntu 8.04 LTS.  

There was a time when hams considered themselves more technical.  In those days 
Linux was popular in the ham community. Now that Linux is so much easier, hams 
should try it again.

73,
Howard K5HB





From: Hal 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:32:19 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?


On 04-01, Rick W wrote:
> 
> Linux has not been very successful here in the U.S. with most ham 
> computer users. 

I understand the Golden Arches sell more "food" than any other
restaurant too...

> Even the ones who are very techy, such as myself, find 
> it mediocre as an operating system. 

That's interesting. . Consider the common denominator? ?

>Several of my ham friends have tried 
> it over the years too and abandoned it. A nearby ham, who is very tech 
> oriented decided a few months ago that he was going to really get into 
> Linux, until he really tried it and realized it just was not going to 
> work for him and he is an electronics engineer.

So...

> That has been the case 
> with most other hams I know and some of us, myself included, really, 
> really, wanted to like the OS, even with its shortcomings.

What shortcomings except comments like yours??

> But it just 
> has not been very practical at this point because like so many things in 
> life, the trade-offs are too great:(

Because too many refuse to think??

Just my 0.02 worth.. :^)..

-- 

Vy 73 de Hal--W8MCHUNIX-GNU/Linux - Slackware 11.0, 2.4.33.3
.

   

Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?

[Howard Brown]

GM Rick,

I have been listening for PSKmail stations for some time.  NVIS could be 
valuable at times but it would also be useful to have servers available on 40 
and 80 meters under current conditions.  These servers would be reachable from 
distances greater than NVIS and compensate for weak propagation in the 100 to 
500 mile range.

I think the guys in Europe are way ahead of us with this software. They don't 
seem to be so afraid of Linux.

Howard K5HB





From: Rick W 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:22:59 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKMail Windows server?


If PSKmail becomes popular here in the U.S., we will likely have many 
more servers than at present. Something that has been lacking with all 
other systems is the minimal use of the lower bands for NVIS operation. 
As long as there is a path close to (but not exceeding) the MUF, the 
signal quality will often be the best, but the longer paths may not be 
open, when shorter ones are open most of the time.

We have at least one group here in my state that attempts to use an 80 
meter 300 baud packet BBS but I know they have a lot of retries and 
probably time outs with the messages not always getting through on NVIS. 
This means that other protocols need to be developed since PSK250 is 
probably no better and maybe not quite as good as 2FSK300?

Another thought  is it possible to use PSKmail on VHF? It would seem 
like a good fit for moderate distance communication, local to maybe 100 
miles? Maybe even with FM and vertical polarization, which 99% of active 
hams already have available? Has anyone tried this in EU or other parts 
of the world?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Russell Blair wrote:
> Rick, well the only I have heard today was VE7SUN @12:00 UTC, 30m 
> seems dead hr in Texas.
> Russell
>


   

Re: [digitalradio] on another note

[Howard Brown]

Hi John,

Let's reserve judgment just a bit longer.  Maybe the performance of Winmor will 
be good enough so that we won't need to buy the expensive modems.  Maybe it 
will listen before transmitting.

Now if they would modify the Winlink system so that it listened before 
transmitting and there was some competition to bring prices down, maybe more of 
us would be interested in Pactor 3. As it is, it should not be operating in the 
amateur bands.

Howard K5HB





From: John Bradley 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; hfl...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: multi...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:47:46 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] on another note


 As many of you know, I have been very active with digital
communications over the past number of years, eagerly testing the latest and
greatest, and was honored when Andy gave me recognition last year in with his
digital awards. I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of digital
communications within the emergency services field, have worked in emergency
services as a planner, communicator, trainer and consultant. This, as well as a
passion for Search and Rescue is a summary of most of my ham radio activities
over the past 20 years.
 
I have been known to be somewhat outspoken at times, I have
locked horns with Bonnie more than once, I have had interesting off post 
political
commentaries with Roger the lawyer, and from time to time, been called anti 
American,
anti Canadian, Anti Ham, anti pactor, and anti auntie, even. I have gleefully
participated in some of the lively debates on these posts and have come awfully
close to being punted by moderator Andy. So you are asking yourself by now,
where is this crazy Cannuck going with all this??
 
Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the light (
actually a whole mess of little ones but who is counting)
 
Over the past couple of weeks I have been testing a SCS PTC2
usb modem with a pactor3 license, and have come away amazed and humbled by what
this thing can do. It is faster than ANYTHING else I have tried, including
RFSM8000, and works further into the weeds than anything else I have tried. I
have connected to a RMS station midday close to 1000 miles away on what I would
call a “dead” band. I have connected to RMS stations at least 500
miles from me on 80M well into mid morning, and resumed these connections by
about 3PM , still when nothing else could be heard on the band. 
 
I had in the past heard the claims that this modem would
work 10db into the noise. At the time my reactions was “yah,right!!!”
but it really does. If you have a chance, try it out . So my thinking has
undergone an abrupt change of direction, from using soundcard modes with
internet access, to using P3 for primary links and sound card modes for the
last mile or so…… and would like to hear other opinions.
 
we all know the givens about pactor: the modems are
expensive, the operators insensitive, proprietary hardware and software etc
etc.  but how could this mode be incorporated with current soundcard
software? 
 
John
VE5MU
   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Cheap PC source

[Howard Brown]

Andy, how much heat does this put out?

I have a machine with 2 Pentium 4 Xeon processors and it makes a LOT of heat.

Howard K5HB





From: Andrew O'Brien 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:05:05 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Cheap PC source


Rick,

FYI

Maximum Memory Capacity:  4096MB 
Currently Installed Memory:  512MB 
Available Memory Slots:  2 
Number of Banks:  4 
Dual Channel Support:   Yes 
CPU Manufacturer:  GenuineIntel 
CPU Family:   Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Model 2, Stepping 9 
CPU Speed:  2793 MHz 

It has more RAM capability than I expected.

Andy


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25)

[Howard Brown]

You are joking, right?  We are having a QSO, you come on and transmit at the 
same time we are, and you claim we are causing QRM for you?  You are also a 
WL2K fan, right?

Howard K5HB





From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:27:39 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25)


> Howard K5HB
> BTW, I was one of the stations experimenting 
> with Q25.  So far it did not work very well. 

So, tell me, Howard... when did you stop QRM'ing the net?

73 Bonnie KQ6XA


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..

[Howard Brown]

Ok, Bonnie, I will explain.  

You said "Respectfully, I'm just curious why you would want to run such an
experiment directly on top of an existing ham radio 24/7 global Emcomm
network at 14109 USB? ..."

That tells me you don't want others to use the frequency.  That is what makes 
me believe you don't want to share it.  Does that explain my comment?

BTW, I was one of the stations experimenting with Q25.  So far it did not work 
very well.

Howard K5HB





From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:46:33 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about 
FEC ..


> Howard K5HB wrote:
> Bonnie, I asked because you don't seem to want to share the frequency.


Hi Howard,

Please explain. 
I don't understand what you are talking about.

Bonnie KQ6XA


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..

[Howard Brown]

Bonnie, I asked because you don't seem to want to share the frequency.

Howard K5HB





From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:21:25 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about 
FEC ..



> Bonnie, amateur frequencies are shared. 
> We always listen before transmitting, don't you?
> 
> Howard K5HB 

I don't have any idea why you would be asking me that question, Howard.

Bonnie KQ6XA


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about FEC ..

[Howard Brown]

Bonnie, amateur frequencies are shared.  We always listen before transmitting, 
don't you?

Howard K5HB





From: expeditionradio 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:57:28 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: on 14.109 USB all day (Q15X25) - please read about 
FEC ..


Hi Les, 

It is 2009. Digital evolution moves on.

MT63 had a few good years of activity in the late 1990s. It was a
significant step in the evolution of digital texting modes. But, alas,
the popularity of MT63 on 14109 kHz USB subsided about 8 years ago.
This coincided with the increasing popularity of a number of other
interesting modes that eclipsed MT63. 

We saw very very few MT63 QSOs in 2008 on 14109 kHz USB.

73 Bonnie KQ6XA 


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test

[Howard Brown]

Russell, are you still around?
You and I should  be able to work ground wave, I am 12 miles SW of Denton. How 
about 10 meters?

Howard K5HB





From: Russell Blair 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 12:52:16 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test


Well I see some active and did copy some of it, but the band its not very good 
hr in TX today
 
Russell


 
 = 
IN GOD WE TRUST ! 
 = 
Russell Blair (NC5O)
Skype-Russell. Blair
Hell Field #300
DRCC #55
30m Dig-group #693

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Howard Brown  wrote:

From: Howard Brown 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 12:07 PM


John, I am trying it as a learning experience.  It seems pretty easy if you 
look at the link Rick sent.

I am on there now testing and copied VE5MU. Trying to figure how to copy 
signals and send unproto ID.

Howard K5HB






 From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 11:42:22 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test


Yeah I saw that also Howard.
With the workload it's going to take me longer to learn mix-w
then 15 days.

At 11:30 AM 2/9/2009, you wrote:
>John, the web site says: You may download fully functional 15-day trial 
>version of MixW and try it for free.
>
>I have no way to know about the rest of the statement... .
>
>Howard K5HB

 

   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test

[Howard Brown]

John, I am trying it as a learning experience.  It seems pretty easy if you 
look at the link Rick sent.

I am on there now testing and copied VE5MU. Trying to figure how to copy 
signals and send unproto ID.

Howard K5HB






From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 11:42:22 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test


Yeah I saw that also Howard.
With the workload it's going to take me longer to learn mix-w
then 15 days.

At 11:30 AM 2/9/2009, you wrote:
>John, the web site says: You may download fully functional 15-day trial 
>version of MixW and try it for free.
>
>I have no way to know about the rest of the statement... .
>
>Howard K5HB


   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test

[Howard Brown]

John, the web site says: You may download  fully functional 15-day trial 
version of MixW and try it for free.

I have no way to know about the rest of the statement

Howard K5HB





From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 9:31:01 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Q15X25 Packet test



>I think 15 days and then you are on the honor system but it keeps 
>working from what I think someone claimed.

Anyone know for sure about the above comment?

John


   

Re: [digitalradio] RE:Packet radio with sound card

[Howard Brown]

GM Jose,

There is one point in your post I would like to bring up. Where you say:

"Multitasking cannot handle tight ARQ timing windows.

It is a pity that noone has come forward (as far as I know) a real time OS 
(RTL, for instance) with a proposal 
usable on an old PC as packet engine with a sound card as modem. The problem is 
not the PC itself, but the 
prevalent OS's."

Why not challenge the need for the tight timing windows?  This creates more 
wear and tear and the radio but what real benefit does it provide?  I believe 
that the NBEMS package and the RFSM8000 package prove that you can have 
effective ARQ without the fast switching.

I would love to see Linux used more and not need to deal with Windows but 
still, the quick switching seems to be of little value.

Howard K5HB




From: José A. Amador 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:16:32 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE:Packet radio with sound card


Rick W escribió:
> Similarly, I have used Multipsk's packet modes on both HF and VHF with 
> success. With the advance of technology, I moved away from packet around 
> 15 years ago! It is just not robust enough for HF and can only go a 
> short distance on VHF, compared with newer modes
> 
I moved from HF 300 baud packet to Pactor (PTC-II) ten years ago. It 
meant a tenfold increase in forwarding thruput,
with ten times less power. About a hundredfold improvement. ..
> What seems like an unfulfilled need is a framework similar to packet, 
> with the ability to insert different modes as they are developed. You 
> would not have to keep inventing the wheel over and over.
> 
My feeling is that even when the modulation/signalli ng speed was quite 
less than optimal, the network worked.
(Runing a network costs, but there existed a will to keep it going. Life 
is more expensive nowadays)

The Achilles heel has been the radio channel access method.
> This would mostly have practical value for groups that want to set up a 
> BBS system. For example, I have monitored the packets on an 80 meter BBS 
> here in my state where most of the transmissions are retries. And this 
> is during the day under NVIS conditions. 
NVIS has the longest time spread of all ionospheric propagation modes. 
Even 300 baud can be too fast at times.
> A much more robust mode needs 
> to be used.  Then you would be able to send and receive direct or time 
> shifted messages. This is the one thing we can not do with any other 
> system, but there does not seem to be any interest in developing such a 
> system.
> 
It is EASIER with the Internet...as long as it is up.
> At this time, it is true that a slower baud rate packet system could be 
> used, such as the software 110 baud speed available in Multipsk. This is 
> why hardware packet TNC's are a poor choice for our advancing technology 
> and why almost no one uses them anymore. 
Rick, I do not agree with this. My feeling is that manufacturers took the easy 
way out 
with a stagnant product, and the market fell on its knees because of lack of 
innovation.
With a market scale vision, hams are not a profitable market.

SCS has the merit of distributing easily flashable firmware updates. Who else 
has done so?

Of course, with a CPU running a single task... ("Real men use hardware 
TNC's..." 8-) ) 

MultiPSK has the merit of being a working option at less than 300 baud. 

The sound card itself is not a panacea, when used in a multitasking (or quick 
task switching) OS. 
Multitasking cannot handle tight ARQ timing windows.

It is a pity that noone has come forward (as far as I know) a real time OS 
(RTL, for instance) with a proposal 
usable on an old PC as packet engine with a sound card as modem. The problem is 
not the PC itself, but the 
prevalent OS's. 

> You are locked into a mode 
> developed over 30 years ago with no FEC or ability to be adaptive for 
> conditions. And yet, I admit that if you want a BBS system today, what 
> other choices do you have?
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
[snip]

Re: [digitalradio] Nominations for the 2008 Digitalradio Awards

[Howard Brown]

Best New Software --- NBEMS





From: Andy obrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 5:31:51 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Nominations for the 2008 Digitalradio Awards


It is that time again, time to think about nominees for the 5th Annual
Digitalradio Awards.  Please email your suggestions, I will publish
the winners January 1 2009.
As a refresher, he are the 2007 winners,

Andy K3UK

4th Annual (2007)  Digitalradio Awards :

Best "new" Digital Mode : JT65A by Joe Taylor , K1JT .  Not really new
but exploded in 2007 after much publicity from the Digitalradio group
, N0UK, and QST Magazine.  The ultimate weak signal DX mode.

Best New Software:  DM780 by Simon Brown HB9DRV ..  Still beta,
but very well designed with some nifty features.

Best Logging Software:  DX Keeper by Dave AA6YQ, makes DX QSLing easy,
good support for logging digital modes and works well with
Winwarbler, Multipsk and DM780  !

Moment Of The Year:  When a member of this digitalradio group
volunteered to pay funeral expenses for N2JH,  an indigent digital
ham and decorated Vietnam vet

Embarrassment Of The Year:  When K3UK realized the focus of his "Bozo
Guide" ,  K1JT, was in fact a Nobel Prize winner !

Biggest Surprise Of The Year:  K3UK's "Complete Bozo's Guide to HF
JT65A"  was actually read and used.  Even translated in to Russian
and Spanish!

Biggest Development in 2007 :  Addition of  ALE 400  in Multipsk.  ARQ
, robust, and narrow bandwidth

Biggest Disappointments Of The Year :
1. Standard ALE , again (second year in a row)  Has just not taken
off in the amateur world despite some really nice additions to PC ALE
and MARS-ALE .
2. Peter G3PLX going back in to his hermit cave after someone outed
his digital voice efforts!
3. Encomm with FLARQ.   What, everyone scared to try it?  Has much promise.

Biggest Testicles of The Year : Mark  Miller N5RFX.  Took a bold
step .  No sitting around and whining for this guy, he spent some time
researching a digital topic and did something about it.  Even handled
the resulting criticism with polite patience.

Best Digital Contest: :  TARA MELEE.  TARA makes contesting fun.

Experimenters Of The Year :  Awards  go  John VE5MU , Steinar LA5VNA,
Tony K2MO  , , Bill N9DSJ, Bernie VE3FW, Txema EA2AF.  They are always
giving something new a try !

Digital Pioneers:Cesco HB9TLK and Patrick F6CTE.  Both must never
get any sleep, always coming up with something new to try.  Narrow ALE
and Narrow DV!

Needs Inventing in 2008 ..Open source, modular, Digital cross
platform emergency communications software that can provide ad hoc HF
and/or VHF access to the Internet for e-mail, plus messaging between
stations.  FLARQ for Windows maybe ?

Most Anticipated Event in 2008: Release of Digital Master 780 by
Simon Brown, HB9DRV,  WITH JT65A and SSTV

Contesting Achievement of the Year:  PSK63 .  It is no longer an
experimental contesting mode, has firmly established its self as
reliable contesting mode.

Good News of the year :  John W0JAB ' still has working lungs (or lung!)

The awards are solely the opinions of Andy K3UK and thus are better
opinions than anyone else :>),

Happy New Year.

Andy K3UK
Digitalradio
Owner.

Re: [digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push Emcomm Messages to the Field?

[Howard Brown]

Rick, we are doing a bit better on speeds with RFSM8000.  We sometimes get up 
to 3200.

Maybe it depends on the bandwidth available.  I open my transmitter to 3 kHz 
and my receiver even wider.

Have not tried on FM / VHF yet but hope to do that soon.

Even at 600 or 1200 it is so much faster than the alternatives that nothing 
compares to it. I don't have an SCS modem so that is not an alternative to me. 
This is valuable when sending messages or files.  We had bad band conditions 
this evening and I was able to receive a 29k spreadsheet in 11 minutes and 40 
seconds.

The Broadcast feature of the RFSM8000 version allows you to chat without being 
connected. This could be used to run a net.

Howard Brown (The other Howard)





From: Rick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:58:12 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] You Have Mail Re: How Can We Push Emcomm Messages 
to the Field?


Howard,

Appreciate your comments on RFSM. Not many have tried it. I have found 
the speed to be very similar to what you have been experiencing. Even 
with my experimental set up here in the shack with two computers/two 
rigs, it does not often get much above 1000 bps with a perfect "path." 
This is using the RFSM2400 freeware program. The RFSM8000 product seems 
to be more oriented to the higher speeds, but does not meet the slower 
MIL-STD-188- 110A 75 bps very robust mode. Which is a shame, since the 
most robust modes are necessary to have something that can compete with 
similar modes such as Pactor.

While you can not legally use MIL-STD-188- 110A single tone modems in the 
MF/HF U.S. RTTY/Data portions of the bands, there does not seem to be 
any restriction in the phone/image portions. I have asked FCC for an 
interpretation of this but they simply will not respond.

Yes, MARS has gone back to having CW nets. That was quite a reversal for 
them since they prohibited CW for a number of years.

I did not realize that you can do keyboarding with RFSM. Maybe this is 
only possible with the newer RFSM8000 product? In fact that seemed like 
a significant limitation with RFSM2400. You could easily do ARQ file 
transfers, and the stations would constantly be testing back and forth, 
waiting for the next message but I did not see any way to get a keyboard 
type window open unless I completely missed it.

The server feature is quite interesting, sounds similar to the PSKmail 
server, which is an ad hoc approach without the incredibly complications 
of Winlink 2000's system, however, you give up some of the convenience 
features. It sounds like you have considerable expertise with setting up 
such a system to e-mail access.

At this time it is still a moot point for HF since you can not use for 
HF text messaging as mentioned above. Of course, it is completely legal 
to use on 6 meters and up  which allows for much higher baud rates than 
the quasi 2400 baud rate of the MIL-STD-188- 110A modems. I wonder if 
this would have any possible use for providing localized connectivity 
for VHF?

73,

Rick, KV9U

Re: [digitalradio] signalink

[Howard Brown]

OK, if I understand correctly you are receiving MT63 from the other station so 
your parameters must be the same.

