Re: [digitalradio] SCS PTC-II and regular digital modes

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I have one and would not think about parting with it.
It does a really good job on all modes. If you get it with 
the Pactor 3 you will not be disappointed. There is also 
a very good size of users hanging out on a 20M freq
while not in use. 

The thing seems to still be able to copy a signal 2db
under ESP.

I can not speak for the sound card modes that it has 
since my shack computer has now sound card but
it's my understanding it does fair there.

John, W0JAB






At 04:31 PM 8/6/2010, you wrote:
>I have been wondering about getting an SCS multimode controller, the PTC-II 
>USB. Primarily I am interested in getting the best performance for HF APRS 
>which is what my radio does most of the time while I am otherwise engaged.
>
>I have no interest in Winlink but am interested in trying Pactor-II which 
>people have said can hold QSOs even under very difficult conditions. Is there 
>much activity on the mode?
>
>I don't want to deny myself the opportunity to use PSK31 or RTTY but the SCS 
>would plug into the rear audio connections of my transceiver and I don't want 
>to have to grope around the back changing plugs just to use soundcard modes. I 
>understand these controllers can do PSK and RTTY as well but I don't see how 
>this works with the programs I am familiar with.
>
>I'm also unsure how the transceiver control works. I currently have a separate 
>serial cable to my K3 for this.
>
>If any users of the SCS controllers could pass on their experiences to a 
>prospective user I would be extremely grateful.
>
>Julian, G4ILO
>
>
>
>
>
>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] Re: RTTY parts

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 10:08 AM 8/4/2010, you wrote:

>Do you have a list?

No I don't.

Sorry

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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..

[digitalradio] RTTY parts

[John Becker, WØJAB]

A large number of RTTY parts have been put up for sale.
If anyone is looking for anything please ask.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri

[digitalradio] Parting with RTTY equipment

[John Becker, WØJAB]

After thinking about a for a while -
I'm going to part with all my RTTY equipment.

It's all going.

John, W0JAB

Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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
<>

Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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." 
>To: Mike Liller 
>Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:12:34 PM
>Subject: 
>
>sample attached
>
>
>Attachment(s) from Mike Liller 
>
>1 of 1 File(s) 
>e1d337.jpg
>interference1.wav
>
>
<><>

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] RE-NEW LICENSE

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 !

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[John Becker, WØJAB]

On 7/12/2010 12:28:28 PM, KH6TY wrote:

> Lester, The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, 
> and
> so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago
> to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would
> keep private, and be done with it. He replied that,  . . .

If I had to bet money on this - I really would have to put it on Skip.

You really need to see this on a band pass scope. Leave no questions
about it.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Testing Confirms ROS Autospot Behaviour

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] How ROS is auto-spotting to the Cluster.

[John Becker, WØJAB]

>> 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] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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   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] Re: ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:46 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:


>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" 
> 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] ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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)

[digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters

[John Becker, WØJAB]

What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters?
World like to play with it a bit.


John

RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Winmor throughput

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] QRM maker on 14.078 CF

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm
>
>73, Skip KH6TY

Re: [digitalradio] New release (4.18) of MULTIPSK

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Feld Hell "LEO" Sprint this Saturday 2000z - 2200z

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] source coding,

[John Becker, WØJAB]

>
>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, outer FEC, Inner FEC, coding to symbol, modulation of symbol(s)

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Bad sound card?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Rein

Don't take it personal.
For some reason even I got on his bad list.
I did ask but never got an answer.

Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him.
Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not 
or it was misunderstood.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Digitalradio: Facebook change. [a word about facebook]

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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 
>laz...@earthlink.net 
>to laz...@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
>laz...@earthlink.net
>EarthLink Revolves Around You.
> 

Re: [digitalradio] ALE 400

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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.
>
>
>
<>

Re: [digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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
>
>
>

[digitalradio] in need of a USB to DB9 cable

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Anyone know of a source?

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: why does the ARRL.......

