Re: [digitalradio] Re: About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused
At 10:31 AM 9/7/2010, you wrote: There was a set of e-prom up grades was added .. my pk232 is one issue short of the final build .. pactor-2 , may be packtor-3 was in the final prom , Nobody but SCS has P3. I know I had to add a daughter board to mod it to the pk232-mbx .. Same here. Was sent back to AEA for it.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF packet still being used ???
Sorry Dave it's gone. At 08:43 AM 9/5/2010, you wrote: But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. Hmm. How much? You may email direct if you don't want to discuss price here. 73 de Dave, NF2G
[digitalradio] 2nd SCS TNC is gone.
I found a home for it. Tnx all.
Re: [digitalradio] About the Becker TNCs.... I am confused
Sorry for the confusion. I had 2 TNC's up for sale. ONE of each. I mention the wrong one here.. Again sorry. John, W0JAB At 02:04 PM 9/5/2010, you wrote: John Becker wrote: Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late. I already gave it away to a good home. But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck. (see QRZ dot com profile photo) John, W0JAB At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote: If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay shipping. Dan WD5CND
[digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???
I have been listening to the HF bands for packet over the last few days not hearing any. Is it still in us? I have 2 PK-232's not in use for sometime now and will try to sell, give away or donate to the trash system. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] HF packet still being used ???
Sorry Dan your about one mouse click to late. I already gave it away to a good home. But my 2nd SCS TNC with pactor 3 is still up on the selling block. No longer need it since I pulled all the stuff out of the pick up truck. (see QRZ dot com profile photo) John, W0JAB At 10:57 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote: If no one wants your PK-232, I would like to play with it. Would pay shipping. Dan WD5CND
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!
Skip You bring up very good points. I for one would really would like to see a world wide band plan of CW - PHONE as well as DIGITAL all in the same part of the band. I just have got feed up with trying to have a digital QSO on 40 while on the same freq some VE is calling CQ on phone. At some point someone has got to give. Still thinking about sellingEVERYTHING cheap. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Sorry Howard But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way. I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could blast back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also. Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pactor station at? John At 11:26 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote: Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice update #2 - programmers wanted - codec2 and the G3PLX modem
Speaking of digital voice I had a nice but short QSO today while driving home from a event I had been to. I was really shocked because out of the clear blue I had been listening to VHF when the HF radio started talking. So I just had to answer his DV CQ. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] speaking of digital voice
Sunday's around 11:00 Sundays is a real good time to find some of us on 14,236 DV. If your lucky - you may even get me mobile as I'll be on the move this Sunday. see - http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm for a photo of my mobile set up. John W0JAB in hot Missouri - where it STILL takes only 1.5 hours to bake a potato in a closed car.. dit dit
Re: [digitalradio] speaking of digital voice
At 04:34 PM 8/27/2010, you wrote: Can you check and repost that link? ve3bdr Seems to be a problem with the site for some reason here it is.. 1393d54.jpg inline: 1393d54.jpg
[digitalradio] off lineI'll be off line for a while.
I'll be off line for a while. Seems that hughes net cant get my problem of getting Authentication Failed every time I try to get on-line fixed. So I told them to come and get their dish and modem. I refuse to go to the yahoo site every time I post. Trying to get dial up started. Till then Questions or comments IM me on the yahoo system ID W0JAB of course. John
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Streetlight RFI found with AM portable
A trick that you might try is that when you find an offending pole, give it a good whack with a sledgehammer to see if the noise changes. We tracked down a couple of poles that were throwing some serious RFI out, and that's how the power company guy verified where the problem was. Seems that the pole was put in in the 40's, and the rest of the hardware was about the same age. On 8/21/2010 1:09 PM, Tony wrote: Paul, That's a nice rig to have. I understand it's capable of AM mode as well - add a small hand held 2 meter Yagi and you'll have one FB direction finding RFI detector. Tony -K2MO I live near the Atlantic Ocean in Slower Lower Delaware. Our problem here is that during dry weather, we get salt spray on the power lines and transformers, leading to all sorts of noise. A good rain helps. I have a small Yaesu VR-500 wide band receiver. It works very well for tracking down RFI/EMI around the house as well. Good way to find offending wall warts, and the like /paul W3FIs
[digitalradio] off line for a while
I'll be off line for a while - having a big problem getting my email program to work with Hughes net. And I almost have to fix it myself since I CANT understand what the tech support guy in New Delhi India is telling my. No speak that broken whatever it is. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation
At 04:42 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote (in part): I was thinking about this while walking the dog - Now that's a new one. Bets the last number one answer to the age old thinking question..