One other thing aboutMT63 is that it does not drive the rig very hard.  If you 
double click the speaker icon in your task bar and adjust the Volume and Wave 
files, that will adjust the level.  I have been told the best way to adjust is 
to set the radio for full power and adjust the volume control / wave sliders to 
the desired power level.

In case you don't know, MT63 will copy signals you can just barely hear with 
your ear.  I have actually copied it when it displayed nothing on the waterfall.

Howard K5HB





From: Raymond Lunsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:37:16 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink


Running in digital,seems to recieve with no problems.Only with transmit.USB

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Howard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Raymond,
>
> You may know this but you did not mention it:
>
> For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and
> interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all
> programs must have these settings somewhere.  BTW, the best MT63 program I
> have found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj. com/NBEMS ...
>
> 73,
> Howard K5HB
>
>  _ _ __
> From: Raymond Lunsford 
> To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink
>
> Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63.
> The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is
> non-
> legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage
> return,etc.
> Running about 100 watts.
>
[snip]


MARKETPLACE


>From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods  
 
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to 
Traditional 
Visit Your Group  | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use  | Unsubscribe  
Recent Activity
*  15
New MembersVisit Your Group  
Sitebuilder
Build a web site
quickly & easily
with Sitebuilder.
Best of Y! Groups
Check out the best
of what Yahoo!
Groups has to offer.
Special K Group
on Yahoo! Groups
Join the challenge
and lose weight.
. 

Re: [digitalradio] signalink

[Howard Brown]

Hi Raymond,

You may know this but you did not mention it:

For MT63, you must be using the same bandwidth, starting audio frequency and 
interleave on both ends. You did not say what program you are using but all 
programs must have these settings somewhere.  BTW, the best MT63 program I have 
found is fldigi at URL http://www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS  ...

73,
Howard K5HB





From: Raymond Lunsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] signalink


Yaesu FT-840.Using cables they sent with the signalink.Trying to send MT-63.
The system goes into transmit as it should but the text at the other end is non-
legible,all mixed up makes no sense all in lower Case,no carriage return,etc.
Running about 100 watts.

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fred VE3FAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> wrote:
> I am using 3 of them and have had no problems at all.
> Please tell us your setup, rigs, cables etc
>
> Fred
> VE3FAL
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com] 
> On
> Behalf Of Raymond Lunsford
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:40 PM
> To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [digitalradio] signalink
>
> Does anyone have experience with a signalink?I can't get mine to
> transmit clear legible information?
>
>  - - --
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>  - - --
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: [psk31] Global Emergency Network Marks Record

[Howard Brown]

Hello David,

I would like to ask what type of traffic is involved in the messages you 
mentioned (10,000 messages in Oct 2008).

I was surprised because so many people use email and cell phones.  Where does 
this volume come from?

Howard K5HB





From: David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tom Hesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Scott Walker 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Russell T Hack jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Richard Krohn 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Pierre Mainville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Norman Schklar 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; KW1U Marcia Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; KC2ANN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John W. Tipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; John Miller 
N1UMJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Greg Szpunar (N2GS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gil Follett 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; George Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Frank Van Cleef <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>; Frank Fallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ewald, Steve,  WV1X" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>; Earl Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Earl Leach (WX4J) <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>; Dave Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dan Ostroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Dale Sewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Benson Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:22:53 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: [psk31] Global Emergency 
Network Marks Record


Just for the record... My original comments were 
made tongue in cheek But for the record
 
NTS Digital operates 24/7 on 80, 40, 30, 20, 17, 
and 15 meters... There are mutiple stations that do this, again primarily 
dedicated to NTS traffic... Some of the delivery points are made through packet 
links, the rest are by individual liasions to the traditional NTS system...For 
the month of October 2008, Eastern Area NTSD (and that's Eastern Area only, 
Central and Pacific also have their own totals)   handled over 10,000 
NTS messages
 
73 Dave WB2FTX
Eastern Area Digital Coordinator- NTSD
[snip]
,_._,___

Re: [digitalradio] Odd idea: Timeshare a HF Pactor III License and modem?

[Howard Brown]

Andy, it seems like it may be a good idea but it may be a bit late.

If the new Winmor mode works as well as Pactor 2 - 3 many people will go to 
that mode.

I believe they intend to continue to support the Pactor modems anyway, to 
protect people's investments.

Personally I would prefer a sound card mode if it came close.  It would be 
great if the FCC authorized RFSM8000 on HF, even if they limited the 
frequencies where it could be used.

Howard K5HB





From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: DIGITALRADIO 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:29:44 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Odd idea: Timeshare a HF Pactor III License and modem?



We have seen many mentions on this board about people who would like to try 
Pactor III but do not want to spend $1000 on a modem.  I wonder if there is any 
interest in a time share arrangement where a group of individuals buy one and 
arrange  to spend a few weeks per year operating it?   Crazy, I know, .but I 
thought I would at least ask. To make it less than   US 100.00 per person, we 
would need around 12 people, who would get the device for a month.  Some sort 
of contract would be written to protect people's investment and make sure it is 
handed on to the next person on a timely basis.  I'm not sure what we would do 
if someone fried the machine while operating it, will have to give that some 
thought.  If we got 12 people I would have them pay in to a Paypal account and 
purchase the machine for the group.Perhaps the second year , people could 
sell their month to newcomers and recoup some of their initial $100 if they did 
not want a second turn with
 it.

Totally stupid idea ?  


-- 
Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM file transfer

[Howard Brown]

Hi Rick and Steve,

I confirmed with the author that the DLP layer was not standard.  Further, they 
are not too likely to release it because they believe it is better than the 
standard.  Based on this, the FCC may not allow it. 

My testing confirms that it works very well.  Under 'fair' conditions, this is 
the fastest software for transferring messages.  (I do not include Pactor 2 or 
3 in this comparison because I do not have those modes and they are not 
available in software.)  

Perhaps the WINMOR modem will work well too.  

Howard K5HB





From: shajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:54:43 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RFSM file transfer



Hi Rick,

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Rick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The program claims to be compatible with MIL-STD 188-110, thus it 
would 
> be very surprising if the FCC did not allow its use here in the U.S.
> 

There is modem ( MIL-STD-188- 110 ) and its mode ( PSK serial tone ) 
that comes into play and the data link protocol layer ( e.g. FED-STD-
1052 DLP or S5066 DLP or other ) to consider, regarding the RFSM 
it is the details of this layer that is unknown.

> I suppose if it did not interoperate with any other MIL-STD-188- 110 
> modem, then you could get suspicious about how it functions, but 
almost 
> no hams would have such a modem available to them for testing, HI.
> 

RFSM is only compatible onto itself as its non-standard.

> Since RFSM2400 also includes a "non-standard" mode made 
specifically for 
> ham audio bandwidth use it does not seem that this is a limiting 
factor.
> 

That is at the modem ( MIL-STD-188- 110 ) layer where you can select 
the symbol rate and PSK carrier to reduce the IF BW reguirment, a 
number of today's hardware MIL-STD-188- 110 modems can also do so, I 
did so with MARS-ALE in PC Sound Device based software modems and 
others such as the RFSM boys have followed that lead as the standard 
symbol rate of 2400bps and PSK carrier of 1800hz requires a full 3Khz 
IF BW which is a problem when not using Military grade HF 
transceivers for the most part.

> It is probably a moot point since it is likely not being used by 
many 
> (any?) of us due to its limitations. It is doubtful that I will be 
using 
> it anymore since further development on the free version has been 
> discontinued and I it is rare that anyone will pay for digital ham 
> software now that there are so many good programs available that 
can 
> outperform MIL-STD-118- 110 when the signals become weak ... which 
is so 
> often the case on ham frequencies.
> 

Your view is short sighted in this regard in my opinion Rick. The use 
of PCSDM based MIL-STD-188- 110 modems and a given DLP is just the 
ticket for properly configured Amateur stations looking to make use 
of high speed HF communications as a dediated PC to such 
communications is far less expensive and more versatile compared to 
any hardware based modem/DLP. Such communications as I view the world 
are NVIS based ECOM rather than Skywave, where any Amateur can setup 
a good NVIS antenna and operate at 100w ( which due to multi-path you 
don't want to exceed on NVIS paths ) power levels. However, here in 
the U.S. it is rather moot as FCC rules prohibit us from taking full 
advantage of MIL-STD-188- 110 modems.

I no longer get this forum in my e-mail, I have not since last 
winter, I as looking at list of forums I subscribe to today an opened 
this one to see what the current topics were and looked back at the 
last two weeks worth of posts, it seems to have calmed down here a 
lot, perhaps I will turn it back on for daily e-mails.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH

Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu and flidigi - help

[Howard Brown]

I just realized I left you hanging on how to start fldigi...

Since it is in a location that is normally in the path statement, you can open 
a terminal window and enter fldigi.  If you want a menu item to point to fldigi 
you can select 'System' then 'Preferences' then 'Main Menu' This opens a window 
that allows you to add menu items.  It adds items to whichever item is selected 
on the left.

Howard K5HB



- Original Message 
From: Howard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:03:27 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu and flidigi - help


Hi Curt,

I will post instead of email in case some one else might be interested.

Fldigi is probably in directory /usr/bin ... to make sure, click the menu item 
'Places' followed by 'Search for Files'. In the search program, in the name 
contains field, enter 'fldigi' (no apostrophes) . Select 'File System' in the 
Look in folder field.

Search will show you all the places where there is anything named fldigi.  The 
items that have a blue diamond icon are the executable programs. When you 
double click one of them it will start,  and will show the fldigi version in 
the title bar.

The version packaged for apt is probably old but it is still a very good 
program.

If you decide to upgrade, it is pretty simple - you just replace the fldigi 
file with the new version. If you become interested, we can run through that 
too. (The main trick is to get su authority.)

Howard K5HB using Ubuntu 8.04 and fldigi 3.03.1.



- Original Message 
From: Curt Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>
To: Digital Radio 
Cc: illinoisdigitalham@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 5:16:03 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Ubuntu and flidigi - help


Hi, gang, well I took the plunge and set up a machine with Ubuntu used
Synaptic to "install" Fldigi and I can't find it or any of the Amateur Radio
programs that I supposedly installed could someone contact me off list and
point me in the correct direction. I'm new to Linux and this has me baffled.

Tnx a bunch and 73
Curt

Curt Givens  KC8STE, AAR5VR Army MARS
Earthdog and Special Programs Director
GCDOC/GCAC
Dayton, OH

"Registering lawful Americans who possess a gun to stop armed criminals, is
like registering virgins to stop prostitution. "

Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu and flidigi - help

[Howard Brown]

Hi Curt,

I will post instead of email in case some one else might be interested.

Fldigi is probably in directory /usr/bin ... to make sure, click the menu item 
'Places' followed by 'Search for Files'. In the search program, in the name 
contains field, enter 'fldigi' (no apostrophes). Select 'File System' in the 
Look in folder field.

Search will show you all the places where there is anything named fldigi.  The 
items that have a blue diamond icon are the executable programs. When you 
double click one of them it will start,  and will show the fldigi version in 
the title bar.

The version packaged for apt is probably old but it is still a very good 
program.

If you decide to upgrade, it is pretty simple - you just replace the fldigi 
file with the new version. If you become interested, we can run through that 
too. (The main trick is to get su authority.)

Howard K5HB using Ubuntu 8.04 and fldigi 3.03.1.



- Original Message 
From: Curt Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Digital Radio 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 5:16:03 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Ubuntu and flidigi - help


Hi, gang, well I took the plunge and set up a machine with Ubuntu used
Synaptic to "install" Fldigi and I can't find it or any of the Amateur Radio
programs that I supposedly installed could someone contact me off list and
point me in the correct direction. I'm new to Linux and this has me baffled.

Tnx a bunch and 73
Curt

Curt Givens  KC8STE, AAR5VR Army MARS
Earthdog and Special Programs Director
GCDOC/GCAC
Dayton, OH

"Registering lawful Americans who possess a gun to stop armed criminals, is
like registering virgins to stop prostitution. "

Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW

[Howard Brown]

Hi Rick,

I did a brief side by side comparison with vbdigi and mixw a couple of months 
ago.  The only MFSK mode in that version was MFSK16.  The vbdigi program copied 
much deeper into the mud than mixw.  There was quite a bit of static involved 
then.

The newer version (fldigi V3) has improved MFSK reception quite a bit.  I do 
not fully understand the changes but I can say the changes work quite well.  We 
have done some testing of MFSK32 and MFSK64.  These modes now compete favorably 
with MT63.  MFSK64 is almost as fast (not quite) as MT63 at 2000 hz bandwidth 
and MFSK64 is a bit more robust thasn MT63 at 2000 hz bandwidth.  This is 
pretty significant because it uses about half the bandwidth.

We have not tested MultiPSK, DM780 or IZ8BLY. We did try some testing with MT63 
on DM780 but were not successful.

It would be very interesting to see other people's observations as well.

Howard K5HB




- Original Message 
From: Rick W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 6:56:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] MT63 -- Mutlipsk, IZ8BLY, MixW


It would also be very interesting to see if the improved MFSK modes in 
fldigi works better than in other software, especially when affected by 
lightning static. My informal tests seemed to suggest not much 
difference, however, if there was any difference, it might suggest that 
Multipsk was ever so slightly better.

When I have done some crude comparisons with actual off air tests 
between different programs, there is usually not a lot of difference but 
sometimes there may be slight variations where in some modes there will 
certain characters that are correctly displayed in one program, yet 
other characters are correct in the other program. Thus it is often a 
wash (no significant total difference). It did seem that Multipsk had 
the edge in some of my testing and when I mentioned this to an on the 
air contact, the other ham was adamant that his testing overwhelmingly 
showed that HRD/DM780 was the best by far. Sound card calibration 
differences perhaps?

73,

Rick, KV9U

David wrote:
> Hi Tony.have you tried fldigi...it is available from 
> http://w1hkj. com in both Windows XP and Vista as well as Linux.
> it has MT63 500,1000 and 2000
>
> 73 David VK4BDJ
> 

Re: [digitalradio] TNC Suggestion Requested

[Howard Brown]

Sam, Pactor 3 (or at least Pactor2) seems to be widely accepted as the standard 
fast mode for radio email.  The Winlink team is bringing out a new software 
modem that may effectively replace Pactor.  It might be good to use a sound 
card interface (much less expensive) for a while and see how the new software 
works out. 
 
Many of us don´t like the way Pactor 3 takes over a frequency even if it is in 
use.
 
Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Sam Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:24:10 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] TNC Suggestion Requested


Already own MixW.
Need to be compatible with Winlink2K. Pactor3 is apparently only 
available from SCS, and that is what the Winlink community is using.
Just don't like the lack of competition.

Sam Cook, Milan, MO
Amateur Extra Class Radio Station ACØOK
ARES Official Emergency Station, Sullivan Co., MO
Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) AAR7AO
FEMA IS-00100.a Certified
 = = = = =

Mark Milburn wrote:
> You might want to look into using MultiPSK. The
> author has recently added a feature to his program
> which allows it to be used as a TNC emulation. MixW
> also has this feature, but registration costs are
> fairly high.
> 
> 73 Mark KQ0I
> Des Moines, IA
> 
> --- Sam Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> I'm considering buying a new TNC for portable emcomm
>> station use.
>> I have a KAMplus and a plain old KAM, but guess I
>> should upgrade.
>> Without an ear-splitting yell of "SCS", what are the
>> suggestions for me?
>> *IF* the SCS is the *ONLY* one I should consider,
>> which model??
>> I do have USB and serial ports available on my
>> portable computer.
>> Running WinXP-Pro. Yaesu FT-857D and FT-2800M
>> Feeling depressed about parting with that much
>> money... more than my 
>> xcvr. Want something that will last a while. Can't
>> afford to upgrade 
>> every couple of years.
>> TNX
>>
>> Sam Cook, Milan, MO
>> Amateur Extra Class Radio Station ACØOK
>> ARES Official Emergency Station, Sullivan Co., MO
>> Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) AAR7AO
>> FEMA IS-00100.a Certified
>>  = = = = =
>>
>>  - - --
>>
>> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive
>> Sked Page at
>> http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked
>>
>> 30M digital activity at
>> http://www.projects andparts. com/30m
>>
>> Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI,
>> Winwarbler ,MMVARI.
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  - - --
> 
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked
> 
> 30M digital activity at http://www.projects andparts. com/30m
> 
> Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 

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

[Howard Brown]

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] Fast ARQ Hardware

[Howard Brown]

Bonnie, you have heard from two software authors that they allow for 
significant time so the delay does not lose data.  You have heard from others 
that other recent software packages are designed to allow for this issue with 
sync pulses, etc.

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.

No doubt you are correct that some software packages demand fast switching to 
operate cleanly.  It seems the trend in the more recent software packages is to 
be less demanding, not more demanding.  Let's hope Rick follows this trend with 
his new Winmor package.

You can write additional posts but it won't change this.  Why not just 
acknowledge it and move on?

Howard K5HB



- Original Message 
From: expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:05:56 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Fast ARQ Hardware


It has been argued by several in this 
group that the first part of a digital 
mode transmission may be deleted by 
faulty transmit hardware without any problems 
in the reception on the other end. In other 
words, the first part of a transmission may 
be thrown away or discarded, and the message 
will still get through. 

One reason they give is that some modes 
are designed with preambles or first 
parts of the transmission as simply a 
synchronization for the signal, without 
any actual message content. 

They also say that the FEC (Forward Error 
Correction) or ARQ,  or other repeat request 
parts of the mode will somehow mysteriously put 
the lost part of the message back together :)

However, in my small scope of experience, 
as one who has been using and testing various 
ARQ, handshaking, and other soundcard programs 
for only 8 years, I can tell you that in most 
ARQ modes and handshaking modes, every part 
of the mode's transmission is being transmitted 
for a good reason... and the first part of each 
transmission is intended to be transmitted 
and received. It is not something you can 
willy-nilly throw away in the hardware, and 
expect the mode to perform correctly.

In some modes, the first part of the 
transmission is relied upon to lock the 
decoder's synchronization so the the rest 
of the message can be decoded reliably. If 
the initial part of that transmission is deleted 
by the sender's hardware, then the decoder on 
the other end of the radio path will not be able 
to lock on to the signal as well, and this will 
cause random errors. 

In the case of modes that have repetitive 
or redundant transmission built into them, 
(in other words, they transmit the same 
thing several times, to increase the 
probability that the content will get through) 
the intention of the redundancy is to overcome 
the noise or interference of the radio path. 

If you delete one or more of the repetitions 
of the transmission, by using a faulty VOX 
interface or faulty hardware for whatever 
reason, you are defeating the redundant part 
of the signal, and thus, your dependability of 
the message will certainly suffer. I've 
personally observed this happening on the air. 
Often, the operators have no idea that it is 
even happening. And often, the operator 
isn't aware that their own hardware is causing 
the problem. They blame the mode, the 
software, the propagation, or even the other 
operator. But they don't want to consider 
for a moment that their own choice of hardware, 
that they paid good money for, may be at fault :) 

Sometimes, because they don't see the 
problem happening in one or more QSOs, they 
assume they have no problem. The redundancy 
has corrected the errors. But, reliability 
problems may show up in other instances 
when conditions are not quite so good, or 
if the station on the other end of the QSO 
is not optimized. These conditions are not 
something that the operator can control. But, 
good hardware to offset these problems is 
certainly within the realm of what the 
operator can do. 

There are some who have suggested that 
modes can be designed that can compensate 
for such initial deletion of the transmission.
But, the fact is, that there are many existing 
modes that don't, and they will not be changed. 
In fact, especially for the faster ARQ systems, 
it makes no sense, because, the result certainly 
would be to slow down the throughput of the system. 

The trend now in both ham radio and commercial 
radio, is toward Software Defined Radios, and 
toward very rapid DSP systems. This enables 
even faster handshaking methods for digital 
communications than ever before thought possible 
in economical hardware. 

Thus, the trend in new modes of the future 
can be open to even tighter timing in ARQ 
handshaking and time multiplexing. Often, 
the discussion of this group revolves around 
the fads in software. But, I believe that 
the software is only as good as what the 
hardware that sends and receives it can 
provide. 

73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA

"Cav

Re: [digitalradio] signalink sL+

[Howard Brown]

I have not used a SignalLink interface.  I have used VOX to operate RFSM2400, 
which worked quite well after I dropped the VOX delay to .5 sec.  There is a 
sync pulse at the beginning of the RFSM burst that allows this to work well.  
The main reason I don't use VOX for data is because I want to avoid incidental 
keying of the transmitter.  This may not be an issue with the SignalLink.

The modes that don't work well are most likely the ones that switch back and 
forth quickly, like Amtor and Pactor.  (Not sure how quickly ALE switches.) You 
really need the high dollar SCS modem for most Pactor work anyway. 

We need to get away from those fast-switching modes anyway.  They are harder on 
the equipment. The ARQ modes in NBEMS are not fast switching.  

Personally I use a Rigblaster but I still have some serial ports on my ham 
computer.

Howard K5HB



- Original Message 
From: matt gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 7:54:50 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] signalink sL+



 WONDERING IF ANYBODY IS USING A SIGNALINK SL+
FOR HIGH SPEED ARQ SOFTWARE IE RFSM2400 OR ALIKE ?
I'M CURIOUS OF PERFORMANCE BEFORE I CONSIDER PURCHASE

 
MATTHEW A. GREGORY 
KC2PUA 


 

Re: [digitalradio] fldigi windows version and MicroHam micro keyer

[Howard Brown]

I installed the 3.0 version before the 3.1 was released last night.  It 
installed over an existing installation on Ubuntu 8.04 with no problems.  It 
defaulted to /dev/ttyS0.  I did not even need to set up my callsign.  At the 
same time a friend installed the Windows version on XP.  He did find it 
necessary to set up PTT on COM2.  Once this was done we were able to test all 
the modes with very good results. 

We are located about 160 miles apart and had very good signals so we were able 
to experiment with low power.  We are both VERY impressed with this package.  
It has the modes we use regularly plus some better modes we could grow into 
(like MFSK64).

Although there is a lot we have not used, it is already time to say 
congratulations to the NBEMS team. This cross-platform package works better 
than anything else I have used for sound card modes.

Howard K5HB



- Original Message 
From: Rick W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:55:07 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] fldigi windows version and MicroHam micro keyer


It took me a while today, but with the new version 3.1 of fldigi, was 
able to get the Windows version to work with the xml file to my ICOM 756 
Pro 2.

For the average ham, I think that there would need to be a lot more 
explanation, perhaps more of a cookbook approach where even the most 
basic information needs to be explained. Otherwise it can take many 
hours of sperimentin' HI.

Dave, W1HKJ in a recent post on another group pointed out that you can 
find out the available ports by holding your cursor over the open rig 
control config menu. I did not realize that, but knew that my West 
Mountain rig talk USB to CI-V was set on COM6. So you need to know the 
COM port your interface is using.

Then you need to download the correct xml file and edit it. I rarely 
have ever edited an xml file, but finally realized that I did not have 
to get some special program, but could use Wordpad (not Notepad) to 
bring up the file and make the necessary changes and save them. What I 
did not realize until experimenting for many hours, was that this file 
does not seem to go into your main file with the program, but instead 
needs to be placed in separately located folder depending upon whether 
it is for Vista or XP. In my case, using XP, it is under Local Disk C:/ 
Documents and Settings// fldigi.files which stores many of 
these variables.

I was not able to use COM port with numbers. It may be that it only 
accepts the Linux type of structure which is /dev/ttySx.  If you are not 
familiar with how this works under Linux, you need to subtract one 
number from the COM port number to get the ttySx number because Linux 
starts naming ports starting with zero. Thus, in my case it was the COM6 
port I needed, and I then changed the xml file to insert /dev/ttyS5. The 
case is mandatory so all lower case except for the capital S. As you 
mentioned, users must rename the file from the original name to rig.xml 
which must be present for the program to see these variables.

Hopefully this may help? Perhaps others know additional things that are 
not spelled out in the documents yet. I think eventually they will have 
a separate doc file for Windows vs the other platforms.

The ability to actually have the first cross platform program of this 
type is quite impressive in itself. It supports not only GNU/Linux 
variants and Win XP SP2 and Vista, but also OS X, and FreeBSD! I don't 
think we have any other multimode digital programs that can do this. I 
am sure I speak for many of us who owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to 
Dave and all the others who are working together to come up with such 
interoperability with not only a multimode digital program, but one that 
solves many of the public service and emergency communications messaging 
issues.

73,

Rick, KV9U

w4lde wrote:
> Ross,
>
> Right after I sent my email there was a new version 3.1 released, so far 
> the same issues for me.  The newer version was to correct the com 
> issues.  I've downloaded the FT1000 XML file, edited it to meet my com 
> port selection, renamed it to "rig" as per the help file and still no 
> initialization.  Is there one for the MP?  May have to skip and go on to 
> something that works?  Looks like a fantastic package.
>
> 73 de
>
> Ron W4LDE
>
> Ross wrote:
> 
>> Ron,
>> I have a similar problem, trying to get FLdigi to work with a US 
>> Interface Navigator, the computer
>> is running XP and I am trying to operate the PTT on a K3.
>> The Vista version works perfectly with Navigator and my Orion II.
>> Ross
>> ZL1WN
>> 
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* w4lde 
>> *To:* Digitalradio@ yahoo  ;
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] s.com 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:08 AM
>> *Subject:* [digitalradio] fldigi windows version and MicroHam
>> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digitalmodes?

[Howard Brown]

Charles, 

What happened with Q15X25 ??  It looks promising, especially on VHF.

Can you fill us in on how it worked or didn't work?

Howard K5HB



- Original Message 
From: Charles Brabham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 4:16:46 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Has anyone looked into FPGA-based digitalmodes?


PACTOR, being an ARQ mode is incapable of sharing a 
frequency with more than one other station. That, along with the extreme 
bandwidth and lack of effective signal detection makes PACTOR unsuitable for 
digital HF networks on anything but a very limited scale. - A few afficianados 
can play around with it, but in that case as the network grows, more and more 
participants cop out and use the internet band-aid to cover up for the mode's 
basic lack of suitability for HF networking.
 
Or they do like WinLink and run roughshod over 
their fellow hams, operating what amounts to a QRM mill that takes up more and 
more spectrum as the "network" grows.
 
HF Packet, warts and all, is currently the only 
digital mode that a serious HF network can be built upon. The secret to this 
performance edge is AX25, which allows multiple stations to share a single 
frequency. The more reasonable bandwith there is also a positive factor that 
appeals to responsible amateurs who know how to play well with 
others.
 
They call this "spectral efficiency" and if your 
mode of choice does not have it, best to keep it for keyboard use and leave the 
networking to the networkers.
 
It is fashionable to diss Packet radio and AX25 - 
but none of the detractors have been able to demonstrate anything that does HF 
Packet's job any better... In fact, nobody has come up with anything yet that 
even works as well. Performance talks, and "fashionable PC attitudes" walk when 
actual networkers look at the available digital modes.
 
That's the way it is... Maybe someday there will be 
an actual improvement over AX25 and Packet for HF networking. When this 
happens, 
I'll be one of the first to put the new system on the air and into actual use. 
BUT I have witnessed and been part of several efforts to improve upon AX25 and 
Packet over the last couple of decades, and what has been found in every case 
so 
far is that it is awfully easy to sit around and diss AX25 Packet for HF 
networking, but not so easy to come up with something that actually works as 
well, much less any better.
 
If there was anything actually better out there, 
the HF digital network would already be using it and AX25 Packet would only be 
found on the VHF/UHF bands.
 
But there isn't, so...
 
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] #STX.TX.USA. NA
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Jose A. Amador 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 9:16  PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Has  anyone looked into FPGA-based digitalmodes?


I believe that both the AX.25 and the BBS model are OK, but that the 
packet channel coding is a disaster in the sense that a single erroneous 
bit trashes a frame. That fires up the retries chain that are so 
detrimental to the link capacity, and may sever it as well.

Pactor  does a _LOT_ better, as it is able to use frames with errors that 
would be  useless on packet using different FEC mechanisms. Source 
compression may  help as well, as FBB and WL2K do. If the signalling 
speed can be made to  match the channel and the protocol yield 
capabilities under a certain  level of errors, a huge relative 
improvement can be achieved.

That  is the big adventage of WL2K, the use of Pactor II and its better 
channel  coding. The rest is much alike the old BBS system, reworked.

I believe  that something that achieves similar results to those stated 
above will  certainly be a step ahead.

73,

Jose,  CO2JA

---

Bill McLaughlin wrote:

> To echo what Rick  stated,
> 
> FAE400 is an extremely useful ARQ mode that has a lot  of potential;
> robust yet reasonably narrow. Works very well, just a  shame so few use it.
> 
> NBEMS is also a good ARQ suite, but a  lot slower when using HF
> friendly modes. No sure the lock-up time  using MFSK16 has been
> resolved but the new FLDIGI had the mode THOR,  an incremental shift
> keying mode similar to DominoEX. Not sure if that  will be implemented
> into NBEMS, although it certainly has that  potential, especially as it
> retains DominoEx's tolerance to frequency  accuracy. 
> 
> The ax25 packet structure was fine; problem was/is  that ax25 at 300
> Baud on HF, unless near MUF, is a less then optimum  speed choice. It
> actually works fairly well at 110 Baud but it is  slow. 
> 
> I think there are many good protocols out there, but  not many want to
> experiment.
> 
> 73,
> 
>  Bill N9DSJ

Re: [digitalradio] MFSK31 QSO's wanted

[Howard Brown]

I worked Tony K2MO last night on 20 meters using MFSK31 and MMVARI. This mode 
seems very robust. It worked through deep fading and some horrible noise very 
well.   Also, it is quite a bit faster than

MFSK16.  It also seems to be very narrow bandwidth.

Has anyone established how fast it works for tasks like sending messages?  This 
could be a good tool for digital nets, etc.  If anyone has ideas about testing 
speed please post and lets try it out.

Howard K5HB


- Original Message 
From: Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:10:05 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] MFSK31 QSO's wanted


All,

I'll be QRV on 20 meter MFSK31 this evening starting around 0330z. I'll be 
monitoring Andy's sked page http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked/ index.html and 
e-mails.

Makato Mori's (JE3HTT) Mmvari program works well with MFSK31.

MMVARI Downloads - http://mmhamsoft. amateur-radio. ca/MMvari/

Tony, K2MO 

Re: [digitalradio] Rigs that isolate rear connections for digital modes

[Howard Brown]

Rick, I use my TS-2000 with three sets of connections:

1. My KAM + HF port is cabled to the 13 pin DIN connector on the back.  The 
cable is designed to use the pins that mute the microphone when the KAM + keys 
the rig. 

2. My (old) Rigblaster connects to the microphone jack on the front, and the 
Heil microphone connects to the front of the Rigblaster. There is a single 
audio cable from the TS-2000 speaker output to the line in on the computer. 
When the Rigblaster keys the PTT line the microphone is muted. There is a 
serial cable from the computer to the Rigblaster to allow sound card software 
to key the radio.

3. There is a serial cable from the computer to the TS-2000 serial connection 
for rig control.  I do not use this much but I have tested Ham Radio Deluxe 
with it and it is very impressive.  One time I needed to set my rig frequency 
down to the exact Hz and used HRD for that. It even turns the radio on and off 
if you want it to. Airmail can use this to set the exact frequency for RMSs  
(PMBOs). 

I do have another data connection from the VHF port of the KAM + to an ICOM 
IC-3200A for packet. This cable goes to the microphone jack of the IC-3200A and 
to the speaker plug on the back.

It may be possible to use the TS-2000 for VHF data also but I have not figured 
out how to do that yet.

All of my usage is for MARS.

See you all at Hamcom!  I am off to Plano!

Howard K5HB


- Original Message 
From: Rick W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:04:04 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Rigs that isolate rear connections for digital modes


If you have a choice in selecting a rig that will also be used for 
digital radio modes, you would want to give some strong consideration to 
the ones that support such connections. And it may not always be easy to 
find out from the casual specifications. I have mentioned this before, 
but to recap, especially for new group members.

In the late 1980's my main digital rig was a Kenwood TS-440SAT with a 
Break out Box from the 13 pin DIN that allowed me to key the rig with 
VOX, or use the PTT keying line. This worked with a number of different 
Kantronics, AEA, and HAL products. A miniature SPST switch was installed 
in the BoB and positioned to the side of the rig so that I could easily 
flip it to turn on the microphone mute circuit that Kenwood rigs provided.

Later on I used a Ten Tec Pegasus which works well with digital modes 
although a bit cumbersome to have rig control going on plus the digital 
software programs. It has a front 5 pin DIN plug, so not very esthetic, 
but you can select the audio source to mute the microphone circuit.

More recently, I have been using an ICOM 756 Pro II which is clearly the 
best rig that I have found for my casual operating style. It has the 
ability to switch into "D" mode -- press and hold the SSB button to 
toggle. This turns off the microphone circuit, turns off the 
compression, and slows the tuning speed to one fourth. It is also one of 
the few rigs that can perform ALE scanning without relay operation.

In the past I had a problem with Multipsk/DX Lab Commander where any 
movement of the thumbwheel of the mouse switches you out of the "D" 
mode, but there is no way to activate "D" mode. The programmers were not 
able to determine the cause, but Ham Radio Deluxe's Digital Master 780 
digital sub program has solved that problem when operating with most of 
the popular digital modes. And it can toggle the "D" mode directly from 
the rig control.

I would no longer consider any rig that did not mute the microphone when 
operating in digital modes, unless perhaps modifying it as Bonnie 
suggests. Our new ICOM 7000's did concern me as there appeared to be no 
"D" mode. But after reading the recent comments about the 6 pin DIN plug 
muting the microphone when the PTT is activated, prompted me to decide 
on using this connector in lieu of the 13 pin DIN (which uses different 
pin outs from the Kenwood 440 which I still have).

Perhaps others may comment on Yaesu and other rigs and how well they 
work (or don't) with digital modes.

73,

Rick, KV9U

expeditionradio wrote:
>
> There are other rigs that have the same issue.
> I encountered this problem on an Icom IC-718.
> When the rear ACC port is used for audio and PTT,
> the microphone is "live". Most ops using this 
> rig simply disconnect the microphone while operating 
> digital modes. 
>
> That is cumbersome and eventually wears out the 
> microphone connector.
>
> The philosophy of the application I'm using (ALE) 
> is not only to use digital data/text mode, 
> but also SSB selective calling and responding
> immediately to an ALE call with SSB voice. 
>
> So, I modified the Icom HM-36 stock hand microphone.
>
> Inside the HM-36 hand mic, the PTT 
> switch is single pole double throw (SPDT). 
>
> The Common pin of the switch is ground.
> The Normally Open is PTT.
> The Normally Closed is connected to the 
> Mic

Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400 auto speed change

[Howard Brown]

Patrick said:

I think PCALE and MARSAle have also integered the 110A mode. I hope thay 
are interoperable with RFSM (?) for at least a common part.

I have been told, and confirmed with the RFSM author, that the DLP is modified 
in RFSM.  I have no way to test it but I believe this makes it incompatible 
with 188-110 modems and also with the ALE implementations.

BTW, he said the DLP was not optimal and he improved on it.  FWIW I believe the 
DLP is FS-1052.

Howard K5HB


- Original Message 
From: Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2008 3:20:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400 auto speed change


Hello Rick,
 
>Do you think that it would be possible for some hams to develop 
>something similar, or better yet, follow the MIL-STD specifications so 
>that we have future continued interoperability?
I think PCALE and MARSAle have also integered the 110A mode. I hope thay 
are interoperable with RFSM (?) for at least a common part.
However as far as I know the 110A specifications just describe the way to 
send messages. It is not described:
* the way to do the equalizer (everyone does the best possible) on the 
receiver part,
* the protocol to work in an ARQ mode way.
 
>Do you have 
any idea why they use such a high baud rate all the time, 
>even when 
sending the more robust slow speed data and use multiple 
>repetitions?
They use the 
same modulation: 2400 bauds 8ary PSK all the time, so to recognize any change 
of 
speed or interleaving length (given in the preamble).
Of course you 
cannot have very good minimum S/N even at 75 bauds with such a high speed 
(minimum S/N must be >=0 and depends on the bit rate selection), but 
reversely you can go up to a bit rate of 4800 bits/sec...
I suppose that the 
implicite specifications are a very good throughput with a not too bad S/N. 
 
>While the 
MIL-STD does provide for multi-tone as well as single tone, it 
>appears 
that most development has been for the single tone, therefore 
>there must 
be a logical reason for this.
The single tone 
is the basic choice, multitones schemes are only 
options. 

>I still don't comprehend why 
this concept is so good compared with 
>multi-tone modems. In fact, some 
of the information I have been able to 
>find, does have the multi-tone 
slower baud rate perform better than 
>single tone high baud rate in some 
cases. But often it is supposedly 
>very close.
For the same mean HF power, I think the 
multi-tone must be better because the speed is low and you don't need an 
equalizer. The equalizer cannot have a perfect performance because the 
ionospheric transfer function can be identified only approximatively and the 
function is not strictly stationary between two known data 
transmissions.
 
>Is the reduced crest factor the main advantage for the single tone? Is 
it around 1.0?
I don't see anything about some windowing in the 110A 
specifications so the crest factor is 1, when, for the multitone, it is very 
bad 
(around 0.1or 0.2 depending on the number of tones).
 
>What would happen if a slower baud 
rate were used with a single tone modem, instead of the high baud rate? (Of 
course it would not be MIL-STD anymore).
The idea would be good but of course 
we will have an exchange between bit rate and minimum S/N qualities: the 
minimum 
S/N would be better and the bit rate smaller.  
But I think 2 
tones would be also good: it would permit to double the bit rate, 
each tone being a channel for the convolutionnal coding. The crest factor 
factor 
would be 0.5 without windowing and around 0.35 with a 
windowing. 
If you would set your transceiver to the maximum (100 watts) you would 
supply 35 watts to the antenna, which is sufficient for a continuous working. 
HW?
 
73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: Rick  W. 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:42  AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400 auto  speed change

Hi Patrick,

As you know the Russian RFSM developers have adapted  MIL-STD-188- 110A 
(maybe even more advanced than that?) as a software  modem. It apparently 
took a large programming effort to do this.

Do  you think that it would be possible for some hams to develop 
something  similar, or better yet, follow the MIL-STD specifications so 
that we have  future continued interoperability?

Do you have any idea why they use  such a high baud rate all the time, 
even when sending the more robust slow  speed data and use multiple 
repetitions?

While the MIL-STD does  provide for multi-tone as well as single tone, it 
appears that most  development has been for the single tone, therefore 
there must be a  logical reason for this.

I still don't comprehend why this concept is  so good compared with 
multi-tone modems. In fact, some of the information  I have been able to 
find, does have the multi-tone slower baud rate  perform better than

Re: [digitalradio] Cheap USB soundcards ordered

[Howard Brown]

Andy, I will sign up for the extra card, can't have too many.

If you have already committed it, no problem.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 1:32:42 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Cheap USB soundcards ordered

No problem, I must have been asleep!

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM, kh6ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy,
>
> There may be some misunderstanding. I already have four of the USB Sound
> Adapters, which I will use to help local hams get on NBEMS. Please take me
> off your list, as I don't need any more.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Skip KH6TY
>
>
>   

-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb. com
(QSL via N2RJ)

Re: [digitalradio] Vista

[Howard Brown]

I read the article.  Nonetheless, the first NT release was originally
intended to be 'the next' OS/2 release.  Believe it or not, IBM and
MS were in a partnership at that time.