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY parts
At 10:08 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote: Do you have a list? No I don't. Sorry
[digitalradio] RTTY parts
A large number of RTTY parts have been put up for sale. If anyone is looking for anything please ask. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Trevor, We in the USA have been down this path before. And every time the FCC has said the same thing. I really don't know just where you are trying to go but it seems that it is again an anti wide rant. If it is you can save the rest of us from it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment
After thinking about a for a while - I'm going to part with all my RTTY equipment. It's all going. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg inline: 12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
At 08:19 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB. Now that an Idea for income since I have 3 of them. (1, 28 RO 2, 28ASR's) and still use them all. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy
I'm not in anyway saying that what happened was OK but after all it was a contest. Not like it happens all the time. But look at the good side. Lucky it was not a CW contest. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM49lk Pike county for the county hunters. At 10:56 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. And, BTW, I know for damn sure they could see and hear my signal as I switched to RTTY at 50w on all stations and repeated the frequency is in use until the moved. I don't think anyone should suggest limiting to contests to fixed frequencies, but it damn sure would be nice if some of the mindless RTTY contesters would start showing some common courtesy by listening a second or two before stomping on QSO's in progress. -Dave, KB3FXI
Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise
One of 2 things come to mind. 1) a very weak station trying to get into the repeater. 2) strong RF. At 11:18 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: [Attachment(s) from Mike Liller included below] Hi all, I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is? We are getting this interfeafence on one of our repaeters on the input (144.850) and whatever it is, it opens the PL (123.0) and floods the repeater. 73 de Mike N7NMS - Forwarded Message From: Terry Bolinger, Jr. wx3m.te...@gmail.com To: Mike Liller n7...@yahoo.com Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM Subject: sample attached Attachment(s) from Mike Liller 1 of 1 File(s) e1d337.jpg http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1871183/395636760/name/interference1%2Ewavinterference1.wav inline: e1d337.jpginline: e1d376.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an automatic happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT STICKY Missouri. Q How do you know it's summer in Missouri A the blacktop melts
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program later try to post? It seems that this is the main concern of many? John, W0JAB EM49lk
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Testing Confirms ROS Autospot Behaviour
The other day after making a comment about ROS I got a note (direct) just saying - makes one wonder what else the program is doing. Do you have your banking information on that computer ?
Re: [digitalradio] How ROS is auto-spotting to the Cluster.
What other surprises are hidden in this software? None ! program has been removed. firewall settings changed to block anything that may still be imbedded.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 08:58 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves Rein are you trying to tell us that NONE of this never happened ? The list of banned, and other thing that have been posted that this program has been said to do. This program is doing a lot more then we have been told. And it seems to me (as well as others) the we may never know just what it is doing. The HAM community dose need this.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Sorry Rein - Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails. what was that my final question again. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
After loading a updated version as he said that everyone needed to do. After entering my call it would not work. Just like others have posted that they could no longer use it. I have not tried it again and will not try it. Touch a hot stove and get burned one will not touch it again. I will never try ROS again. I did not try it on the XYL's and will not. At 12:43 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: OK John. Understood. Did it work on your computer? Did it work on the xyl's computer? ( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.) If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic. 73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 01:44 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: John, Who is Andy, K3UK? Andy is the list owner. And yes anyone can discuss ROS at any point and time. And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. Now you seem to be a spokesperson for Jose on ROS so why no answer? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters
At 09:46 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@... wrote: .. Ros is programmed for low power qrppp experiments . with a few watt and a groundplane for a 16000 km path .. But there are users thinking more power is better . and using ros the wrong way .. With lots of power and a beam . so to give others a better chance there are 3 qrg on 20m . that's all That's all? That's the problem! When i asked José Nieto about it, While you was at it should have ask him about the small group that can't use the program.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters
At 04:04 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote in part: UH OH.now I've done it. Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less be able to use ROS any time soon SNIFFLE I'm down in the dingy cellar now with the likes of John W0JAB! Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV Come on down. The beer is cold and the NASCAR race is about to start [HI HI]