When MS went off on their own, IBM took over OS/2 from them.

I have an interesting video clip of Bill Gates saying "OS/2, the 
operating system of the future.

I lived through that experience.  Now I use Linux.

- Original Message 
From: Dave AA6YQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:35:27 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Vista





See
 
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Dave_Cutler_ (software_ engineer)
 
73,
 
Dave, 
AA6YQ
 
 
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
com]On Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:21 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Vista


NT's background is OpenVMS.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

 - - - - --
From: "Peter G. Viscarola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>
> 
> The Windows NT TCP/IP network stack had components that were originally
> based on BSD code. But the OS itself? No, not that I've ever seen.
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Vista

[Howard Brown]

NT 3.1 and 3.5 was based on OS/2.

- Original Message 
From: Simon Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:20:56 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Vista

NT's background is OpenVMS.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

 - - - - --
From: "Peter G. Viscarola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>
> 
> The Windows NT TCP/IP network stack had components that were originally
> based on BSD code.  But the OS itself?  No, not that I've ever seen.
> 
 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Vista

[Howard Brown]

How about a free open source Windows replacement? 
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

 "ReactOS® is an advanced free open source operating system providing a 
ground-up implementation of a Microsoft Windows® XP compatible operating 
system."

- Original Message 
From: Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:59:01 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Vista

>>>AA6YQ comments below

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "n7zxp"  wrote:

I have been sitting here reading all this things about Vista. Now 
lets go back to when XP was new. Everyone said and wrote all this 
stuff about XP. 

>>>That's not true, Lane. At birth, Windows XP was broadly praised 
for its stable kernel (inherited form NT), strong device support, and 
freedom from the architectural "resource exhaustion" defect in the 
Windows 9X family.

Before that it was Win98 and so on. I am heavy into 
the computer industry and a programmer. Most all of the people that 
write all this neg about Vista have no idea about what they are 
talking about.

>>>I spent days tracking down the runtime defect that results in the 
Vista File Manager completely corrupting the screen if an application 
updates its title bar with any frequency (e.g. to present the current 
UTC time). Fortunately, I'd recently met with the manager  
responsible for these runtimes and sent him a minimal faulting 
program; as a result, Microsoft issued a hotfix and (I hope) included 
the correction in SP1. The fact that his dad was a ham helped a 
little... 

>>>The change in the sound APIs that limits the use of PSKCORE and 
MMTTY is similarly cut-and-dried and indefensible violation of upward 
compatibility.

Vista is a good program and is superior to XP. 

>>>None of the "pillars of Longhorn" -- the key sources of end user 
value -- made it out the door in Vista. All that's left is Aero's eye 
candy and the immensely intrusive User Account Control (UAC). If 
Vista offered any significant advantages, enterprise adoption 
wouldn't be well below 5%, and Microsoft wouldn't be dropping the 
price a year after launch.

If people take the time to update drivers and software that is 
normaly free they would have no problems. But they would rather grip. 
I run MANY Ham related programs and have updated and no problems. The 
one's that are not updated yet are being worked on by the software 
makers.

>>>The technical and financial litmus test for an operating system is 
not "some programs work". Its *all* programs work.

The amount of work involved in a new OS is behond the comprihention 
of most all people. If you think this is wrong sit down right now and 
write a program that will play a simple card game. Now imagine what 
goes into a program as complex as Vista or XP.

>>>As an operating system, Vista is conceptually trivial; it 
implements nothing that wasn't well understood 30 years ago. Its 
complexity arises from the absence of a resilient architecture, long-
term accretion without refactoring, and a poor software software 
development process. All of these were and are avoidable. Microsoft 
finally appears to be addressing some of this with MinWin (see for 
example http://www.crn. com/software/ 202404947 ).

As far as he goverment  goes they are happy with Vista as they are he 
one's who requested to have all the security features in the Vista.

>>>Everyone wanted Microsoft to produce a more secure implementation 
of Windows. But UAC is so annoying that most users disable it. That's 
hardly progress.

Do you really think Bill Gates makes a new OS and does not talk to 
them as for as what they want. Think people... 

>>>Then how would you explain the extraordinarly low adoption rate of 
Vista by companies -- around 3% when last I checked. The primary 
driver for Vista adoption has been PC manufacturers bundling it with 
new models, much to their user's unhappiness. Microsoft has already 
extended the "XP is no longer available on new PCs" date by 6 months, 
and has dropped the price of Vista to encourage sales. If there were 
anything of compelling value in Vista, none of that would be 
necessary -- even with all of Vista's defects.

No matter who makes a new program knows it will have bugs.

>>>That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're a programmer and you 
think that way, then your work is practically guaranteed to  contain 
defects. 

They turn it lose on the public becouse instead of having just the 
Microsoft crew give reports they have the world. When people give 
reports on the OS they mke changes. Thats what a update is. If they 
did not do it this way we would all be using DOS. Would that not be 
fun. 

>>>That is not true. Had Microsoft used modern software engineering 
practice to build Windows, its engineers would be spending a far 
greater fraction of their time introducing useful new functionality 
onto a framework designed to accomodate it rather than chasing down 
thousands of defects a

Re: [digitalradio] Group - Ham Software for Linux ???

[Howard Brown]

Hi Walt,

Yes, linuxham is pretty active but seems to be dedicated to supporting the 
W1HKJ software.  Excellent software but the site is not intended to be for all 
Linux ham software discussions.  Jose was talking about the linuxhams  (plural) 
group that has become inactive.  If you are a Linux ham, join linuxhams and we 
will wake it up.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:47:57 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Group - Ham Software for Linux ???

I don't know, I'm on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] s.com group and 
there are 10-40 
messages a day and sometimes only 1 or 2.

73,

Walt/K5YFW

Jose Amador wrote:
> I subscribed to linuxhams back around 1996 or so, and was very useful on 
> my start with linux, packet and associated stuff.
> 
> At some point I had to unsubscribe and lost that part of history.
> 
> Eventually, the list moved to Yahoo Groups.Lately there is VERY LITTLE 
> activity on the list. I am a subscriber.
> 
> On the real life, the project leaders also have a life of their own, and 
> they may get tired or monkey-wrenched by higher priority stuff.
> It is a pity at times, but anyway, it happens.
> 
> Maybe linuxhams needs a fresh blood injection.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> Linux User 91155
> http://counter. li.org
> 
> ---
> 
> Howard Brown escribió:
> 
>> Is there a Yahoo group or other public list where the discussion
>> centers on ham radio software for Linux?
>>
>> On this board, most discussions on Linux lead to how many more users
>> there are for Windows. While this is true, there seems to be a group
>> of us that would prefer to focus on Linux.
>>
>> There is http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/linuxham/
>> <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/linuxham/> and this is a valuable
>> group but focused mostly on W1HKJ software.
>>
>> There are some groups that have software listings but do not have
>> discussion capability.
>>
>> Does anyone know of a group/list like this? Do we need a new one?
>>
>> Howard K5HB
> 
> 
> 
>  - - --
> 
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensw eb.com/sked
> 
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/dxlist/
> http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/contesting
> http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/themixwgro up
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Group - Ham Software for Linux ???

[Howard Brown]

Thanks, Jose.

I saw this one earlier but it seemed inactive.  I have signed up and when 
approved, will read as many of the old messages as I can.  Maybe this will be a 
good place to discuss Linux ham software.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:32:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Group - Ham Software for Linux ???


I subscribed to linuxhams back around 1996 or so, and was very useful on 
my start with linux, packet and associated stuff.

At some point I had to unsubscribe and lost that part of history.

Eventually, the list moved to Yahoo Groups.Lately there is VERY LITTLE 
activity on the list. I am a subscriber.

On the real life, the project leaders also have a life of their own, and 
they may get tired or monkey-wrenched by higher priority stuff.
It is a pity at times, but anyway, it happens.

Maybe linuxhams needs a fresh blood injection.

73,

Jose, CO2JA
Linux User 91155
http://counter. li.org

---

Howard Brown escribió:
>
>  Is there a Yahoo group or other public list where the discussion
>  centers on ham radio software for Linux?
>
>  On this board, most discussions on Linux lead to how many more users
>  there are for Windows. While this is true, there seems to be a group
>  of us that would prefer to focus on Linux.
>
>  There is http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/linuxham/
>  <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/linuxham/> and this is a valuable
>  group but focused mostly on W1HKJ software.
>
>  There are some groups that have software listings but do not have
>  discussion capability.
>
>  Does anyone know of a group/list like this? Do we need a new one?
>
>  Howard K5HB

[digitalradio] Group - Ham Software for Linux ???

[Howard Brown]

Is there a Yahoo group or other public list where the discussion
centers on ham radio software for Linux?

On this board, most discussions on Linux lead to how many more users
there are for Windows.  While this is true, there seems to be a group
of us that would prefer to focus on Linux.

There is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linuxham/ and  this is a
valuable group but focused mostly on W1HKJ software. 

There are some groups that have software listings but do not have
discussion capability.

Does anyone know of a group/list like this?  Do we need a new one?

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Vista

[Howard Brown]

Did you read it? Does it seem slanted or just reporting?

- Original Message 
From: Tooner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:00:07 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Vista

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Howard Brown <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It appears your opinion is shared by others:
> 
> http://www.desktopl inux.com/ news/NS854183741 2.html?kc= EWKNLNAV032408ST R4
> 

One can hardly consider a Linux site to be fair-and-balanced towards
it's slant on Windows.

Re: [digitalradio] Vista

[Howard Brown]

It appears your opinion is shared by others:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8541837412.html?kc=EWKNLNAV032408STR4

An excerpt:

 For the first time in ages, thesale of new PCs with Windows as a percentage of 
the PC market isdeclining sharply. The new winner is the Mac, but, while no one 
does agood job of tracking the still-new, pre-installed Linux desktop 
market,it's also clear that Linux is finally making impressive inroads 
intoWindows' once unchallenged market share.


- Original Message 
From: AA0OI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:53:50 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Vista



HI
word is from the forward looking computer mags that VISTA is now DEAD.  The US 
government has refused to use it and it doesn't look like many more fixes are 
upcoming.. Instead they have moved up the release date of new OS ,, "System 7" 
to 2009.. Vista was just like Mill was many years ago... BYE BYE VISTA ( and it 
20% slower than XP.)
 
Garrett / AA0OI



- Original Message 
From: Charles Brabham <[EMAIL PROTECTED] org>
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:23:51 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Vista

Dell sells new dual-core PC's in your choice of Vista, XP, Ubuntu Linux or 
DOS. - Yes, I said DOS.

Mine works just fine, no problems.

73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL








  Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Re: [digitalradio] MARS WinLink in Tennessee Storms

[Howard Brown]

I am also concerned with the expensive proprietary
nature of the Pactor modes and the standardization on
it by the WL2K proponents.

Many ham PMBOs don't accept stations using Pactor 1.

Now, MARS is becoming less friendly to Pactor 1 users
as well.

Hams need to develop a BETTER replacement for Pactor
that is based on open standards. It would be fair to
charge for it as long as the standard(s) were open.
MARS would accept a replacement for Winlink 2000 if it
were a better package.

The new package would need to be friendly to keyboard
users and still be able adapt to transmit messages at
high speeds OR lower speeds under poor conditions. 
This would be sort of a cross between the current
NBEMS, ALE400 and RFSM2400. Perhaps the Outpost
software could be adapted to work with this too. 

Could this group provide the organization to support
such an effort?  Whatever happened to the ARRL attempt
to define requirements for a new package?

Howard K5HB

--- Jeff Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What I found even more interesting than the article
> on QRZ was the comments on it.  To a "T" everyone
> commented that it was good that WINLINK2000 was now
> being used on MARS freqs instead of the amateur
> bands.
> 
> Not having much experience with Pactor and WL2K, I
> wasn't aware that there were bandwidth issues
> associated with the WL2K system.
> 
> Is this as big an issue as it appears to be?
> 
> I'm personally more concerned with the expensive
> proprietary nature of the Pactor modes and the
> standardization on it by the WL2K proponents.
> 
> Any comments??
> 
> Jeff Moore
> KE7ACY
> Deschutes County ARES
> Bend, Oregon
> 

[digitalradio] RFSM8000 Mail Server

[Howard Brown]

Can anyone comment about the RFSM8000 mail server? Would this work in
an emergency as an adhoc email gateway server?  Does it need routing
tables to determine how to deliver email (especially local email)??

It would be great to find a description of this.

Howard K5HB
 

Re: [digitalradio] Report on RFSM2400 vs. OFDM

[Howard Brown]

GM Rick,

Several months ago I did some testing on HF with RFSM2400. 
We were able to transfer 4000 character files in ~40 secs. This 
is similar to what Les was able to achieve.  Conditions were excellent 
then.  Recently I was able to test with Chuck, AA5J on VHF and 
this time the throughput was similar to your numbers even though 
we had good signal conditions. I realize this does not clarify the
throughput ability but it does show that it can achieve high speeds 
under certain conditions. I still do not know how deep in the mud
it will go and still work.

Regarding the tuning; we were able to achieve connects by tuning
the transceiver dial to the point where the initial sync burst lined up 
with the red line in the 'Tuning to Signal' window during a connect.

We tested the 3 khz wide mode and then the 2.4 khz mode.  We
were able to get more throughput on the narrower mode.  I think
this just says our SSB filters were not handling the wider mode well.
No doubt we could have changed to wider filters (or FM mode) and
gotten better results.

I think the developers were up front that they would eventually
charge for the package.  I was surprised by the price too. It could
be worth it if the FCC allows the higher rate, and if many people 
are using the software.  There may be some competition if the ALE
folks get something in place that is easy to use. I would love to see
this mode in NBEMS for file transfer operations.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:16:50 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Report on RFSM2400 vs. OFDM










  



Hi Les,



This was the first time I could get anyone to even try the mode as I 

have been attempting that for some time. From what I can tell, you need 

to be connected in order to do much with the mode to really do any kind 

of testing other than perhaps calling a "dummy" station.



In regard to your questions:



1. I may have an older version, but I don't find a sound card offset in 

the Options. My sound card has been extremely accurate (Sound Blaster 

Live!) when tested with other programs and can be within a Hz or two.



2. The sampling rate is set to 48000.



3. My main interest is having very robust modes that work at the highest 

possible speed under the most difficult conditions. I have spent 

considerable time sifting through the materials found on the internet on 

STANAG modems (I will use the term STANAG as a short form of what is a 

large number of different modems) and from the published information, 

the throughput drops off rapidly when you go below zero dB S/N. The 

throughput last night did not really quite meet those expectations, but 

this may be due to other factors, such as insufficient computing power 

or the software modem not being able to match the multi thousand dollar 

STANAG modems. At least that seems reasonable to me, otherwise, why 

would governments spend the astronomical amounts of money for such modems?



Having said that, my inside information from those who actually use 

these modems for government/military use, find that they don't work 

quite as impressively as the advertising might suggest.



But at least we are getting a taste of what we can expect from this kind 

of technology. Perhaps others may have more information to compare the 

relative performance of the software modems of various types?



Also, have you tried these modems on VHF? Here in the U.S. we can use 

them above 50 MHz, and I think we can mix and match modes there as well. 

I have not found anyone to test this with my mediocre 6 meter antenna, 

but I just realized that this may actual work dramatically faster than 

NBEMS.



If Skip, KH6TY is reading this, perhaps he can comment.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Leskep wrote:

> Hi Rick

> Regarding RFSM2400/8000

> I wonder if you both set up your sound card offsets in the program

> Options/Hardware 

> This program does require a fairly correct sample rate setting on

> both TX and RX to achieve full speed

> On tests done here on a fairly quiet band on 40m and 80m

> before just before sunset there has been no problem to achieve

> speeds as the records show below

>  

> BTW  Our testing has been done with RFSM8000 which has the ability

> to work at  bits per second

>  

> The times shown below are in the afternoons on a relatively quiet band

> and over a distance of 250 klm for VK2KNC and 400 klm for VK2JN

>  

>  

>  

>  

> 'VK2KNC' accept MAIL-requests. - 4/11/2007 - 3:09:32 PM

> Receiving file '0101vlrg.jpg' , compressed size 87920 bytes, from 

> 'VK2KNC'... - 4/11/2007 - 3:10:01 PM

> File '0101vlrg.jpg' received succesfully, all time 406 sec, average 

> speed 1930 (1730) bits/sec - 4/11/2007 - 3:17:01 PM

> Disconnected from 'VK2KNC' - 4/11/2007 - 3:17:15 PM

>  

> Sending request for file 'stop7.jpg'. .. - 18/11/2007 - 3:33:46 PM

> Receiving file 'stop7

Re: [digitalradio] RFI Identification

[Howard Brown]

Hello Tony,

I use a portable shortwave broadcast radio to find noise sources.  I just walk 
around to where it gets stronger, then fades.  I have found leaky insulators on 
power poles, etc.  Good Luck.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:59:02 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] RFI Identification










  



All,



I have an RFI problem that I'm trying to identify. It's a continuous 

pulse noise that pops on every 1/2 second. The timing between each pulse 

is perfect (about 0.533 seconds) and doesn't seem to change.



The noise is spread accross all HF bands and on some days it seems to 

creep up into the 100MHz range; it's also stronger on the lower 

frequencies. The signal is directional and goes from almost nothing to 

S-8 with the antennas pointed south.



The noise appeard suddenly in December and has not stopped. I have a 

recording and would appreciate any suggestions.



Thanks,



Tony -K2MO 






  

[digitalradio] Re: Digitalradio Group

[Howard Brown]

Yes, we need to have a place where the discussions of FCC rules are
appropriate. Does anyone know of such a group on Yahoo??

Andy, would you consider creating such a group??

Howard K5HB

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "dl8le" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Per definition the 
> 
> DIGITALRADIO GROUP
> 
> is
> 
>  
> "A meeting place for discussion of amateur radio digital modes, 
> applications, software, hardware, equipment, and on the air 
> activity."
> 
> The ongoing discussion about legal or formal topics since a couple 
> of weeks with constant repeating of all the old arguments without 
> any new ideas or aspects is more than boring and for sure not in 
> line with the original definition. It's just repeating something and 
> no interest in carefully considering the other party's arguments. 
> And, worst of all, only one part of the different subjects of this 
> group, the air activity if this term can be applied at all, is 
> discussed over and over again with absolutely no progress. Please 
> count the posts on FCC regulations, fundamental (and unfortunately 
> non-technical) contributions to emergency communication in 
> particular the spending of 250 KUSD for radio equipment etc (I don't 
> want to waste my time to list all what I have read in the past weeks 
> since I joined this group), and then compare that number to the 
> posts on real topics of this group. The ratio between the two 
> figures is in my opinion completely inadequate.
> 
> I like open discussions but there should be an end sometime, at 
> least that the different parties come to the conclusion that there 
> will be no agreement. That is at least an agreement.
> 
> If the present discussions will continue I will for sure leave this 
> group. The group will survive it, of course, but I wonder if not 
> many others not commenting in public will look for a better 
> alternative to the meeting place the Digitalradio Group is offering 
> at the moment. 
> 
> 73
> 
> Juergen, DL8LE
>

[digitalradio] Welcome to the Group

[Howard Brown]

Chuck,

I think it has all been said on the old topic so on to bigger and better 
things.  I think you are located within VHF range from my station (12 miles SW 
of Denton).  I am looking for stations to test the NBEMS package on VHF.  What 
are your digital interests?  This would need a sound card interface and it 
would be best if we used SSB but maybe FM would work too.

My VHF antenna is at 65 feet so I think I can make it over your way OK.

Howard K5HB

PS: Rick did an excellent review of an inexpensive sound card interface in 
message 25767 of this group recently.  I am using an old Rigblaster M8 that I 
got on Ebay.

Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Howard Brown]

I have to toss in my two cents here.  I was a member of ARES for many years.  
We provided communications for search and rescue in the mountains of New Mexico 
back in the '70s.  We also provided communications for the Forest Service 
during forest fires.  We had a ham RTTY station in the Forest Service office. I 
have not lived there for many years but am betting the ARES group in NM still 
provides valuable emergency services.

In Texas and many other states the Skywarn organization provides valuable 
services.  I believe this is also ARES.  

Hams were valuable to the US military in WWII because they had communication 
skills.   This type of skill is still valuable to the military.  

Hams have always been the source for MARS operations.  Much of the old 
customary Marsgram traffic is not needed by the military but that traffic was 
always valued as a training tool.

MARS has a workable WL2K system.  There are assigned frequencies that are wide 
enough to accomodate Pactor 3.  If a station there transmits when another 
station is transmitting, it is interfering only with it's own network (I don't 
hear this at all). 

In short, hams still can justify their frequency assignments.

Personally, I do not operate WL2K on the ham bands.  I don't have an SCS TNC 
and I don't want to be part of the problem.  If we all transmit without 
listening, the bands will be just like CB.  No  thanks.  

73,

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:20:24 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm










  



But Alan, I deal with medical emergencies several times per week!  
As

I pointed out in my original post, I don't question that we have many

ham's that provide emergency communications.  I do question the

integrity of amateur radio claims,  and feel that it's capabilities

are vastly overstated.  Yes, I have demonstrated that  a sound card ,

a piece of wire, and a transceiver can outperform the zillion dollar

hospital equipment when hospital communication equipment is operated

by plug and play dispatchers.  I do not accept that hams exist to

provide emergency communication, we exists to tinker and twiddle and

every now and again help others.  Radio amateur advocacy groups such

as the USA's ARRL have very little "clout"  without the spurious claim

that amateur radio is an emergency communication system.   The emcomm

card is played in a manner similar to TV Networks claiming  to serve a

vital civic role by providing "news".  TV network provide

entertainment that sell advertising, the news gets thrown in because

it looks good.  Emcomms in amateur radio looks good, and IS good at

times, but it does not represent the hobby as a whole.



Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce.  ALE is

underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective

but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without

ARQ are just not going to cut it.  NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK

Mail  has promise but does not have enough users.



Andy K3UK



>

>

>

>

>

> Andrew O'Brien wrote:

>  > I think that much of the "hams in emcomms" is a scam , or a way for

>  > hams to "play" firefighter/ cop/medic without actually having to be

>  > one. The "scam" is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit

>  > around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to

>  > be activated. Ham radio is a communications hobby that has a SMALL

>  > amount of it;s constituency that play emcomm,. The vast majority DX,

>  > talk about recent surgery on 75M, contest, and decode strange

>  > squealing noises on 14077.

>  >

>  >

>  So this is something to be proud of?

>

>  I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a cop

>  wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and discomfort

>  because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, somewhat

>  desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to help, and did so.

>

>  I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags.

>

>  So until you've seen firsthand the impact of disasters like hurricanes &

>  floods, and done your bit to help, then you are simply not qualified to

>  pass judgment.

>

>  Andy, I know you were not saying that emergency service is a scam, just

>  the idea that most hams do emergency service is overstated. And that's

>  probably true. But it's part of how we justify our existence. 97.1.A. So

>  maybe the few who do respond are carrying the rest?

>

>  I came back from my Katrina experience with these convictions:

>

>  - Like it or not, I would implement mobile/portable winlink capability

>  since it is the defacto standard and most functional digital transport

>  infrastructure we have. Warts and all. (I've made Steve W's blood boil a

>  few times by trying to influence winlink philosoph

Re: [digitalradio] Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land

[Howard Brown]

Skip, I had two contacts today and transferred mail and files with both 
stations.
We started out on PSK125 and dropped to PSK63.  We had strong interference
from a Pactor (1 and 3) station.  FLARQ managed to work through the QRM
and get the files transferred. In some cases we had a lot of retries but it 
worked.

We did this between Illinois and Texas, and between North Carolina and Texas
so we did not have the benefit of NVIS.  This probably increased our retries.

Can we control the size of transmitted units? Or does the program reduce unit
size in difficult conditions?

Thanks for a great package.  We will be trying it out on VHF as well.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: kh6ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 6:39:35 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land










  



Hi Russ,



Sorry I have to rain on the parade, but I am now in South Carolina, and no 

longer in Hawaii. :-(



However, what is significant is that even with band conditions degrading 

rapidly, you managed to send me a message using Flarq, and it was received 

flawlessly with only one repeated block.



I was running 10 watts to a 20m inverted Vee in my attic (on 30m!) to your 5 

watts with a Butternut in the side yard. Band was going out, but because we 

were using ARQ, the message came through without an error, even though the 

raw text on VBdigi had errors.



If I had a 30m antenna, I would have been much stronger. I am amazed we 

could had a QSO at all, under such poor conditions!



You are my first totally random ARQ QSO using the NBEMS, and I connected 

with your beacon signal, so I am very gratified with the result tonight!



73, Skip KH6TY

Mount Pleasant, SC FM02



- Original Message - 

From: "Russell Blair" 

To: "Digital Radio" 

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:29 PM

Subject: [digitalradio] Text message passed ok via VBdigi texas to KH6 land



>I just had a qso on 10.137 usb with KH6TY and sent him

> a PSK31 txt message form Texas to kh6 land I was

> running 5w of power, we tryed a PSK63 but the band was

> gone and I had no copy on him. I need to play around

> and read up some more about this stuff..

>

> Russell NC5O

>

>  =

> IN GOD WE TRUST !

>  =

> Russell Blair NC5O

>  Skype-Russell Blair

> Hell Field #300

>  DRCC #55

>

>

>

> 

>  _ _ _ _ _ _

> Be a better friend, newshound, and

> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 

> http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ

>

>



 - - - - - -



No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 

11:29 AM






  

[digitalradio] NBEMS

[Howard Brown]

Calling CQ using NBEMS on 14073 + 1000 hz.  Will try to go to FLARQ if
anyone using NBEMS copies.

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!

[Howard Brown]

LAWS OF RADIO ROBOTICS







 
 A robot operator may not QRM a human operator or, through 
inaction, allow a human operator to be QRMed.





 A robot operator must obey orders given it by human operators especially 
orders to stop transmitting until the frequency is clear.





 A robot operator must handle its own messages as long as such operation does 
not conflict with the First or Second Law.





73,
Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Jaak Hohensee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 1:44:44 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!










  







Dave! You wrote, that there is nothing wrong with transmitting robots
in ham-bands - only verification of frequency.

IMO there are minimum 2 more general questions.



1. Ethics. Robot ethics. So the primary question is not verificational.
Does the transmitting robot must respect/tolerate operators or vice
versa?

Isaac Asimov formulated some basic principles years ago. Now
South-Korea want to release The Robot Ethics Charter. 

http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/technology/ 6425927.stm





2. If the ham community accept robots in ham bands, then in nearest
future we see programs with artificial intelligence, that make 24h QSOs
from starting to QSLing.

What you expect from QSO? Robot or operator?



Better to discuss this topic before.



HNY 2008, Jaak

ES1HJ/QRP







Dave AA6YQ wrote:


  
  

  The flaw in your rhetoric, Jaak, is that Winlink
PMBOs are QRMing existing QSOs whether or not an emergency is in
progress. No one has a problem with this during an emergency -- but
most of the time (thank goodness!) there is no emergency, and we're
being QRM'd for no rational reason. There is nothing wrong with
unattended stations, message passing, or using Pactor III -- but there
is a plenty wrong with failing to verify that the frequency is locally
clear before transmitting during non-emergency conditions.

   

  73,

   

   Dave, AA6YQ

   

  -Original Message-

  From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] com]On Behalf Of Jaak
Hohensee

  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:40 AM

  To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!

  

  

  
  Dear Rodney

  

You are wrong. You know laws/regulations, but ham-robots dont.

Ham-robots have strong mantra - emergency. And strong mission - helping
people.

What you and other ham-humans have against this rhetoric?

  

Ham-humans need better rhetoric against ham-robots. Like this:

  

Mantra for ham-humans: Ham bands robotfree! Robots act in ham-bands
like communication terrorists.

Ham-humans mission: To developing human communication skills for any
case, not only for emergency. For emergency better widely used
QRP-readiness.

  

73, Jaak

ES1HJ/QRP

  

Rodney wrote: 

  

Tolerant of what?  Intentional interference?  Don't think so!



Tolerant of blatant breaking of laws and regulations?  NOT!







Jaak Hohensee <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> wrote:


  
  Demetre SV1UY wrote: 

  

...This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world
we should always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think?



73 de Demetre SV1UY













  

New era beginning...

  

HNY 2008 from DigiQRP community. 

  

  -- 
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP

  




 

.  

  
  

  

  -- 
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP
  

 







-- 
Kirjutas ja tervitab
Jaak Hohensee
gsm +37256 560172




  

Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail

[Howard Brown]

That is what I would like to do - use pskmail as an internet gateway for an 
AX25 network on VHF with a TNC like my KAM+.  Do I understand that this might 
not be a big deal?

If you also wanted to add the afsk modem, perhaps it might be helpful to 
examine the source code (in C) for Thomas Sailer's soundmodem at 
http://www.baycom.org/~tom/ham/soundmodem/ ... 

73,
Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rein Couperus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:19:05 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail


To write an interface for a KAM+ is fairly trivial, but
I think for 1200 Bd AFSK parts of pskmail would have to be rewritten in
 C or C++,
as PSK250 seems to be the limit for perl. That would be a major
 project, and 
if I decide to do it, it will take me several years to finish. Unless I
 get help :)
What could be interesting is to use the pskmail server as an internet
 gateway for an AX25 
network on VHF/UHF. It is now already possible to use PSK250 over FM.

73,

Rein PA0R

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: 31.12.07 00:47:05
> An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail


>  
>  
>  
> 
> What is the likelihood of getting PSKmail interfaced to a hardware
 modem like the KAM+ ? That sure would come in handy at VHF (for Packet).
> 
> 73,
> 
> Howard K5HB
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Rein Couperus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:25:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail
> 
> If you have a windows XP machine with 512 MB RAM you may want to try 
> the windows version of the pskmail client. The puppy Linux image runs
 
> inside windows and is just 256 MB, so it runs entirely in RAM. 
> 
> As it uses QEMU not every soundcard is supported, only the VESA
 server
>  works.
> But you don't have to leave windows for it :) 
> Use 1024x768 resolution.
> 
> The zip file is at
> http://sharon.esrac.ele.tue.nl/pub/linux/ham/pskmail/windows/
> 
> 73
> 
> Rein PA0R
> 
> P.S.: Most servers use PSK250 now.
> see http://hermes.esrac.ele.tue.nl/maps/pskmailers.php
> 
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Gesendet: 30.12.07 02:12:10
> > An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: [digitalradio] PSKmail
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have discussed my misadventures with PSKmail enough. I wish that
 I 
> > could get it to work with at least one of my computers, one of
 which 
> > runs Kubuntu, but thus far no luck. Same with several others that I
>  have 
> > talked to. My attempts to use an emulator and also to use a Virtual
 
> > Machine approach. I probably have to increase memory in my dual
 boot 
> > Linux Kubuntu 7.10/Windows XP machine to do this.
> > 
> > Rein had a nice youtube interview for those who would like to get
>  some 
> > background information on PSKmail. But until it can operate under
>  native 
> > Windows OS, I just don't see any interest as yet her in the U.S.
> > 
> > I don't see current PSK modes competing directly with Pactor modes,
>  even 
> > though both are PSK, because all of the sound card PSK modes are
>  single 
> > tone. Pactor 2 uses two PSK tones always at 100 baud, but with
>  different 
> > modulation. I am not sure why no one has come up with a two tone
 PSK 
> > sound card modem, but if they did, then they could start matching
>  Pactor 
> > 2, especially if they had several different speeds or modulation.
> > 
> > But like you say, it is completely open source, so over the long
>  term, 
> > maybe things will advance to the point that it will be so
 compelling 
> > that you just have to have it:)
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Rick, KV9U
> > 
> > Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> > >
> > > For PSKmail information you can check
> > > http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a
 good
> > > idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that
 are
> > > involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and
 he
> > > uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's
 code
>  is
> > > open and anyone can implement it in any operating system,
 although
>  he
> > > has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a
 Linux
> > > emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just
>  boot
> > > in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows
> > > program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and
> > > there are already a few experimental American servers online.
> > >
> > > This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the
>  potential
> > > of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they
 are
> > > going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets
> > > nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more
> > > marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is
> > > probably more interested in see

Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail

[Howard Brown]

What is the likelihood of getting PSKmail interfaced to a hardware modem like 
the KAM+ ? That sure would come in handy at VHF (for Packet).

73,

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rein Couperus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:25:22 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail


If you have a windows XP machine with 512 MB RAM you may want to try 
the windows version of the pskmail client. The puppy Linux image runs 
inside windows and is just 256 MB, so it runs entirely in RAM. 

As it uses QEMU not every soundcard is supported, only the VESA server
 works.
But you don't have to leave windows for it :) 
Use 1024x768 resolution.

The zip file is at
http://sharon.esrac.ele.tue.nl/pub/linux/ham/pskmail/windows/

73

Rein PA0R

P.S.:  Most servers use PSK250 now.
see http://hermes.esrac.ele.tue.nl/maps/pskmailers.php

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: 30.12.07 02:12:10
> An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [digitalradio] PSKmail


>  
>  
>  
> 
> I have discussed my misadventures with PSKmail enough. I wish that I 
> could get it to work with at least one of my computers, one of which 
> runs Kubuntu, but thus far no luck. Same with several others that I
 have 
> talked to. My attempts to use an emulator and also to use a Virtual 
> Machine approach. I probably have to increase memory in my dual boot 
> Linux Kubuntu 7.10/Windows XP machine to do this.
> 
> Rein had a nice youtube interview for those who would like to get
 some 
> background information on PSKmail. But until it can operate under
 native 
> Windows OS, I just don't see any interest as yet her in the U.S.
> 
> I don't see current PSK modes competing directly with Pactor modes,
 even 
> though both are PSK, because all of the sound card PSK modes are
 single 
> tone. Pactor 2 uses two PSK tones always at 100 baud, but with
 different 
> modulation. I am not sure why no one has come up with a two tone PSK 
> sound card modem, but if they did, then they could start matching
 Pactor 
> 2, especially if they had several different speeds or modulation.
> 
> But like you say, it is completely open source, so over the long
 term, 
> maybe things will advance to the point that it will be so compelling 
> that you just have to have it:)
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> >
> > For PSKmail information you can check
> > http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good
> > idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are
> > involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and he
> > uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's code
 is
> > open and anyone can implement it in any operating system, although
 he
> > has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a Linux
> > emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just
 boot
> > in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows
> > program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and
> > there are already a few experimental American servers online.
> >
> > This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the
 potential
> > of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they are
> > going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets
> > nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more
> > marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is
> > probably more interested in seen PSKmail progressing than his own
> > personal glory. He is a true Radio Ham. This is unlike other code
> > writers who although they allow everyone to use their program, they
> > keep their code to themselves. Of course it is everyone's right to
> > protect their code and I do not blame anyone here, I am just
 stating a
> > fact.
> >
> > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
> >
> > 
> 
>   
>  
> 

-- 
http://pa0r.blogspirit.com


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


View the DRCC numbers database at
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [digitalradio] Licensing of Pactor modes

[Howard Brown]

GM Rick,

>From my KAM Plus manual, under Pactor Operation: 

"The KAM Plus uses memory ARQ in this mode to improve reception."

Perhaps earlier implementations by Kantronics did not... this one did.  If I 
watch and listen closely, I can observe packets being completed even when no 
single packet transmission was received without noise. 

Of course this is Pactor 1 only.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:04:45 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Licensing of Pactor modes










  



Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS 
actually 

fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that 

the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to 

have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems 

than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem 

and other manufacturers.



For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with 

BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR.



Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my 

digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a 

complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor 

mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. 

They tried many software updates, but nothing improved.



Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and 

so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, 

W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link 

conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, 

MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as 

signals were clearly copyable by ear.



>From all information, including from Bill Henry at HAL, SCS would not 

license Pactor modes.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> Of course they licensed PACTOR 1 and Kantronics, MFJ, AEA and others

> made a mess of PACTOR 1 because they were not able to implement it

> properly.

>

> They could ask SCS for the license of PACTOR 2 but they were not even

> able to copy PACTOR 1 properly, never mind PACTOR 2. I still have a

> KAM plus, but it's this modem even on HF PACKET performed horribly

> compared to the SCS Modems.

>

> The only guy that managed to write a decent program that worked fine

> in PACTOR 1 and many other modes including AMTOR, was G4MBK. His

> software BMKmulti could do RTTY, AMTOR and PACTOR 1 but it needed a

> homemade modem or terminal unit to work. It run in DOS mode and I

> still have mine loaded in my Olivetti Quaderno (an A5 sized DOS

> Laptop). An other 2 soundcard Pactor 1 implementations, one in DOS and

> the other in Linux I hear that they never worked properly.

>

>   






  

Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392

[Howard Brown]

Rick, I usually agree with your comments but I do not agree that the petition 
is dead.

The FCC has probably been waiting for the ham community to be self-policing and 
handle this interference problem.  Can you suggest any other reason that they 
have not cited the interfering stations?

Since we have not been able to solve this through cooperation, the ham 
community (at least part of it) is asking the FCC to solve it through rules 
changes.  The FCC is smart enough to recognize the need to do this, and I 
believe they will.  We may not like the solution but they have been asked to 
deal with it formally and they probably will.

73,
Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:52:53 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392










  



Steve,



We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you 

have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest 

groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets 

as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the 

majority of operators.



If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not 

have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until 

the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in 

the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 

50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is 

that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, 

many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may 

improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide.



Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the 

petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 

proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become 

ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have 

more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to 

stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this 

increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of 

intentional interference.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Steve Hajducek wrote:

> Rick,

>

> RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. 

> As Andrew stated, "The proposal has no chance of being adopted".

>

> Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and 

> RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my 

> oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily 

> work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations 

> have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB 

> pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+

>

> I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view.

>

> 73

>

> /s/ Steve, N2CKH

>

> At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote:

>   

>> Hi Again, Steve,

>>

>> I think that you are also supporting "protectionism" as I am, only you

>> don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes

>> 

> >from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for

>   

>> them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that

>> way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the

>> SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB

>> operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but

>> even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and

>> similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters.

>> 

>

>

>

> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at

> http://www.obriensw eb.com/drsked/ drsked.php

>

>

> View the DRCC numbers database at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad 
> io/database

>  

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>   






  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

[Howard Brown]

Dave, you said earlier that you were running Winlink Classic, not Winlink 2000. 
 That would make your station a BBS instead of a PMBO, wouldn't it?

Dave (the other one) was commenting about PMBOs.  Maybe the WL2K code is 
different? 

73, Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: David Struebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:36:45 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR 
PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats










  







Listen to mineIt IDs in CW 
at the end of an unsucessful connect attempt and at the end of a completed 
connect... The rules allow for ID via Pactor exchanges in the interim showing 
the callsigns of both stations.

 

Dave WB2FTX


  - Original Message - 

  From: 
  Dave 
  Bernstein 

  To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
  

  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:26 
  PM

  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on 
  digital opposition, QRM on PACTOR PMBOS now from DAVE, Congrats

  


  
  I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW.