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 02:28 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote: Hi Rain You have absolutely right . ROS are sending data from your PC to the cluster. Try to type the IP address 90.225.73.203:8000 into your browser and you get this: Why would it telnet to an IP address in Sweden?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC
At 06:18 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote: Hi John, That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to the list of clusters to be served by ROS users. Amateur radio is a global hobby. 73 Rein W6SZ Oh I agree about the being global but I would much rather do it myself. Seems that every time I read a post about ROS I (and others) find yet another not to us it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters? World like to play with it a bit. John
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
If I download a new version I will NOT be able to use the program. For a unknown reason I was one of the people that Jose has seen unfit to use it. That was the reason I had to beg for a earlier venison of it. But thanks for your reply. At 03:50 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote: If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in the software You CAN use it with rig control and set the right qrg via serial port but you can also use a rig without cat and tune in by hand The qrg of ALL bands can be found in the soft in the frequency tab Dg9bfc Sigi Ps in the qrg tab you see also the mode being used (example bw 0k5 on 30m etc)
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect
I am all for busy detect. That being said what do you do with someone that has so much hate for Pactor (like KC7GNM ) that they turn to QRM'ing jamming or what ever you would like to call it any time they hear it? Right now the only tools that I have for busy detect for others modes is my ears and the LED's on the TNC. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor
At 12:52 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote: This has generated enormous frustration over the years, to the point where some operators now intentionally QRM such servers. This intentional QRM is as disgusting as running a server without a busy frequency detector, and provides a convenient excuse for server operators to continue avoiding or disabling busy frequency detectors. So so true ! But not only severs. Many times I have come up on a clear freq for a keyboard to keyboard on time QSO just to be QRM'ed because it was pactor. Way to many have this thinking it's a MBO *just* because it's pactor. Wish I knew a way to help those with that thinking. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Winmor throughput
Well Andy, I have that $1K modem. but in order to run WINMOR I would have to putout for a new faster computer. So what better? hen in hand or the one in the bush? At 12:56 PM 6/27/2010, you wrote: Just a reminder..when Winmor first stated, the idea was to establish a mode that did not need a $1000 modem, and could at least achieve Pactor 2 speeds. While it still can be a finicky mode, it appears to be able to do what was first desired.
Re: [digitalradio] QRM maker on 14.078 CF
For what it's worth : I have been very close to that freq waiting for any pactor connect. I have not noticed anything. Must be just outside of what I can hear. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
At 04:36 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote: Hi Patrick, Wonder if you happen to know that I created the original (very first) Weather Radio Alert in 1974, I did and I do thank you for your afford. Here in the center of Tornado Alley there is one on every headboard (or should be) . Sometime I would like to hear how it all started. Bet you could write a book on that. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK
Over the course of my work as a 2way radio tech I have looked at a lot of circuits for one project or another your's being one of them Very interesting how you made that puppy. Also just about an hour ago my radio went off. John, W0JAB At 10:13 AM 6/19/2010, you wrote: John, I have written up a short story of how the weather alert radio industry began. You can read it at this link: http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehteller/WeatherAlertStory.htmhttp://home.comcast.net/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Feld Hell LEO Sprint this Saturday 2000z - 2200z
At 06:29 AM 6/15/2010, you wrote: LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer. For this Sprint, if you are or were a law enforcement officer in any country (police, border patrol, customs, prison guard, etc...) you will indicate so in your QSO exchange with LEO. (ex: WB2HTO de N3LFC ur 599 PA FH002 LEO) Winner will have worked the most LEOs. Extra bonus for contacts made on 10 meters. I think next time it would be better to spell it out. The AMSAT part of me say it's low earth orbit when I first saw the post. John, W0JAB, AMSAT life member
Re: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing, outer FEC, Inner FEC, coding to symbol, modulation of symbol(s)
At 03:22 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: (in part) In the end, systems like ROS, Clover, PACKTOR-XXX, etc, where there is not full published trasparency in the encoding process, are not suitable for legal amateur use, in my humble opinion. In other words, no one has the right to make money from their hard work and what could have been $$$ millions spent on research and development as would have been the case with Pactor 3. Or the right to protect it.
Re: [digitalradio] source coding,
I just do not believe amateur operators should use such protocols on the amateur bands. Such protocols ? What makes you say that?
RE: [digitalradio] source coding, Randomizing
By the same thinking (that being that a commercial company) is making any money should you not put kenwood and yaesu into the same? Or how about that mean money making company that made your sound card interface. or microsoft. John, W0JAB At 10:12 AM 6/6/2010, you wrote: You can of course protect your intellectual property. But such a commercial format belongs on commercial frequencies. That is, it has no place as a format used for amateur radio.