73,

Dave, 
  AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, 
  "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 
  12/27/2007, you wrote:
> Unless you're willing to 
  purchase an SCS TNC, you will not be 
able 
> >to know who or what 
  QRM'd you. A requirement that all unattended 
> >stations identify in 
  CW at least once within each 5-minute period of 
> >activity would 
  eliminate this problem.
> 
> Dave I'm not to sure about 
  this.
> My pactor station *WILL* ID in either CW or P1 my call
> 
  no matter what pactor mode I'm running at the time.
> 
> John, 
  W0JAB
>




  
  


  
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1200 - Release Date: 
  12/27/2007 1:34 PM



  

[digitalradio] RM-11392

[Howard Brown]

To hams who are not in the USA: Your comments are important.  I just
left my comment, and did not see any qualifier that required that you
be in the USA.  They may place more importance on your opinions since
we are currently being a 'bad neighbor' to you.

I browsed through the 73 comments that were in place at that time.
Seven comments supported the petition, three were FCC documentation of
the petition, one was ambiguous and the remainder were opposed to the
petition.

Some of the opposition was clearly mistaken. A couple said the
Rule-making would hurt the MARS services. Of course the FCC has
nothing to do with MARS, other than issuing the ham license that
allows a ham to qualify as a MARS member.  In fact, this could enhance
MARS operation if some of the hams with this equipment became active
MARS members.  By the way, the wide modes work much better on MARS
since there are 'channels' and assigned frequencies there.

A few of the comments were embarrassing. How much weight can your
opinion carry if you are not able to spell the word amateur?

My opinion:  Thank you Mark, for bringing this interference problem to
focus.  Maybe it will be resolved now

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] Testing fldigi and flarq

[Howard Brown]

Charles, I had a similar issue but found that the software had 
defaulted to the Mic input and I was plugged into the Line
input.  Could that be it? From the Menu, click Configure, 
then under defaults select Sound Card. There are buttons 
on the right side for Mic In or Line In.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Charles Brabham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:55:20 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Testing fldigi and flarq










  



I tried it out, but had trouble with the audio not driving the 
waterfall 

display sufficiently to function.



When I pull the CD and boot up in Win98se again, Digipan and MixW work fine, 

as always.



Everything else on the LiveCD worked fine, but was useless without a 

fuctional waterfall display. I saw no way to fix it and decided that it just 

wasn't going to work with my computer, a 400 Mhz Celeron.



Needless to say, I was disappointed not to be able to try the software 

out. - It looks very interesting.



73 DE Charles, N5PVL



- Original Message - 

From: "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>

To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>

Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:38 AM

Subject: [digitalradio] Testing fldigi and flarq



>A while back there was some discussion of using Linux as a possible OS

> for an emergency communications with an ARQ add on for various speeds of

> PSK modes. Did any of you test this on HF? Since there was never any

> further discussion it may suggest that either this went nowheres, or it

> did not work well, but those of us who have an emergency communications

> focus would still like to know, pro or con.

>

> I could never get the live NBEMS disk to work but now have fldigi and

> flarq set up on Ubuntu Linux as a dual boot on my XP machine. It is a

> bit of a kludge, but I think this should work. Can anyone get on HF and

> try this out? I am QRV on most bands between 160 to 6 meters with modest

> antennas.

>

> 73,

>

> Rick, KV9U

>



 - - - - - -



No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 12/9/2007 

11:06 AM






  

Re: [digitalradio] Dual Boot on Acer Aspire]

[Howard Brown]

Walt, one consideration is acquiring the version of Ubuntu you want.

The latest is 7.10.  You can order CDs and wait a few weeks or you can download 
it (700 mb) if you have a fast enough connection.  The latest version I have on 
hand is 7.04.  I will mail you a copy of that if you like.

It is pretty easy to install Ubuntu to a second partition. You will wind up 
removing the second partition, then telling Ubuntu to use the unallocated 
space.  The install will set up the partitions you need.  It will also set up a 
boot manager so you can select Windows or Linux. Ubuntu goes in so easily you 
won't believe it is Linux.  

If you would like me to mail a 7.04 CD to you just send me your address by 
email.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio 
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 2:23:05 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Dual Boot on Acer Aspire]










  



I have found that the Ubuntu LiveCD (6.x) loads nicely on my new 
Acer Aspire.



The Aspire has an "C" drive of 90 GB with MS on it and a "D" Drive (named Data)

with 70 GB formatted.



I would like to load Ubuntu (latest) on the 70 GB part. now and eventually 

reformat the "C" drive with MS on it for Linux.



Any experienced HowTo information would be appreciated.



Thanks,



Walt






  

Re: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu

[Howard Brown]

Yes, I did but the program will not start anyway.

Howard K5hb

- Original Message 
From: Darrel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:44:00 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu










  



You must trash the .fldigi folder when upgrading to 2.0 I have 
found.


Darrel

On 27-Nov-07, at 8:33 AM, Howard Brown wrote:



Rick, I tried to upgrade from 1.37 to 2.04 and had a 
similar problem. 

I will email you a tar/gz of 1.37.  I am not sure it works 
with FLARQ but it does include PSK250 so it is worth a
try.

I am running FLDIGI 2.01 on another computer but the
operating system is not UBUNTU - it is puppy.

Howard K5HB









  

Re: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu

[Howard Brown]

Rick, I tried to upgrade from 1.37 to 2.04 and had a 
similar problem. 

I will email you a tar/gz of 1.37.  I am not sure it works 
with FLARQ but it does include PSK250 so it is worth a
try.

I am running FLDIGI 2.01 on another computer but the
operating system is not UBUNTU - it is puppy.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:51:33 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu










  



It seems impossible that this stuff doesn't work, but it must be 
some 

"little" thing that I am missing. I did discover the use of control H to 

toggle the hidden files. The program unfortunately doesn't do anything 

and it does not seem to do an installation and there is no fldigi in the 

usr/bin folder either. I have downloaded the .tgz compressed binaries 

several times from W1HKJ so it is not likely to be corrupted files.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Darrel Smith wrote:

> Rick

> I have downloaded and installed all those apps on my kubuntu 7.10 with 

> little problem. When I start the download it asks me if I would like 

> to use "Ark" which I do then extract the file to my home folder and 

> everything works right away by clicking on the icon in the home 

> folder. For fldigi, make sure you have hamlib installed and if you 

> have installed an older version trsh the hidden folder .fldigi. I 

> noticed that the repository installs fldigi in the usr/bin folder.

>

> Hope that is ome help.

>






  

Re: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu

[Howard Brown]

Rick, this may have changed but my version of FLDIGI
was very simple (1.37).

I downloaded it to my preferred download directory
which is /home/hb/downloads/fldigi ...  

Then I double cliked it to bring up File Roller.  Then 
I clicked extract, created a new directory /home/hb/
fldigi and extracted the single file to this directory.

Then I double click on the program and it runs.  This
is as simple as it gets.  Maybe version 2 is different?

Howard K5HB


From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:41:16 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Linux packages for Ubuntu










  



I am trying (yet again) to use Linux in a practical manner. With my 

older computer the newest version of Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon) has the 

correct drivers for my 22" Samsung Monitor. I have downloaded  fldigi, 

geoid, fl_logbook, and flarq. I double click on the binary .tgz and it 

brings up File Roller (not exactly what the help says, but this is Linux 

and there are some gotchas and what some might call small errors, but 

frustrating when you trying to do it right). It is not as intuitive as 

Windows programs, but I am thinking I am doing the right thing and 

trying to extract the components. It seems to be happening and then I 

have a representation of the program as an icon and the properties of 

the icon says it is an executable program.



In some cases there is yet another installation script but when I run 

that, nothing happens. None of the binaries will actually work.. Except 

on time I did get fldigi to come up on the screen, but after that ... 

nothing. So I have to be doing one or more things wrong. I have spent 

quite a few hours trying to figure this out, but no luck so far.



Anyone have an idea what needs to be done in addition to what I am 

trying to do?



I might mention that I was able to use Synaptic to retrieve the binaries 

for gMFSK and XLog and they both installed OK and it put the apps in a 

menu called "Other." Oddly, when I tried to do the same with the older 

version of fldigi, v. 1.33 (new is 2.04) it did not work either.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Paul L Schmidt, K9PS wrote:

> Yes - fldigi doesn't (at least, not yet) support MT-63.  I found

> the ubuntu repository and the gmfsk package... although I'll have

> to do some research to tell him how to get it installed.  He's

> a Linux very-newbie, and I'm a Linux old-timer but haven't used

> ubuntu enough to know how to have it fetch the packages.  I shouldn't

> have any problems getting that figured out, though.  I survived the

> transition from SLS to Slackware's .tgz files to RedHat RPM's :)

>

>

> Thanks for the info.

>

> 73,

>

> Paul / K9PS

>   






  

Re: [digitalradio] AO-16 soundcard BPSK demodulator

[Howard Brown]

Take a look at this post: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/24575

Charles has some links in there to articles on his site.  So far I am receiving 
only with his methods bit plan to try to transmit with it real soon.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Miroslav Skoric (YT7MPB) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:35:54 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] AO-16 soundcard BPSK demodulator










  



Mark Thompson wrote:

> AO-16 soundcard BPSK demodulator

> 



Btw, is there a good site about using soundcards for VHF/UHF packet radio?



Misko



> Wouter Jan Ubbels PE4WJ has produced a JAVA 1200 bit/s BPSK AX.25 soundcard 
> demodulator for a PC.

> 

> This is especially useful for the Amateur Radio satellite AO-16.

> 

> A Beta version of the software can be downloaded from: 

> http://home. casema.nl/ b.ubbels/ Warbler.htm 

> 

> AO-16 

> http://www.amsat. org/amsat/ sats/n7hpr/ ao16.html

> 

> 

>    _ _ _ _ _ _

> Be a better pen pal. 

> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview. 
> mail.yahoo. com/






  

Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem

[Howard Brown]

Andy, on my hard drive there is a directory C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles\I386.  
This may be what the program is looking for, if it exists on your drive too.

Howard K5HB


- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:30:29 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem


I already have the pack on my HD, as I do use automatic updates.
So, my question is... if you have the pack already on your HD, how do
you take care of the install when prompted to insert the CD with the
service pack on it ?

Andy.


On Nov 19, 2007 10:40 PM, r_lwesterfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you turn Automatic Updates on, it should load in less than a day
 or so of
> leaving your computer on.   Or you could go to Microsoft Update and
 let it
> install from there.  After that, I would go to the sound card web
 site and
> download the latest driver . . . should work.
>
>
>
> Rick – KH2DF
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Andrew O'Brien
>  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:00 PM
>  To: DIGITALRADIO
>  Subject: [digitalradio] Sound card install problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been having a couple of small but odd-ball issues with
>  Multipsk and Microkeyer and thought I would try another sound card ,
>  just for the heck of it. I disabled my on-board sound card and
>  installed a Creative Audigy PCI card. I have installed many
>  soundcards over the years but ran in to an basic problem with the
>  latest card. When I attempt the software install from the supplied
>  CD, it eventually asks me to insert the XP HE path that contains
>  service pack 2. I have no CD for my OS, the PC came with XP HE
>  already installed . The install attempt fails the first time, when I
>  try it a second time the XP service pack question does not come up
 and
>  I get a "installed successfully" message. After a reboot, the new
>  "hardware detected " comes up, the soundcard drivers are not
>  installed successfully. I have been to busy at the office to get
 home
>  in time to call Creative's help line.
>
>  Anyone have any ideas how I get the service pack 2 stuff ? Maybe it
>  is on my HD somewhere ?
>
>  Andy K3UK
>
>  



-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[digitalradio] Re: I Apologize

[Howard Brown]

Garrett, I have always wondered why the FCC allows this to happen.  It
seems to me that they are violating the rules.

I have a similar question about Pactor 3.  Can someone explain why it
is allowed?  My impression is that it is wider than 500 Hz and isn't
that the maximum bandwidth?

Howard K5HB 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John:
> The problem is that during a contest ,, contesters have all the
channels, and it doesn't matter if you do find a clear spot,,
contestester will move in within in a kc and take out ANY other
communications that are going on.. whether it be ssb qso, digital
sstv, sstv.. If the idea is to weed out the week,, take and put all
the contester in 100kc together and let the screaming begin,, but
no lets spread them out over the entire band and make it miserable
for everyone who isn't contesting..
> ( sorry about the high horse, but when contest are on,, it just
ruins my days) 
>  
> Garrett / AA0OI
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:19:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] I Apologize
> 
> Long long time ago (1969) a friend (now SK) who help me 
> become a ham told me that contest weed out the weak.
> 
> I for one love contest. Be it SSB CW or RTTY.
> 
> It's a bit like what they say about TV. If you don't like what you
> are watching change the channel. Same holds true ham radio.
> All 6 of my HF rigs has a OFF switch.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> At 06:45 PM 11/19/2007, you wrote:
> >not if there is a "CQ contester" every 1kz running 1500 watts (or
more) screaming CQ CONTEST every 10 seconds. You can't pick a
secondary freq, if there are none empty. 
> >And its getting so someone has a contest everyother week end. Thank
God for week days..!!
> > 
> >Garrett / AA0OI15c19b3e. jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

> Be a better pen pal. 
> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Test PSK125 & FLARQ

[Howard Brown]

Calling CQ at 0352Z (now) on PSK125 7072 kHz + 1000.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:39:14 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Test PSK125 & FLARQ









  



-I will look for you.



Andy K3UK



-- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "rich3x" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>

> Beacon on 7072 +1000Hz at 30 sec rate.

> 

> Connect to test PSK ARQ Mode  tks

> 

> de Rich, N2JR

>






  

[digitalradio] Re: Proposed Digital Operating Questions to FCC

[Howard Brown]

Bonnie, there are some of us out here who would like to operate some
of the modes in question, but feel that they are prohibited by the rules.

We are not willing to just 'get away with it'.  This seems to be what
you are willing to do.

Please consider apologizing to Rick and deleting your post about
maliciousness.  He is trying to help us clarify the rules and maybe
even get them changed to allow faster digital operation.  Be a good
sport and look for the honest intent.

Howard K5HB

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is sad to see such maliciousness being perpetrated upon fellow
> amateur radio operators. Perhaps is is not to discover real answers to
> "Operating Questions", but rather, a charade to stir up trouble. 
> 
> Are we to believe that the perpetrator neither has the ability to read
> and understand the FCC Rules, nor willingness to learn when others
> have explained very clearly? Perhaps there is a lack of acceptance of
> the fact that even though their rules are antiquated, they must be
> followed anyway by USA operators.
> 
> Perhaps the ham operator who wrote that "story" is disgruntled by
> having been rejected from participation in other forums for similar
> conduct there. But that is no excuse for submitting such lies to the
> FCC, or to ARRL representatives, under the guise of "questions".
> 
> Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: How to check my PSK modulation?

[Howard Brown]

Hi Rob,

Good luck with the new setup.  One more hint, if you are running Windows:
the OS will not consistently use the same default sound card.  On my system
I was able to go into setup and disable the on-board sound card, then the 
Soundblaster Audigy would be used all the time.

73,
Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: charmquark69 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:03:03 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How to check my PSK modulation?









  



Hi Mike and all who replied to my post,



Many thanks for the tips and help - I'm going to print them all out 

and take them up to the shack (it's the club shack since I can't have 

deadly radiation-emitting antennas at home, and there's no internet 

connection up there) and play around a little today.  I don't think 

my finances will stretch at the moment to include the IMD Meter - 

it's certainly a great idea (and maybe a future project for 

homebrew?), but seems a lot to pay for just one digimode.



I bought a new medium-range soundcard on Friday (SoundBlaster Audigy -

 cost about $50) and installed it yesterday - this should be at least 

better than the onboard "card" in the PC there and should help all 

round.



As far as RF getting into the system, well the microHam cables are 

all shielded, and so is most everything at the shack.



I found the other tips and help particularly interesting and useful, 

since they involve simple measures and rig settings which anybody 

could easily apply, and I'll play around this morning with those and 

other ideas. 



Thanks to all again, 73 and good digi-DX

Rob DK1ROB



> Hi, Rob;

> 

> You might want to consider this - 

http://www.usinterf ace.com/IMDMeter .html

> 

> I'm planning on buying one.

> 

> Good luck,

> Mike N5UKZ






  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments

[Howard Brown]

OK, last comment before cooling off: No more space until automatics 
listen before transmitting.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:59:3:6 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Need to Expand the HF Auto Band Segments










  



Different countries have different reasons for the amateur service. 
Some 

consider it a public health issue to have hobbies for their citizens to 

participate in and keep them out of trouble. Since HF signals can easily 

cross political boundaries, one countries rules may not apply for such 

world wide communications.



Even if the U.S. prohibited amateur radio use, the frequencies would 

still often be busy.



Now, the question that I have is when did this 24/7 operation first come 

about? The first I ever heard was from someone claiming that a speaker 

at the GAREC (Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications) Conference 

said that without 24/7 alerting (or some thing to that effect) HF was of 

little value.



Sometimes people make self serving statements in order to try and build 

a solution to a non existent problem. This seems to be one of those times.



I have been waiting for someone to ask some basic questions:



1) What disaster events occur where the disaster is not known to 

governments and NGO's outside of the affected area?



2)What exactly do amateur radio operators do when we receive 

notification that a disaster has begun at some location that is 

different than we have always done in the past?



73,



Rick, KV9U



Rud Merriam wrote:

> Emcomm is a major reason for the US Amateur Radio Service as part of the FCC

> regulations.

>

> Since a disasters do not keep working hours I would say 24/7 operation is

> needed. 

>

>  

> Rud Merriam K5RUD 

> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX

> http://TheHamNetwor k.net

>   




  

Re: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode

[Howard Brown]

Dave, you are exactly correct.  

Can you explain why the FCC does not cite these stations and cause them
to cease the QRM?  I certainly do not understand that.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Dave AA6YQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:22:18 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode










  












I have suggested that automatic busy detection be disabled on
unattended stations handling during emergencies. This has nothing to do with
preferring the human factor, whatever that might be. It has to do with 
optimizing
for the transport of messages during an emergency situation.
 

  
 

Your overall argument seems to be that QRM between amateur
stations can’t be entirely eliminated, so it’s okay if unattended
stations QRM existing signals. Keep in mind that 97.101(d) prohibits *willful*
interference. If stations A calls CQ and in the process QRMs station B, but 
station
A cannot hear station B, then the interference is by definition not willful.
However if station A can hear station B but calls anyway, then the interference
is willful and station A is in violation of 97.101(d). This does happen, but 
it’s
very infrequent; any ham would refer to A as a lid in these circumstances.
 

  
 

Unattended stations behave exactly like station A above. When
initiated by a remote station, they transmit whether they will QRM a station or
not. This behavior is unacceptable whether or not there’s a technical
solution that can prevent it much of the time. It’s double unacceptable when
the solution is not incorporated. I am disappointed that someone as comfortable
with digital technology as you are would offer up a continuous stream of lame
excuses for not deploying this solution (or a better one, if you have one in
mind).
 

  
 

73,
 

  
 

Dave, AA6YQ
 

  
 





From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] com] On Behalf Of Steve Hajducek

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:02 AM

To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode
 







  
 









Hi Dave,



Thanks for jumping in here with Rick and I, if you read my reply that I just
sent in response to Rick I feel you will see that I pretty much already touched
on your points, I see that you would personally turn off automatic frequency
detection as you prefer the human factor, no surprises there.



/s/ Steve, N2CKH



At 12:22 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote:
 



>>>AA6YQ comments below

 

From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [ mailto:digitalradio @yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of Steve Hajducek



>snip<



2. With respect to Remote User to Automatic Station communications, 

the human operator initiates the communications and its all up to 

them to decide the coast is clear to do so or not and if they need to 

stop because they screwed up and did not listen long enough ( how 

long is long enough?



>>>The hidden transmitter effect means that the remote initiator
cannot reliably ensure that the coast is clear. 



>>>If we’re on the telephone from California and say
“14180 is clear here, give me a call there”, can you transmit on
14180 from your QTH on the east coast without first listening to see if 14180 is
clear there? Of course not; doing so might QRM a station in Florida that you
hear 59 but I don’t hear at all. Now consider your station to be an
unattended server and my station in California to be the remote initiator. Your
unattended server will QRM the station in Florida.



 



 be it human operator or computer software there 

is not now and never will be any perfect means of busy detection in 

my opinion) to detect that the frequency was indeed in use due either 

propagation or just plain long pauses between transmissions of the 

3rd party stations.



>>>”Perfect” is unnecessary. It is clearly possible to
build busy frequency detectors that are at least 80% effect, since such a busy
detector was demonstrated years ago. Applying such an imperfect busy detector
to unattended stations would reduce their QRM by a factor of 5.



>>>This “it’s impossible to build a perfect busy
detector” argument reminds me of Xeno’s paradox, in which he proves
that all motion is impossible.





In closing, you and everyone else on this frequency busy detection 

quest just don't seem to grasp the realities the shared aspects of 

the Amateur Radio bands and tolerance for co-frequency levels of 

interference and just what it is that you are proposing with your 

frequency busy detection dream. 



>>>To what “realities” are you referring? Amateur radio
bands are certainly shared, but that gives no station the right to QRM existing
signals.



Also you seem to think the issue is 

with Automatic Stations, when in fact it is really with Human 

operated stations. If there is going to be frequency busy detection 

in digital mode communications soft

Re: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode: Server

[Howard Brown]

Rick said:
"I have followed the  Aplink/Winlink/ Netlink/Winlink 2000 progression over a 
period of well 

over 20 years and have used the Aplink and Winlink systems when they were 
operational."

Rick, I think it is worth noting that the old Winlink BBS system is still 
operational on AF MARS.
IMO one of the reasons for this is they have not worked out some details, like 
how to handle
bulletins. 

One other point, Rud said:
"A PBMO is an RF, or internet, message collection and delivery point. The 
servers
 
are Internet computers that store messages and determine the routing through
 
the network."

Rud, I am sure you know this but the PMBOs do use the internet for everything 
except
the actual transfer of emails from the sender and to the receiver.  

I believe the Winlink 2000 system works pretty well for MARS operations where 
it has
dedicated channels.  There are some areas where it can be improved and I 
believe those 
areas are being addressed (at least for MARS).

Personally, I do not attempt to use WL2K for ham purposes because I only have 
Pactor 1
and because it does not listen before transmitting on shared frequencies.  I do 
not plan to
purchase an expensive modem so let's get something going that works like Pactor 
2 in 
software.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:48:15 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode: Server










  



Rud,



Many, many incredibly successful projects use open source. In fact, many 

large projects could never have been developed any other way since they 

were otherwise not financially viable. Enough said.



Now about the server vs Winlink 2000. A PMBO is a server to the RF side 

of the system as well as interfacing with the next level server(s) at 

the CMS level. FThis is the achilles heel of the Winlink 2000 system 

with several layers of servers and back out again. On VHF a Telpac 

server does the interfacing to RF side, everything else is done via the 

internet. My understanding is that the Telpac connects to a PMBO which 

connects to a CMS, then back to a PMBO and back to a Telpac. This is 

true, even if it is the same Telpac.



A PMBO can be set up to locally handle connections, similar to a 

repeater, but this is yet another single point failure model that I want 

to avoid in any local networking. If there are instant PMBOs, it is not 

something openly discussed or made available. I have followed the 

Aplink/Winlink/ Netlink/Winlink 2000 progression over a period of well 

over 20 years and have used the Aplink and Winlink systems when they 

were operational.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Rud Merriam wrote:

> Rick,

>

> I am not commenting on the validity of your point about PSKMail. 

>

> Your comment is exactly the problem with an open project. As is your

> observation about Winlink 2000. An open project gets continuously

> sidetracked into explanations of why the technique of some other project is

> not being used. This can be months after the group doing the work made a

> series of rational decisions about the technique being used.

>

> More specifically, you have confused the PMBO and server issues in your

> point about Winlink. They are two different entities in that system. A PBMO

> is an RF, or internet, message collection and delivery point. The servers

> are Internet computers that store messages and determine the routing through

> the network. Only an EmComm PBMO provides routing when the Internet is not

> available. The general PBMO must have an Internet connection. You are

> correct that a PBMO must be set up. There are supposed to be portable EmComm

> PBMOs ready for deployment if one is not in the area. 

>

>  




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Howard Brown]

That sounds great Andy.  I sure would like to test this with you.
My station is off the air for a few days, will try for a sked with you 
when it is back on.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys










  



Skip Teller has done this in Emcomm.  PSK 31 to PSK250 with or 
without

ARQ , and an email component too.

Andy K3UK



On 10/16/07, Howard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dave,

>

> What about building a replacement now?  It would be good for

> Emcomm (ARES  & MARS) to have a package that would

> support high speed without a high price.

>

> For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net

> and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages.

>

>

>  2000?

>

>  >>>If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our

>  goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better

>  transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of

>  hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations.

>

>  73,

>

>  Dave, AA6YQ

>

>

>

>

>   



-- 

Andy K3UK

www.obriensweb. com

(QSL via N2RJ)




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys

[Howard Brown]

Dave,

What about building a replacement now?  It would be good for
Emcomm (ARES  & MARS) to have a package that would
support high speed without a high price.

For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net 
and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages.

It seems the PSKmail guys can adapt quickly to different modems.
They also have the advantage that you can quickly set up a new
post office sort of ad hoc.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:12:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys










  



>>>AA6YQ comments below



--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



>snip<



Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio 

amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they 

turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP?



>>>This occurred in the fall of 2004. I held direct discussions with 

Steve K4CJX and Vic W5SMM. Despite early signs of receptiveness, they 

made it clear that they would not use anything we developed.



>>>SCAMP was already under development, though without a busy 

frequency detector. There were concerns about the choice of RDFT.



>>>Later, I was able to engage with Rick KN6KB and encourage him to 

include a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. I was not alone in this 

activity. If I made a contribution, it was in helping to convince 

Rick that while "good" would be a great first step, waiting 

for "perfect" could yield failure.



Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail 

type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 

2000?



>>>If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our 

goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better 

transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of 

hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations.



73,



Dave, AA6YQ






  

[digitalradio] Busy Detection

[Howard Brown]

Jose and Demetre,

Let's say the two of you were having a nice Pactor QSO on 14.091.00 kHz.  Now 
let's say that N4XX (made up callsign) calls me on the same frequency using 
RTTY because he can't hear you.

Let's say I can hear both of you but I answer him anyway.  Since we are both 
running the legal limit we interrupt your QSO and we continue for 30 minutes.

Are you OK with this?

If you say yes, please be honest. You know it is not right.

If you say no, then please explain why you think it is OK for PMBOs to do it.

Please don' t say it is not possible. You know it is.

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000

[Howard Brown]

John, thanks for the consideration today.  I have been and 
am still listening on 14.109.50.  I did hear one burst a while
ago but mostly just hear ALE.

BTW I just want to try to copy beacons since I still believe
it is not legal for me to transmit here.  I should be able to
copy the beacons and see them in my packets monitor 
window, right?

I am looking for people in range at VHF to test with here.
It is amazing what can be done on 2 meter SSB. 

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 11:08:09 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RFSM8000









  












Howard;
 

  
 

That might be my fault that you couldn’t decode using
2400. Will double check and try again Wed afternoon.
 

Same frequency, but will make sure I am on the right modulation,
non-standard .
 

  
 

My antenna does well north –south so maybe see u around
1700Z or so 
 

  
 

John
 

VE5MU
 

  
 





From:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi [EMAIL PROTECTED] com] On 
Behalf
Of Howard Brown

Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:12 AM

To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000
 







  
 











Hearing good RFSM signals in
North Texas this morning. Not able to 

decode beacons with the older version.



Also hearing lots of ALE and Pactor3 signals here.



Howard K5HB
 



- Original Message 

From: John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net>

To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:36:15 AM

Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM8000
 





Beaconing
14109.5 starting 1530Z , ending 1700Z, 10 minute intervals, RFSM8000, 500/600
long
 

 
 

John
 

VE5MU
 










  
 










 
 











  

Re: [digitalradio] RFSM8000

[Howard Brown]

Hearing good RFSM signals in North Texas this morning. Not able to 
decode beacons with the older version.

Also hearing lots of ALE and Pactor3 signals here.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:36:15 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] RFSM8000









  












Beaconing 14109.5 starting 1530Z , ending 1700Z, 10 minute
intervals, RFSM8000, 500/600 long
 

  
 

John
 

VE5MU
 









  

Re: [digitalradio] RFSM2400 vs. PC-ALE

[Howard Brown]

Les, can you comment on Rick's question about PTT via CAT?

I know that RFSM2400 keys my PTT via my Rigblaster but I 
guess Rick wants it to key the rig via the data port???

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Les Keppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:56:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RFSM2400 vs. PC-ALE

Rick wrote:
> If the S/N ratios are measuring above the noise, the numbers indicate a 
> very good link. As I have found out the hard way, when we tested SCAMP, 
> it was not easy to even maintain 10 dB above noise. I am not clear on 
> the amount of data you are sending as it appeared to be used more as a 
> chat mode? Or did you send large files too?

I DONT THINK YOU LOOKED AT THE FILE SIZES AND THE TRANSFER TIMES
OF THE FILES LISTED BELOW   READ ALL OF BELOW THROUGH
FOR FILE SIZES AND TIMES TAKEN(Copied from previous email)

Connecting to 'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:19:09 AM
RFSM-8000, version 0.508, user license: BETA-TESTER - 29/09/2007 - 
11:19:09 AM
Maximum supported connection speed - 8000 bit/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:19:09 AM
Connected to 'TEST4' - 29/09/2007 - 11:19:17 AM
'TEST4' accept FTP-requests. - 29/09/2007 - 11:19:17 AM
'TEST4' accept MAIL-requests. - 29/09/2007 - 11:19:17 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00017.jpg', size 28623 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:20:10 AM
File 'ATT00017.jpg' received succesfully, all time 173 sec, average 
speed 1322 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:23:20 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00023.jpg', size 39781 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:24:18 AM
File 'ATT00023.jpg' received succesfully, all time 259 sec, average 
speed 1225 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:28:55 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00011.jpg', size 16126 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:29:40 AM
File 'ATT00011.jpg' received succesfully, all time 45 sec, average speed 
2846 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:30:42 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00020.jpg', size 35064 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:31:37 AM
File 'ATT00020.jpg' received succesfully, all time 257 sec, average 
speed 1090 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:36:11 AM
'TEST4' request to read download directory 'C:\RFSM8000\TRANSMIT'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:36:19 AM
Request for sending file 'filelist' to 'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:36:19 AM
Sending file 'filelist', size 643 bytes, to 'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 
11:36:29 AM
File 'filelist' sended succesfully, all time 14 sec, average speed 350 
bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:36:44 AM
'TEST4' request to get file 'C:\RFSM8000\TRANSMIT\#70726153230- de 
VK2KDK-birds and bee.jpg'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:37:47 AM
Request for sending file '#70726153230- de VK2KDK-birds and bee.jpg' to 
'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:37:48 AM
Sending file '#70726153230- de VK2KDK-birds and bee.jpg', size 67971 
bytes, to 'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:38:09 AM
File '#70726153230- de VK2KDK-birds and bee.jpg' sended succesfully, all 
time 405 sec, average speed 1342 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:44:54 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00017.jpg', size 28623 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:45:36 AM
File 'ATT00017.jpg' received succesfully, all time 90 sec, average speed 
2531 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:47:24 AM
Receiving file 'ATT00035.jpg', size 32482 bytes, from 'TEST4'... - 
29/09/2007 - 11:48:12 AM
File 'ATT00035.jpg' received succesfully, all time 117 sec, average 
speed 2214 bits/sec - 29/09/2007 - 11:50:26 AM
Receiving file 'Hi-Q Hat + Hot Rodz addition.JPG', size 1089463 bytes, 
from 'TEST4'... - 29/09/2007 - 11:51:39 AM

If you look at the transfer times you can see they go up and down
in relation to band conditions

> 
> Did the path drop out rather suddenly? The S/N levels seemed to be 
> holding up quite well. If you had switched to Olivia, MFSK16, etc., do 
> you think you could have continued communicating?

Yes the path did drop out completely - and we maybe would have been able 
to continue with Olivia  - but of course it would only have been good 
enough to chat - and maybe small service messages
> 
> The 8PSK ALE modes are the same or very similar waveforms to what is 
> used in RFSM2400 and the advantage of PC-ALE is that it now supports CAT 
> PTT switching which is something I expect in a modern digital program.

Read capabilities of RFSM8000 below
> 
> When I use the term ALE, I am mostly referring to the various modulation 
> schemes as one thing. I personally have minimal interest in the Link 
> Establishment part of ALE as I don't see this as being used much except 
> for some longer distance alerting on HF for sudden emergencies. What I 
> do see more useful is that the modulation schemes are available as a 
> more open standard and can compete with Pactor modes.

The Freeware version of RFSDM2400 working at max speed of 3200 bits per 
second is available to all
> 
> The fastest modes in RFSM are not as fast as the fastest modes in "ALE" 
> since they can go about double that speed but do require ISB I think and 
> that will not be used on HF amateur r

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?

[Howard Brown]

John,

Just out of curiosity, do you recall how many of the Pactor QSOs were P1, 2 or 
3?

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:52:29 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Non mailbox use of pactor ?









  



Roger

After checking my log book for the last 10 QSO's

you will find 6 Pactor QSO's and 4 CW.



Thank in my mind is far from "next to zero".



At 08:45 AM 9/20/2007, you wrote:

>Andy, if you ever make it to California I can look in my junk closet for 

>my PTC-II modem (will support Pactor 1,2,3).  I quit using it years 

>ago.  Don't know if I still have it or not.  There is next to zero 

>Pactor QSO activity, and the PSK implementation is inferior to what you 

>get with MixW, not to mention it doesn't support most of the other 

>soundcard modes.

>

>de Roger W6VZV






  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Humans as Busy Detectors

[Howard Brown]

Bonnie, do you mean 27.185 mHz?

Howard K5hb

- Original Message 
From: expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 7:18:32 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Humans as Busy Detectors









  



First, we should put this so-called busy-channel detection in 
perspective:



Humans are very poor busy channel detectors... whether through human

error, or through ignorance, or through intention. 



Just try to hold a simple voice, CW, image, messaging, or texting QSO

on one of the more active ham bands on any weekend will prove this

fact to you beyond any doubt.



Bonnie KQ6XA






  

Re: [digitalradio] What's so great about MT63

[Howard Brown]

Buddy, I am not that great a typist either.  But if I have
message to transfer the speed is needed.  MT63 can
really go if you use it at 2kHz bandwidth.  

73 Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: F.R. Ashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 3:33:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's so great about MT63









  







Seems like a while back, 14.109.50 was the 
"suggested" MT63 frequency.

 

As for what's so great about it, I always 
thought it was a fun mode..so different from everything else.
As for speed,  all modes can outrun the crap out of my typing speed,  
(and just about everyone else's too)  so I really don't see what all the 
hoopla is over the speed of different modes.

 

73 Buddy WB4M


  - Original Message - 

  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] com 

  To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
  

  Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:11 
  PM

  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What's so 
  great about MT63

  


  Hi Andy, and Group.   I have been working on MT63, still a 
  beginner.  I am using IZ8BLY ie MixW.  you are right it is hard to 
  find signals to copy.  

   

  I think I read some instructions that 10109.5 was a possibility, Have 
  never heard anything there. I am now monitoring 14077.5

   

  Joe WB6AGR

  Modesto Ca

   

   




  
  
  See what's new at AOL.com 
  and Make AOL Your Homepage.
 


  

Re: [digitalradio] DM780 major update soon.

[Howard Brown]

Hi Simon,

I don't know the  choices you made or why you 
made them.  I certainly recognize that your software
is excellent work.

I do know that in software development there are
some choices that can be made that make cross-
platform development possible.   Been there, 
done that (in business applications).
 
Even major applications are coded in small units.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Simon Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:02:54 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] DM780 major update soon.









  







- Original Message ----- 
From: Howard Brown 


> We need more cross-platform development and less proprietary 
work.

 

Much, much easier said than done. Most developers 
are one-man bands devoting all available free time to software.

 

When your program becomes popular the support 
effort becomes enormous - I have > 3,000 registered members in each of my 
Yahoo! groups and ~6,000 registered members of my forums. The users help each 
other out. I don't even have time to read a summary of the postings. And then 
there's the direct emails I receive.

 

However my current code has a lot in common with 
Dave's fldigi - I've swiped his modems and put them into a Windows 
UI.

 

I don't think anyone in their right mind would 
attempt a major cross-platform radio software project.

 

Simon HB9DRV



  

Re: [digitalradio] DM780 major update soon.

[Howard Brown]

Hi John,

I am a big proponent of developing cross-platform
applications.  That does not seem to be a very
popular approach these days.

If you happen to own a TS-2000 there is a program
here:  http://www.qsl.net/wb5kia/arcs/arcslite.htm
that runs very well under Wine and does very 
well with CAT. It is called ARCS II.

The latest versions of fldigi work well with my
Linux (Ubuntu 6.06) and gMFSK does too.

We need more cross-platform development and
less proprietary work.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: John Lindsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:22:24 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] DM780 major update soon.

  
 > >--- - - - - - --
 >
 > Since the public release is due out soon, hopefully Simon will be OK
 > in me providing a preview screen shot, check it at
 >
 > http://www.obriensw eb.com/dm780, jpg 
 >
 > This screen shot shows a CW QSO (it was all I could find at 5 in the
 > morning!) Note all the available modes. The window shown is just a
 > small section of DM780, there are many more features and windows that
 > can be opened.
 > >--- - - - - - --
 >
 
 Hi Andy
 
 I am using TB 1.5.0.12 (Suse 10.2 --Linux). When I click on your link
 above I get hijacked to
 "http://templates. doteasy.com/ ErrorPages/ error404/". The url at the
 bottom of the screen shows 'http://www.obriensw eb.com/dm780. jpg'.
 If I input www.obriensweb. com then I get your homepage and if I type in
 dm780.jpg it shows the jpeg of your log. I don't know if it's a TB
 thing, a Firefox thing or my computer got hijacked as this sometimes
 happens if I input the URL wrong -- very notorious for hitting the key
 next to the one I want -- old age or going too fast in typing (1 finger
 hunt and peck method!!!). Anyway looks like DM780 is going to eventually
 be a super program. Now if he could only get a linux version working
 (never had success in getting wine operational to see if HRD would work
 in linux and wine (wine is a program that will allow windows program to
 run under Linux ).
 
 John
 John
 [EMAIL PROTECTED],___
 
 
 

Re: [digitalradio] Linux capable digital interfaces

[Howard Brown]

Since this is for occasional use only, consider

using VOX to key the rig.  I am doing this on

sound card modes successfully using gMFSK.



In my experience to date I have had trouble 

only with RFSM2400, which required me to

reduce my VOX delay on the TS-2000 to less

than 1/2 second.  This is the only sound card

program I have used which is TOR.

BTW, I use an old Rigblaster M8, still works fine.



Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:30:49 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Linux capable digital interfaces









  



I'm interested in playing around with a few digital mode 
applications

that require linux.  My digital modes interface, the Microkeyer,

requires device drivers that will not work on linux.  I'm not sure I

have the energy to build an interface, so I am wondering if there are

any basic interfaces out there that will work easily with linux (for

PTT, rig control, etc)?  I can use either serial ports or USB ports,

but USB may be a bit more useful.  