Re: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?
Jeremy Maybe the fact that it was 10 bucks may have something to do with it. At 02:24 PM 6/5/2010, you wrote: Hello, When purchasing a new radio this last week I decided to also set my computer up how it should have been long ago. I purchased a sound card to dedicate it to digital modes. The sound card purchased was: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854 It was $9.99... I wasn't asking for the world, but I didn't think I would get this. I am curious as to what you think? Here's the synario. I connect the line out to my rig blaster and when I transmit I get this: http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav This was recorded from my mom's station that is 8 miles away. Obvious problem. I then simply moved the line out cable from my new sound card to my old sound card that is built into my mother board. No other changes. I do not have a recording of it, but it's beautiful, exactly how a feldhell signal should sound. Now, the most obvious thing would be is my sound settings wrong, i.e. way overdriving with the new sound card or something. I set them up the same. Looking at my ALC meter, I transmit into a dummy load, turn the line out volume up until I get ALC movement, then turn it back down until I cannot notice any ALC movement. Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a Signalink as I already have a nice setup, all wired and working, I just need to get this squared away. Until then, I'm working off my sound card built into the motherboard. Thanks for any help, Jeremy KB8LFA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
No need to worry from being banned from this list from me. That's not my style of moderating. Yes I can no longer use ROS for some reason. I did ask but that went unanswered. All I know is that he posted a updated version and when ask for my call the program would shut down if I recall. Never did go back to it. But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] Digitalradio: Facebook change. [a word about facebook]
No can do. facebook is one of those sites that read write and otherwise do things that most don't like to have done to their system. It would take me the better part of 1/2 hour to get past the site is reading or writing or trying whatever. Just to get to it. And I think I have told you in the past that any mail from a web based (yahoo, g-mail, hotmail) is deleted from the sever without me even seeing it. Sorry to say that facebook is on the top of the list that like to do just that. Do they really need to know who is in my address book? Or what sites I have been on? If there is something that you feel that I really need to know you better post it on the list.
Re: [digitalradio] Change of Email Address
As moderator of a number of yahoo list I can tell you first hand you have to make the change yourself. No one here can do it for you. At 12:40 PM 5/23/2010, you wrote: We are changing our email address from mailto:laz...@earthlink.netlaz...@earthlink.net to mailto:laz...@charter.netlaz...@charter.net The new address is effective immediately and the old address will be in service for at least a month to take care of any problems in the transition. LELAND ZANTESON mailto:laz...@earthlink.netlaz...@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You.
Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400
I was wondering what that noise was. Guess the pactor did not bother you.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
[digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Anyone know of a source? John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable
Just a cable. 232 in and out. BD9 on one end USB on the other Sorry for any confusion. At 11:42 AM 5/11/2010, you wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:52:15AM -0500, John Becker, WJAB wrote: Anyone know of a source? It would help to hear more about the application, John. I suspect you want a USB-Serial converter, rather than just a patch cable. There are dozens of the out there, some working better than others. The best I've found so far has been the no-longer-sold Radio Shack converter, but I've had others that were tolerable. All require drivers to be installed; Microsoft knows about some and installs them automagically, others require the CD or other softcopy files. I use two Radio Shack USB-Serial converters in my shack. One connects the shack PC to my RigBlaster Pro; the other connects the shack PC to the Yaesu FT-897D. The Radio Shack drivers aren't officially supported on Windows XP, but only through Windows 2000. I had to resort to some trickery to get them to install. Very 73, de -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster. I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB At 03:09 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. If you don't comment, you might wish you had! 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast. inline: 18327ff.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was the last time I sent a CW ID after a nice QSO. That tells me TWO things - 1. The person *can* copy CW. 2. Can't copy any PACTOR . So does the source of the pactor really matter? I don't think so. I really do not think seven out of ten can even copy P-1. Maybe that's reason they don't like is it *because* the CAN'T copy it with their sound card. I really don't care what it is. You know what they say about the porch and the big dog's. So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 02:51 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Unfortunately lots of people have had bad experiences with Pactor and,naturally, like when you've been bitten by a big dog you don't forget it ! I used to enjoy using pactor with my PK232 during the 90's but many times my contacts were totally wiped out by a roving Pactor message system which used to drop on top of any QSO, I got so angry about this I gave up using Pactor. There nothing wrong with Pactor as long as the users stay in their pen, And just where may that be Mel? its the same with RTTY stations, some used to persist in using the only frequency used by PSK operators. Same question again. (freq wise) I think that you may be speaking about 14,075. If so that was the autostart freq for RTTY when I first got on RTTY in the early 70's. Way way before any squeaking sounding sound card mode came along.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......
At 05:18 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: Yes, 14.075 was the Pactor calling freq, don't know who decided that. I have not heard any ARQ Pactor in a long time, is it still used by anyone? 73 Buddy WB4M Yes it still is but it has been driven to the coat room by all the sound card user. Seems that anything that needs hardware is not worthy of mention. You can no longer talk about it but just like using pot, it still happens. but that is just my option and you know what they say about options. -.-
Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations!!!
For what it's worth As a WINLINK user I did some checking and could *only* find 2 (two) station within the winlink network using anything close to 10,147. that would be a KL7 and ON0 station using a center freq of 10,147.700. and it has been days since either has been (more like weeks) since either has been seen. If it was Pactor it had to be a keyboard to keyboard QSO. I'm in *no way* saying it was not Pactor but I'am saying likelihood of it being a winlink stations are very low. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] TAPR Digital Activities at Dayton Hamvention, May 15-16, 2010
I cant speak for others but I just got this very same message 23 times. I have banned him from *EVERY* list that I own. Andy I sure hope you do also. And I'm sure others will say the same thing. I ONLY need to see it once not 23 damn times. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] 3rd Generation Digital radio
I can't think back this far. What came first - Packer or Amtor (ARQ mode to boot) . At 12:03 PM 4/19/2010, you wrote: If the first generation of digital was PACKET-IRLQ-Echolink-APRS (generation Zero was CW and RTTY), then the second generation was D-Star. D-Star brought everything together along with digital voice. While D-Star is great, its technology is already dated.
Re: [digitalradio] RSID Query
Only works with sound card modes? That a question not a comment. I really have no clue.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
At 01:08 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. Most of what I have seen in the past has been ship's, boat's or whatever you would like to label then as sending position reports. That in turn *DO* end up on the WORLD WIDE WEB. But I can only speak for pactor. Plus they are at this time in their own little (and I do mean little) part of the band. I do a lot of pactor operating and have a system waiting for traffic that I in turn get on it's way via the WWW. I scan about 12 freq's looking just for that very same type of traffic. Take a look at this map. http://www.winlink.org/userPositions did you notice that EACH and EVERY one has a ham call? Just because *some* don't use the mode does not mean it's a junk mode. And it would *really* be nice if some that did speak up a least operated the mode before bad talking it. So please let's not get this started once again. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri pactor 1,2 3 24/7/365 in the center of fly over country
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission protection
Dave right now I dont have the time to plug the holes in your comments. But the bottom line is that they are ham's at see. Would there be a problem if they only used SSB and not data mode?
Re: [digitalradio] evil Bonnie..
I for one can tell you first hand what happens if for any reason you should disagree with her.
[digitalradio]
try this list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pactor_packet/
[digitalradio] RTTY event tonight
playing tonight only I will be on 40 meters tonight with the Kenwood 520 and the 28ASR, ST-6 TU. Why? Because I can !
RE: [digitalradio] RTTY event tonight
About 7ish (CDST) At 02:52 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote: What hours?? Bob, W5XR
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode
At 01:01 PM 3/25/2010, you wrote: That seems a bit theoretical to me. If you have a mode that is very wide but gets its information across in short bursts, it could be said to be very efficient, but in practise it is efficient only if others are able to make use of the gaps between transmissions. If that mode needs that frequency to itself and cannot exist with other modes then it really makes no difference if it transmits on a 100% duty cycle or a 1% duty cycle it is preventing users of another mode from using the same spectrum. Just * how many * modes would like to put on one frequency at a time? If the frequency is in use then find another.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new concept in digital mode....
I and many others will never touch ALE because of just one woman. It at this time has a bad name among many.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: SDR-IQ for sale
Guess I better Google it to see just what it is. Right now I have no clue.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
I assumed that people kept using FSK because paths to Europe can have 20-30 Hz of Doppler spread. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 19:08 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze.