I can , I guess, PTT the TS-2000 already using a basic RS232 serial

cable, but I am lacking digital signal from PC to the rig for

transmit, and some isolation circuitry. Since this is for occasional

use only, I'm not looking to buy a expensive interface.



Andu K3UK






  

Re: [digitalradio] help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V

[Howard Brown]

Rick, there is a real need for correcting errors, such as
is done with Pactor.  I am not saying that Pactor is the
mode of choice, only that error correction is essential
to error free messages.  Once you switch to TOR mode,
only the (connected) receiving station will be able to
copy error free.

IMO an ideal mode would use FEC for keyboard to 
keyboard mode, then when you were transferring a
message it would switch to TOR.  It would also be able
to run at low speeds with low bandwidth and switch
to high speeds to transfer large messages (or files).

Also IMO the program called RFSM2400 is a giant step
in this direction.  A couple of us have done some testing
on MARS frequencies and it works well.  We have not
yet established how well it works in noisy conditions
but we hope to do that testing soon.

There may be others that work as well or better?

Howard K5HB / AFA4CI

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2007 8:59:20 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] help for setting pcale with FT1000 MP mark V









  



Having been in Navy MARS in college and later AF MARS after 
military 

service, there did not seem to be that much difference from amateur 

radio net procedures, so that is why I was wondering why the difference 

considering the extra work that has to be involved in forking the 

program. Maybe MARS needs more broadcast modes since more of their 

transmissions are based upon one to many?



In terms of CAT PTT, aren't you  using some of the same interfacing with 

RS-232 serial connection for rig control?  It seems a step backwards to 

set up two RS-232 serial ports considering that we also need to convert 

from USB. I admit that the ICOM CI-V might be less than perfect and 

could hang up in TX mode as I have had this happen. For unattended 

operation, maybe you would need a separate PTT, but for most users, 

keeping it as simple as possible commensurate with adequate rig control 

seems to me to be the goal with modern interfacing.



While the Rigblaster interfaces are used by many hams, I am not that 

impressed with their design if it requires two serial ports and I am not 

sure if they completely isolate both audio lines. One of the most common 

interfaces seems to be the Tigertronics which keys the PTT line using 

computer audio, but I definitely do not recommend that approach:)



To meet the spirit, and perhaps the legal requirements of Part 97, all 

ALE programs need to be able to monitor all transmissions. The last 

thing we need is a replay of Pactor modes which are problematical in 

monitoring and many of us, if given the choice, would ban the use of 

such modes.



73,



Rick, KV9U



Steve Hajducek wrote:



>

> MARS-ALE although based on PC-ALE differs in a number of ways, 

> basically its tailored to meet the needs of  MARS members and is not 

> in competition with PC-ALE for two-way usage by the general Amateur 

> Radio community. G4GUO and I work closely and both tools benefit from 

> that collaboration.

>

> The Pegasus supports CAT PTT, even the Jupiter does, but only using 

> Pegasus emulation mode, why Ten Tec does not have CAT PTT ON/OFF 

> commands in the Jupiter command set of a supposedly SDR radio blows me away.

>

> The only time that I recommend the use of CAT PTT for for ALE 

> operations when someone is using an otherwise VOX interface of any 

> type as the latency for PTT activition with ANY such device is not 

> fast enough in my opinion.

>

> I think you will find on a whole and especially within the ALE 

> community that RTS/DTR hardware PTT is the standard to this day, just 

> look at all the RigBlaster and other interfaces being used ( where if 

> such an interface is the choice and RTS/CTS handshaking is being used 

> either DTR for PTT or again the use of CAT PTT with such units in the 

> Vox position would be used).

>

> PC-ALE is not the only means for Radio Amateurs to decode ALE and 

> follow on transmissions and it is certainly not the tool used by the 

> various regulatory agencies such as the FCC. If you want to monitor 

> all the DTM and DBM traffic there are a number of software based 

> options available, some free and some commercial that utilize the PC 

> Sound Device Modem, MultiPSK does so, MARS-ALE can be downloaded and 

> used for such purposes as well with Listen Mode enabled, thousands of 

> Amateurs and Utility monitoring users have been doing so from what I 

> am told, see: http://www.n2ckh. com/MARS_ ALE_FORUM/

>   

>

> As I stated, ask away here or via the HFlink forum and I will answer 

> to the best of my abilities.

>

> I truly see the benefit to the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) of ALE, 

> especially for ECOM, HF traffic automation, SELCAL and Propagation 

> Analysis, however my main focus is MARS-ALE development, in time I 

> may take a more active role within the ARS ALE scene and PC-ALE 

> d

Re: [digitalradio] Linux WINE users who use Win XP Ham Digital Programs

[Howard Brown]

Rick, my answer to your question is no (I do not have
those two programs running as well under Wine/Linux).

I do have a rig control program running under Wine
for my TS-2000 - ARCS II by WB5KIA. There may be 
others for your rig.

gMFSK IS an excellent sound card program for 
Linux. Although the name implies it only does MFSK,
it does several other modes as well.  

There are several PSK31 programs included in some 
distributions.

I use a native Linux application called kamplus to 
control my KAM+ tnc.  It does not talk to Winlink
2000 although it does work with earlier versions 
of Winlink.  I know that a couple of people are 
working on a native Linux application to work with 
Winlink 2000. 

PSKMail is a native Linux app that does email and uses 
another excellent sound card program called fldigi.

There is one sound card program called 'hf' (aka hfterm)

that will work Pactor 1 (and other modes). I had trouble 
setting that one up so I went back to kamplus.

I am able to run Airmail under Wine but it is fragile 
and some parts do not seem to function there.

Best of luck. Oh BTW, I use UBUNTU 7.04. It seems to
run all my hardware well and is guaranteed to be
free forever.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 8:46:15 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Linux WINE users who use Win XP Ham Digital Programs









  



Some background:

I have two computers that I use with a KVM switch. The older Emachines 

(Pentium 4/512 Meg RAM), has been returned to Windows XP as I was not 

able to get it to run my widescreen LCD adequately with Linux OS with 

the Intel on-board video. The  newer computer is an HP (AMD 4600+ Athlon 

64 X2/2 Gig RAM) that had Vista, but since Vista could not run some 

programs due to a serious defect in Windows Explorer File Manger, I 

removed Vista and installed Linux Mepis when I discovered that it was 

the first version of GNU/Linux that could (mostly) support my widescreen.



What I am trying to accomplish:

I have wanted to experiment with Linux for some time, and have tried 

some dual boots in past years, but it just could not compare to MS OS's, 

particularly to XP which I use as the benchmark. GNU/Linux versions are 

getting better although I still do not find the screen quality 

(particularly the fonts) to be adequate enough for serious use for web 

browsing, word processing, e-mail, etc. on my system, so I am still 

doing that on XP.  This is not too much of a set back for me as the new 

computer can be used as my experimental platform and can operate my 

amateur radio activities, particularly digital applications.



At this time I have not had any luck getting any Linux sound card 

digital programs to work. This is not as bad as it sounds, since there 

are no comparable Linux programs that can compare with Multipsk/DX Lab 

Commander or  Ham Radio Deluxe/Digital Master 780 at this time.



The big question:

Are there any of you Linux users who have had good success with these 

last two programs running under WINE and have found Linux to be capable 

of running them as well as they run in XP? 



73,



Rick, KV9U






  

Re: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question

[Howard Brown]

I may be wrong but I think the American Legion will try to help any veteran, 
member or not.

Howard

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 6:22:54 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question









  



Thanks.  It seems that since he never "joined" some of the 
veteran's organizations, he is "ineligible" for their assistance in this regard.

Andy K3UK


On 6/1/07, 
Howard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:













  




I searched the American Legion for Service Officers in 

New York and got:














FOR CLAIMS



JOHN W KAVANAGH


AMERICAN LEGION DEPT SVC OFF

245 W HOUSTON ST RM 315A





NEW YORK, NY 10014

PHONE: 212-807-3066



FAX: 212-807-4029







EMAIL: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




























ANTHONY DRUZBIK JR


AMERICAN LEGION DEPT SVC OFF

130 S ELMWOOD AVE STE 614





BUFFALO, NY 14202-2479

PHONE: 716-857-3361



FAX: 716-857-3488







EMAIL: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]







Maybe they can be of service?

Howard K5HB

PS: KA2SLC is listed in New York


- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 3:37:15 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question










A little different from the usual questions...



Curt KA2SLC, a former active member of this group, is now a Silent

Key.  His body remains unclaimed by family.  I have been told he is a

U.S. veteran, does anyone know of a veteran's groups that might

assist in getting a veteran a decent burial?



Andy K3UK




  










  




















  

Re: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question

[Howard Brown]

I searched the American Legion for Service Officers in 
New York and got:














FOR CLAIMS



JOHN W KAVANAGH


AMERICAN LEGION DEPT SVC OFF

245 W HOUSTON ST RM 315A





NEW YORK, NY 10014

PHONE: 212-807-3066



FAX: 212-807-4029







EMAIL: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




























ANTHONY DRUZBIK JR


AMERICAN LEGION DEPT SVC OFF

130 S ELMWOOD AVE STE 614





BUFFALO, NY 14202-2479

PHONE: 716-857-3361



FAX: 716-857-3488







EMAIL: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]







Maybe they can be of service?

Howard K5HB

PS: KA2SLC is listed in New York

- Original Message 
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 3:37:15 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Dead US Veteran/Ham question









  



A little different from the usual questions...



Curt KA2SLC, a former active member of this group, is now a Silent

Key.  His body remains unclaimed by family.  I have been told he is a

U.S. veteran, does anyone know of a veteran's groups that might

assist in getting a veteran a decent burial?



Andy K3UK




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols

[Howard Brown]

Thanks, I did look at mono.  It may be important someday but not yet.



Why not use a cross platform tool instead? 



Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Chris Danis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 12:21:51 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols









  



On 6/1/07, Howard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Please consider RealBasic as a tool instead of VB.net.  With MS there

>  is no such thing as 'free' or 'cross platform". With RealBasic you can

>  code cross platform and there is no charge for the Linux version.



Howard,



Actually, with the .NET environment, this isn't quite true.  .NET has

a lot of standards associated with it; an open-source project called

Mono is reimplementing all these standards.  The result is an

open-source C# compiler and .NET runtime environment.  I'm not sure

that there is the same level of support for VB.NET as there is for C#,

but people are working on it.



Check out http://www.mono- project.com/



73,

-chris N2YYZ




  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols

[Howard Brown]

I recently tried the Express version.  It was not able to recognize a real .net 
project. Take a look at RealBasic, it is cross platform. VB.net is not.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Simon Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 11:48:34 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols









  



- Original Message - 

From: "Howard Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>

> Please consider RealBasic as a tool instead of VB.net.  With MS there

> is no such thing as 'free' or 'cross platform".



For free software from Microsoft there is - 

http://msdn. microsoft. com/vstudio/ express/



I have written a lot of software using the free versions, I have now 

purchased the full version.



Simon HB9DRV 






  

[digitalradio] Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols

[Howard Brown]

Skip, we applaud your efforts and are happy to see the cross platform
work.

Please consider RealBasic as a tool instead of VB.net.  With MS there
is no such thing as 'free' or 'cross platform". With RealBasic you can
code cross platform and there is no charge for the Linux version.

Either way, we follow your work with great interest.  PLease keep us
posted.

Howard K5HB

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Skip KH6TY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rick,
> 
> We have four parallel efforts right now. One is to adapt PSKmail for
better TTY operation as opposed to mailbox operations, another is to
embed ARQ in fldigi, another is to rewrite FMpsk to improve decoding
and orient it more toward decentralized Emcomm communications, and
lastly, to write a new program using VB.net (I just received my free
copy!) with the PocketDigi code and add ARQ and form handling to that.
We are furtherest along with the PSKmail modification at the moment.
> 
> Our own tests confirm that DominoEX is the best choice for
performance, especially on HF using NVIS antennas, but the latency of
DominoEX requires a modification of the ARQ protocol (probably
multiple  in each frame) to overcome that. In addition, DominoEx
is much wider, and therefore fewer signals can occupy the same
passband for multichannel display. When you add ARQ, the multipath
problems we experience sometimes with PSK63 on VHF are negated by just
repeating frames and this works well in practice because the multipath
cancellations are short-lived and throughput is therefore not reduced
very often. Even DEX/FEC is not the answer, as only ARQ will guarantee
completely error-free transfers. Note that a single wrong digit in a
phone number can render an entire message useless!
> 
> Our Linux effort is directed at adding fldigi or PSKmail on a "live"
CD using Puppy Linux. Several of our VHF net members, including
myself, already use Puppy Linux with fldigi as a "live" CD on Windows
machines on our twice-weekly net, and there have been no problems at
all. This helps compensate for not having a Windows application, but
not completely, as there still are hardware recognition problems with
all Linux distros that have already been solved under Windows, so a
Windows version is still planned.
> 
> Although our focus is on VHF applications, what we are doing is also
applicable to HF, of course, and especially using DominoEX, but we
just have not had enough time yet to test a modified protocol with
DominoEX for HF use. I got as far as showing why the PSKmail guys were
never able to link using DominoEx, even though it is included in
fldigi and PSKmail. Once we have completed our demonstration
application for VHF, we will turn our attention to the HF application.
> 
> Practically, our VHF net members prefer PSK63 over DominoEx because
it is easier to manually tune, even though DominoEX has a broad
mistuning tolerance.
> 
> There is also a significant improvement in using horizontal
polarization compared to vertical polarization (RCA established this
years ago for TV and that is why TV signals are horizontally
polarized). Then, using PSK63 instead of FM results in another huge
improvement in range. There will be a QST constructions article in
coming months for a horizontally-polarized 2m antenna that equals the
performance of a 5-element beam, but over a 160 degree beamwidth and
is bi-directional in addition. Using this antenna, I am able to work
over 100 miles to a 5-element beam over flat country. So, the
comparison in range to FM repeaters is somewhat like comparing apples
to oranges.
> 
> All this may seem strange, but we are trying hard to "think outside
the bun"! ;-)
> 
> 2a. Re: Comments to ARRL on New Digi Protocols
> Posted by: "Rick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] kv9u
> Date: Thu May 31, 2007 7:14 am ((PDT))
> 
> Skip,
> 
> Sounds really interesting. Isn't much of this is available right now 
> with Linux, on PSKmail?  However it is not available on MS Windows OS 
> which is what 95+% of hams use worldwide for now. It would seem that 
> adoption will be low until we have cross platform capability.
>

[digitalradio] Re: Here's a silly thought - Just a snippet of the original - about AGC

[Howard Brown]

I realize you had a larger topic here but one thing you said is
particularly interesting to me, and may be to others:

> 
> BTW, I do know enough to set my AGC appropriately, I do have a 300 Hz
> filter, and IF shift capabilities, and I do know how to use them.  
> 

The filters in my TS2000 work very well in this regard.  The AGC
however does not seem to be of value.  Can you describe how you set
the AGC to help with this situation?

Howard K5HB

[digitalradio] Digital Voice Repeaters on HF (Re: Nearly Vacant HF Spectrum)

[Howard Brown]

OK, I will ask...

Am I correct in assuming that rules would need to change to allow
automatic operation?

Is it right to think the only improvement in communications would be
extending ground wave (since this would happen when the bands were not
open)?

What would happen when the bands did open?  Would the repeaters be
able to listen before transmitting?  For all modes?

Is the primary purpose to use the bands so we don't lose them?

Howard K5HB 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > bruce mallon  wrote: 
> > Would you like to show us those frequency's? 
> > And would you like to show them when the MUF gets that
> > high. 
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> Digital Voice repeaters, using single-channel near-real-time 
> interleaved multiplexed OFDM, could work in a 5kHz bandwidth. This is
> a viable bandwidth for a single channel DV voice repeater in any HF
> amateur radio band, regardless of propagation. 
> 
> Take a look at the nearly vacant HF amateur radio spectrum, 24
> hours/day, regardless of our position in the solar cycle:
> 
> 21385-21450 kHz nearly vacant 24/7/350 
> 24890-24990 kHz nearly vacant 24/7/365 
> 28550-29500 kHz nearly vacant 24/7/350 
> 
> Other areas of HF amateur radio spectrum are nearly vacant at
> different times of day or night, relative to our position in the solar
> cycle. 
> 
> During at least 4 years at the bottom of every 11 year solar cycle,
> some HF amateur radio bands are nearly vacant at various times 
>  of day or night. 
> 
> Examples of nearly vacant HF ham bands:
> 
> 1800-2000 kHz 2hr after sunrise to 2hr before sunset
> 3500-4000 kHz 5hr after sunrise to 3hr before sunset
> 14000-14350 kHz 5hr after sunset to 1hr before sunrise
> 18000-18168 kHz 4hr after sunset to sunrise 
> 21000-21450 kHz 4hr after sunset to sunrise 
> 24890-24990 kHz 3hr after sunset to sunrise 
> 28000-29500 kHz 3hr after sunset to sunrise 
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>

Re: [digitalradio] Global Standard Re: 141A

[Howard Brown]

I had a problem with the url you posted but found the article at
 
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/05/ubuntu_review.html

There is a related article at:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/05/dell-ubuntu.html

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2007 7:49:05 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Global Standard Re: 141A









  





Look at the new Linux OS:


http://www.consumer faffairs. com/news04/ 2007/ubuntu_ review.html


There may be light at the end of the tunnel after all


At 05:14 PM 5/6/2007, you wrote:



> Is this app operating
system neutral or is

> it dependent on a single OS? 

> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E 


Hi Doc,


141 ALE is completely "OS neutral".

It is a US federal standard. 


Over the past 5 years, it has become the defacto "universal"
global

standard for HF connectivity for voice and/or data communications.

Until recently, only about a thousand hams had 141 ALE capability.



ALE (-144) is currently implemented in many different
"operating

systems" such as:


1) Hardware (no external computer required) embedded in transceivers

such as Icom IC-F7000, Vertex VX-1700, Micom, Harris, Rockwell,
R&S,

Codan, etc. etc.

2) Software (PCALE, MULTIPSK, or MARS-ALE) running on computers

interfaced to ham or commercial transceivers.

3) External ALE hardware controllers interfaced to HF commercial or

mil transceivers.


More information, click here:
http://hflink. com 


Bonnie KQ6XA


 




  

[digitalradio] ID signal on 1738 kHz?

[Howard Brown]

Can anyone decode the signal on 1738 kHz right now?

Howard K5HB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ......

[Howard Brown]

John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz
bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz.

Personally, I have not experienced these but would like
to hear about them.

Howard K5HB

- Original Message 
From: John B. Stephensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:30:10 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ..









  







One problem is that very wide modems are 
allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is 
reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed 
a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide.

 

73,

 

John

KD6OZH

 


  - Original Message - 

  From: 
  jgorman01 

  To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
  

  Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18 
  UTC

  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up 
  ..

  


  
  I must be one of the stupid folks that have a "misconception" about
what 
  the withdrawn petition was to accomplish.

Could you enlighten us on 
  just exactly what "modes" are being blocked
by the current regulations. 
  What bands do these modes operate on? 
What is the purpose of the blocked 
  modes?

The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed 
  under
current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to 
  know
that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. 
  Heck,
pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even 
  better
modem that works at something over 300 
  baud?

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, 
  "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > NO ONE 
  wants to hamper experimenting but at the same
> > time no one should 
  want to crush other older modes ...
> 
> No one wants to crush the 
  older modes -- but they can't block moving
> to new modes and that's 
  what's happening now.
> 
> 
> Bill, 
  WA7NWP
>