Thank you for your interest in our services. In order to assist you in your endeavour, you are required to submit the standard retainer fee of US$1,000,000 (One million US Dollars) into our company bank account. Please contact us directly via email to unit...@hotmail.com for further instructions on how to complete this deposit transaction. -- John Smokey Behr Gleichweit FF1/EMT, CCNA, MCSE IPN-CAL023 N6FOG UP Fresno Sub MP183.5 ECV1852 List Owner x10, Moderator x9 CalEMA 51-507 http://smokeybehr.blogspot.com http://www.myspace.com/smokeybehr From: Alex Eze alexoffice2...@yahoo.com.hk Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 11:20:31 PM Subject: [digitalradio] From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze. From The Desk Top Of Mr Alex Eze, MD/CEO Financial Consultant, Federal Republic Of Nigeria. ATTN: I have interest of investing in your country as such I decided to establish contact with you for assistance as soon as I am able to transfer my funds for this investment, which is already with a security company in Europe.There are two basic things i would want you to assist me in; (1)Helping by traveling to europe as a front collect these funds from the security company in Europe. This is because of my inability to travel out of the country which i am taking refuge at the moment with my wife and children which i will explain better to you upon the receipt of your acceptance. (2)Helping me to carry out feasibility study on areas/choice of investment you deem best for me.I retired as financial consultant and was the last personal financial adviser to the ex- head of state before his demise and have no intention of carrying out any further investment programme in my country for security reasons. Enclosing your telephone and fax numbers, including your full names. Thanks, Please send your reply to (alexoffice2...@yahoo.com.hk) Yours sincerely, Alex Eze
Re: [digitalradio] What is SS?
The document that the author of ROS originally published, Introduction to ROS: The Spread Spectrum, contains a good description of frequency-hopping spread-spectrum (FHSS) techniques. Section 4 describes taking a 250 Hz wide mode (MFSK16) and spreading it over 2 kHz by shifting the center frequency in a pseuorandom sequence. The receiver changes frequencies in the same sequence and the logic used to detect a special tone sequence to obtain synchronization is described in section 5. The amount of spectrum occupied increases by a factor of 8. FHSS is one way to minimize the effects of multipath spread but there are also other techniques that occupy less spectrum. Note that the author of ROS published a second doucument,ROS Technical Description, that contains elements of the original but does not mention FHSS and omits any description of how data is mapped to tones. Users comparing the original and later versions of the code haven't seen a difference in the transmitted spectrum. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rein A To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 19:16 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] What is SS? Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines the core quite well. I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust though. - -Original Message- From: n4qlb n4...@... Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Re: How do you like ROS Now? Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies)are designated between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to facilitate a clear Transmisson. The Transmitter actually signals the Receiver to Hop from one frequency to another. A good example is a 900mhz digital cordless telephone or a 800Mhz digital radio truncking system. (Motorla Astro). A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio service. The ease of obtaining a License in the U.S. by people that are not technically qualified to hold one is the main culprit regarding the controversy over new modes such as ROS. I am confident that all variations of ROS are perfectly legal in the U.S.
Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum
The HSMM working group never proposed the use of spread spectrum. It was interested in getting the maximum data rate into limited bandwidths. SS does the opposite of what the HSMM WG was interested in. It spreads limited amounts of data over the maximum bandwidth. The actual proposal was to create small segments in the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter bands for emissions up to 16 kHz wide -- matching what existed in the 10 meter band but on a much smaller scale. Many of us wanted that limited to 9 kHz -- the same as the ARRL allowed for AM. The goal was to preserve the priveledges that currently exist in the phone/image segments (AM equivalent bandwidth) as the ARRL was shrinking bandwidths in the RTTY/data segments (currently unlimited bandwidth). 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 14:01 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum The other possible problem is wide-spreading spread spectrum. There was a failed attempt about 5 years ago by the ARRL HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media) proponents to allow spread spectrum on the HF bands with the argument that the signal is spread so widely, each carrier appears at any given frequency only a short time, so it would not significantly interfere with other users of the frequency, and could, for example, be allowed to cover the entire 20m band.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
Amateur radio technology must not advance and we must continue to use only old modes. Make sure we keep ham radio stagnant and only hope commercial businesses move forward and kill our hobby Bob, AA8X . - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS update KH6TY wrote: Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of speech on the subject seems to be curtailed. Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want to vet my posts to this group? My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were allowed to be posted. I wonder if this will be allowed? Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] ROS controversy
Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The portions that are causing problems here aren't in the regulations in other countries. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 01:14 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling A good portion of the FCC rules is almost cut and paste from ITU standards which apply worldwide. -- From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:02:44 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask for help in this forum when something is not clear. .
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote: The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, It has?
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
Jose has K3TL said anything about his action?
Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS
I had no doubt that it would once the document that the FCC requires was published. Since European hams don't normally read FCC regulations, it might be useful for the IARU or RSGB to publish an article about U.S. regulations so this doesn't happen again. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Leigh L. Klotz, Jr WA5ZNU le...@wa5znu.org To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 02:53 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS On 03/01/2010 04:06 PM, Andy obrien wrote: Thank goodness sanity has prevailed! Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US
There is a technical descrption at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/. I doesn't describe the start and stop tone sequences or completely describe the mapping from the convolutional encoder to the 128 tones used for data. However, it's more compete than some of the technical specifications on the ARRL web site. Perhaps he can add more detail in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jbh...@bluefrog.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: AE5IL Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 20:27 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions This is a one-stop Web site for technical characteristics called for in FCC rules § 97.309(a)(4), which reads: (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations in communication and read the content of the transmissions. Click on names of the techniques already documented: A technical description from you about ROS would help us in the US a lot. For other technical descriptions go to www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask for help in this forum when something is not clear. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - W2XJ wrote: Skip An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as well. The problem then was that some people thought they had the authority to tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not, do.
Re: [digitalradio] Does ROS spectrum match the specification?
A new technical description was published so you should see what it describes -- fixed start and stop sequences using 16 tones with convolutionally coded data using 128 tones in between. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 16:48 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar .
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
The FCC will say that it up to each licensee to check the legality by reading the new technical specification. Unless someone shows that the spectrum doesn't match the specification U.S.hams should feel safe using ROS. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 17:31 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling KH6TY wrote: Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
Text deleted for a very good reason... And some complained about pactor. Or Amtor. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading
Chapter 8 of the 2010 handbook has a short overview of spread-spectrum techniques that could be applied to either analog or digital modulation. The original signal cold be anything (BPSK, FSK, FM...) and is phase or frequency modulated by a pseudorandom sequence in order to spread the signal over a wider range of frequencies. In frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) the receiver and transmitter just shift between a predefined set of frequenies during the transmission. Direct sequence spread-spectrum (DSSS) applies an additional level of phase modulation with a pseudorandom sequence to spread the original signal over a wider range of frequencies. DSSS often just exclusive-ORs (modulo-2 adds) the data with a spreading sequence at a rate that is a multiple of the original symbol rate. Error-correcting codes sometimes increase the bandwidth of a signal, but they do so by increasing the redundancy in the original signal. This could just be sending additional copies of the original data or adding parity bits to the data in block codes or multiplying the current data values with previous data values in convolutional coding. For example the current data value could be added to the previous two values and interleaved with the current value added to the second previous value. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 00:11 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Spectrum Spreading I avoided most of the discussion in the last week or so but finally decided to see what the ARRL Handbook had to say. At first I thought it was totally unhelpful but after it sank in a bit found it some help. What I gleaned is that many digital modes use spectrum spreading techniques. The handbook seemed quite clear on this point. I am still trying to understand what spectrum spreading means. There is an implication in there of using more spectrum than.. something. For analog, i.e. voice, this is somewhat clear. If you are sending voice up to 2.5kz then the spectrum 'something' is around 2.5 kHz SSB, or double that for AM. Spectrum spreading would utilize some additional spectrum. Consider a hypothetical mode where you took the voice signal, spread the audio by 4 times to generate a 10 kHz signal, and used that audio to modulate the RF. That would be a spectrum spreading technique. I simply cannot get a handle on what spreading means for a digital signal. Is the base 'something' CW and PSK31? From the Handbook, and I gather from the discussion here, there is another aspect which concerns the way in which the signal is encoded. In my hypothetical analog mode you might somehow invert or fold the frequency spectrum. The reverse technique would be required to decode the signal. It is my sense that some types of encoding are not allowed, while others would be acceptable. Not trying to start the entire debate but hoping to get a better understanding of the meaning of all this. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
[digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
I have to agree with Trevor. Not only did the FCC not declare or rule ROS in any way, but the author NEVER asked for any clarification whatsoever. Also of note, once the author understood the difference in the way spread spectrum was being interpreted, he immediately changed the reference to it in ALL of his documentation. AGAIN, the author NEVER approached anyone to seek ANY opinion about it. That was the result of someone else doing so of their own volition. The FCC did say they viewed it as spread spectrum, not because of any technical inspection by them, but solely upon the documentation presented to them, and they qualified THAT by saying they assumed the author knew what he had written. There should be no further argument, and Andy asked that it stop, but it seems certain folks still have an axe to grind over it. Seems some want Jose to publish his code. That is just plain wrong on so many levels. For someone to even ask that is beyond ludicrous in the first place. It is in effect penalizing the preacher and his sermon because the janitor asked a policeman if the grass was cut correctly. The two just do not belong in the same discussion. Jose has clearly stated, and shown in the technical specifications this is NOT spread spectrum, no matter how some want to try to declare it so. Sorry Skip, but a spectral display does not necessarily show if a signal is spread spectrum or not. Jose shows that there are FEC bytes in the signal that are generated even if there is no signal present. He is still the author of the program and should know by now what the differences in spread spectrum and FSK are. I, for one believe that if this gentleman is intelligent enough to write this code, he is also savvy enough to recognize if it is spread spectrum or not. He has nothing to gain by falsifying it since the program and his efforts are free, just like many other programs out there for us hams to use and experiment with. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this The FCC has ruled continues on. The FCC has NOT RULED on anything at all. PERIOD. An AGENT at the FCC answered a request for opinion' from an individual with no standing in the case as yet, and was presented with unfinished documents. That is like asking a doctor to prescribe medications for a patient he has never seen or even heard of, but some friend of the patient heard a rumor that the patient might feel bad. How could the doctor prescribe from that? I did not really want to get back into this but it seems certain erroneous parts of this discussion just will not die. If there is another agenda, please state it plainly for all to see. Else let's let the man try to work on his program rather than keep responding to these false innuendos created by folks with their own motives. I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, no trees to burn, etc etc etc. But Trevor is right. The FCC did NOT rule on anything at all. It does not matter what WAS in Jose's original documentation. Just because his original documentation may have said spread spectrum did not make it so. Jose NEVER asked ANYONE, let alone the FCC for their opinion. If someone else fouled the water for him, then as was suggested earlier, I suggest that Jose file his own lawsuit if that seems to be what is needed. IMHO John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: --- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G d...@... wrote: File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The sentence: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original Request for clarification, which was basically some that Radio Amateurs view it as SS, hence the debate, and the author of the mode did indeed describe it as such. The FCC simply say it is up to the Operator to make a decision as to whether a mode is in breach of regulations. It is worth remembering that US Amateurs have been using CHIP64 on HF for 5 years, a long time. It is a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum mode and described as such on the ARRL website. I am not aware of the FCC having had a problem with Amateur usage of that mode on HF. Out of curiosity what is the initial response of the FCC if an Amateur where to breach one of the regs ? Is it to sent them a letter informing them
Re: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
The FCC didn't do anything arbitrary or capricious. They read a specification provided by the author of the software that stated that ROS is a spread-spectrum mode. They then told the person asking for the FCC's opinion that they should go by what the author wrote and not use ROS on HF. The author now states that his original document was incorrect and ROS is not spread-spectrum but has not published a new specification. If it isn't SS, the new specification will clear the way for U.S hams to use the mode. FCC regulations don't state that the FCC has any obligation to make determinations about a new mode. They state that the author must publish a specification and each amateur must look at that and determine the legality. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: DaveNF2G To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 13:26 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Forget the petitions for waivers. File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's determination that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the above statement that they have abdicated their statutory responsibility to make a technical examination of the proposed mode to see whether or not it fits their regulations. Yeah, I know, filing suit is an inherently unfriendly act. The FCC has been unfriendly to anything that is not a major corporate money maker for quite some time now. Time to start pushing the Commission back on track. 73 de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group could led others into losing their licenses. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: ocypret To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:04 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? Wow! What a mess! I think absent a clear ruling from the FCC and as long as I think a plausible argument can be made for its compliance with Part 97, I'm going to use it. I made a contact this afternoon with PC5W on 20 meters. It looks like a good mode to use. Sorry for stirring up the firestorm again - I thought you guys had pretty much argued yourselves out or I wouldn't have posted the question. All the previous posting on this have left my head spinning. Wayne N5BZA
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
SS reduces the power spectral density but not the total power per bit for a given error rate. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:03 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. Spread spectrum reduce energy density. -- De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose’s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. -- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed