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I don't know Skip.
Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone.

after thinking about that, don't tell us.
I really don't care what you are others think about pactor.

I like it and will operate it.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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.......

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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  AT&T  

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...

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations!!!

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I understand what you are saying Skip.
But the bottom line is that most can't copy it
and therefore don't understand it.

I have gotten phone calls and email from my CW ID after
a person to person QSO telling me what a lid I was
for operating pactor. I love the ARQ modes (pactor
amtor) and at this time dont think I'll be giving them 
up soon. It's a bit hard to even talk to someone like
that after their mind is already made up. So I just gave
up. 

Unlike some I will not burn a hole if the freq is busy
and most of the time even if I can hear anything.
I know that P-3 can at times get very wide.

When people started complaining even if they hear
a signal they can't decode with their sound card
something is wrong.

I just tell most what they can do with their sound card.
If you can read between the lines. I no longer care or give 
a hoot. 

I guess that is why this is a non-sound card station. Thats
right not a one. In fact the sack computer is an old 8088
running DOS. Does real well with pactor and amtor as well
as just a few others.

need I say more?

John, W0JAB
w0...@big-river.net
573-754-4715

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] "evil Bonnie"..

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:57 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:


>John 
> 
>i have been there too  Remember wide band digital on 6 and 2 meters ?

I was removed by her from one list for asking questions that 2nd guessed
her. The list was the yahoo VX1700 list. That is a Vertex radio. I have retired
after 40 years working as a 2 way radio tech at (you will love this) a Vertex 
dealer. But that's OK I was not there to "learn" I was there to "help" others.

You can look at it this way - Bonny is in here own little world. She not going
to come out and nobody is getting. 

She is aA Legend in her Own Mind !

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri.

Re: [digitalradio] "evil Bonnie"..

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I for one can tell you first hand what happens 
if for any reason you should disagree with her.

[digitalradio]

[John Becker, WØJAB]

try this list

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pactor_packet/

RE: [digitalradio] RTTY event tonight

[John Becker, WØJAB]

About 7ish (CDST) 

At 02:52 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:


>What hours??
>
> 
>
>Bob, W5XR
>
> 

[digitalradio] RTTY event tonight

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Re: Another plug for JT65A ... the spectrum efficient mode

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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....

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Guess I better Google it to see just what 
it is. Right now I have no clue.

Re: [digitalradio] FCC comments further on ROS

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Jose

has K3TL said anything about his action?

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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] Spectrum Spreading

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Text deleted for a very good reason...

And some complained about pactor. Or Amtor.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

No, never did work him but I did see a note in the log
to look for him on 20 meters.



At 09:31 AM 2/23/2010, you wrote:
>I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)?
>
>He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that I worked at when in my 
>late teens and I used to pop in to see him when I could.
>
>Mike now lives in Shropshire and it's been a long time since I last 
>spoke to him, so not sure if he still uses AMTOR or RTTY anymore.
>
>Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Don't recall just when it came out but -

Biggest problem with it was finding someone to have a QSO with. 
Once you did the link was very good. I think it was also used
by a lot of the early BBS stations. Of course that was the problem 
with  any ARQ mode that came along. Back in 1977 or so 
when you friend Alen  come along with AMTOR that really
was the 1st widely used ARQ mode. Very few could part
with the $300 U.S. dollars for the kit. Sitting over in a 
cord board box in the storage area is AMTOR kit # 314.

I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations
the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say 
the rest is history.

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Not really Jim
I for one never stopped using the old machines.
Therefore never had to bring em back out.
It's the only way I do RTTY here.

John, W0JAB

>Then I guess there are a few people
>bringing old mechanical Teletype gear back to life and using it for
>rag-chewing for old times' sake.
>
>Jim W6JVE
>
>
>
>
>
>Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
>http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Ok so what if it is...
This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) 
that this has happen.

My question is where do they all come from?
Why would someone take the time to write the
program if it can't be used?

Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Actually Andy What we are using right now are a 
few WinLink frequencies. Why you ask? because
every time we set camp anyplace someone will copy
the CW ID and them the hate email starts. Not to mention
the fact that AEL ran off a large bunch of people that
had been using everything from RTTY to PACKET.

Bottom line is there are very few places that we can park
and still have somewhat of a world wide network.

I for one don't like the protected idea at all.
Since we *must* stay in a very small part of the band
as it is already. But that's not stopping other from coming 
in and trashing us.

This "anti" pactor thing can work both ways. Many many 
times I have sat back watching 2 pactor stations going
at it. Having a nice QSO just to see them getting QRM'ed.

I think the main reason is because "most" can't copy
pactor with their sound card. I really don't care what their
problem is. But I'll tell you this right off, when we are having a 
nice QSO or dropping a note to someone and some LID
"yeah I said LID" jumps right in on top of it  the only thing 
that happens is that the system will try harder and harder to keep 
the link going. And when it switches to P3 it get's wider 
and wider. 

I have a friend that lives about 2 miles away. He is a no-coder.
Every time he stops by and I'm in a CW QSO he get all glassy 
eyed about it and always ask what is being talked about. I wonder
if the non-pactor guys do the same. -or- is there *really* a reason
some just love to trash every pactor or Amtor QSO they run across.

Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a "robot" 
station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO.


John, W0JAB
-snow is melting-

Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote:
>Actually John,  I am beginning to think that there could be merit in 
>"protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, 
>PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of 
>spectrum. 


And for the attended stations?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote:


>Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF 
>bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use.

Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done?

I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside
a small part of the band just for their mode. 

Of course I passed it off as " PURE B-S "  but would not put it passed her to 
try it.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri

Re: [digitalradio] ros

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 06:58 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:
> even some of the AFSK/RTTY people use USB.

I have seen this too and at times wonder why.
I think maybe because the other modes are USB.

I got into RTTY in 1976. Still use a machine for RTTY. 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and mode selection on radios

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Of course.

Not being a sound card guy when it comes to RTTY.

John, W0JAB


At 04:56 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:


>I use USB dfor FSK, simply because I want the low side of the signals to show 
>up on the left side of the waterfall, and the high frequencies to show up to 
>the right.  Because that puts me opposite than the "normal" signals, I run 
>both send and receive with the reverse button clicked.'
> 
>Danny Douglas

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and mode selection on radios

[John Becker, WØJAB]

RTTY  "should"  be used in the LSB mode regardless of the band.
 
I don't use software for RTTY so I cant tell you a thing about that.

Re: [digitalradio] MT63 Operation

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I have found it only around 14,109.
But like many many modes - it's not used much.

John, W0JAB


At 03:37 PM 2/19/2010, you wrote:
>Lately I've been playing around with MT63 at the 500 hz bandwidth. It was 
>just about the only digital mode that I had not experimented with since 
>getting on the digital modes in 2003.
>
>I've made some contacts around 3584 kc and 14074 kc. The band plans that I 
>see for 20 meters on the internet call for 14109 kc but I've seen no 
>activity there or on any of other band
>
>The question is where most is the MT63 activity at? Or is there any?
>
>73 & GUD DX,
>Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O

[digitalradio] How many ?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Just how many sound card modes are there now?

And what is the number that look just like another mode?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all"  or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB

Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY decoding

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Looks like someone has done their homework RTTY...


John, W0JAB
Still using a 28 ASR

At 10:30 AM 2/17/2010, you wrote:


>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sven  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I' ve searched the Internet for RTTY decoding methods and found the 
>> following:
>...
>> Are there other known methods and who knows something about or can explain 
>> the above decoders ? How do they perform in a noisy environment ?
>> 
>I'm far from expert and up to date, but let me reveal how little I
>know.
>
>The original concept for FSK was to use a separate filter and detector
>for mark and space and combine the outputs of the two detectors by
>taking the difference or by running them into oppositely-poled
>windings of a polar relay.  This was worked on by Schmitt of Teletype
>and by Armstrong about the same time.  Presumably they were unaware
>of each other's work.  Both of them hoped that noise would affect
>both detectors equally and cancel out.  Carson of AT&T showed that
>this hoped-for effect would not work, although he may have missed
>that the two-frequency scheme has an advantage over make-and-break
>keying because the transmitter is transmitting all the time; hence
>the transmitted power is higher with FSK than with make-and-break.
>
>Armstrong went on to develop FM as we know it, with a limiter
>followed by a discriminator.  The next incarnation of FSK reception
>used the same principle.  FM systems have a threshold property:
>with SNR above threshold they improve the SNR in the output signal,
>and with SNR below the threshold it gets even worse in the output.
>
>A professor at MIT proposed using positive feedback aound the
>input filter and limiter.  This has the effect of sharpening
>the threshold.
>
>In the 1960s some hams got interested in returning to the
>limiterless two-tone schemes.  Some of this was probably a
>revival of Armstrong's hope, unaware of Carson's rebuttal.
>I only became aware of the Armstrong and Carson material in
>the last year or two.  In two-tone systems there is a definite
>advantage if the transmitting station is using "diddle" as this
>gives both detectors some signal to chew on all the time; there
>are no long pauses when only the mark signal is present and
>the space detector forgets how strong its signal was.
>
>Work continued on terminal unit designs as new ICs came along,
>such as the phase locked loops.  There was also a scheme that I
>don't know if anybody ever tried, called frequency feedback.
>This uses a VCO heterodyned with the input signal and controlled
>by the discriminator output.  It does not phase lock, but
>reduces the apparent shift of the signal so that a narrower
>filter can be used ahead of the discriminator.  L-C filters
>gave way to active filters and then to switched-capacitor
>filters, the latter making it easy to vary the center frequency
>of the filter to accomodate odd shifts and arbitrary audio
>frequencies.
>
>There may have been some work done with DSP using some of the
>DSP-engine development kits that I am unaware of.  Then about
>1996 K6STI announced his RITTY program, using the ordinary
>486 or Pentium PC with a sound card to do DSP.  One of his
>innovations he called the "digital flywheel".  This took advantage
>of the constant character rate, if the sender was using diddle
>or was sending from a file, to lock to the character rate and
>use matched-filter detection.  He continued developing and
>improving this software for the next four years or so.  I
>believe he achieved about the best that can be done for FSK
>reception.  He pulled the product off the market when some
>people cracked his copy-protection scheme and also when the
>original sound-card PSK31 software came out and was offered free.
>Today you find the vast majority of rag-chewers have switched
>from RTTY to PSK-31 because the latter usually performs better
>for a given SNR.  RTTY continues to be popular for contests and
>DX because of its more rapid turn-around and because you don't
>care that much about errors when you already know pretty much what
>the other station is going to say to you.
>
>I'll confess I don't have any idea what algorithms the various
>RTTY demodulators are using today.
>
>Jim W6JVE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
>http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 05:02 PM 2/7/2010, you wrote:
>With the  long  qsb faded outs on 500 Khz 60  seconds '
>in' 20 'out sort of thing  arq is the  only  way of having a  qso .. 
>but most of the  EU stations are limited to  100 Hz b/w .. 

How do you deal with a limit like that?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 10:40 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote in part:
> but some of the other ARQ protocals I've played with look like a mess when 
> you're a station on the outside looking in...

I have never found that to be true with PACTOR or AMTOR.
Can't speak for the sound card ARQ modes.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Comments PA0R / PSK MAIL ARQ / ALE 400 ARQ FAE

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 04:35 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote:
> 
>
>Rein PA0R wrote:  
> 
>> What I don't understand is why NOBODY uses the pskmail arq chat mode
>> Why accept 5% error when you can have it 100% error free?
> 
>Patrick's ALE-400 FAE ARQ is another mode that falls into this category Rein. 
>Like PSKMail, it sees little use as an ARQ chat mode.  
> 
>A nice thing about ARQ besides the error-free throughput, is that there's no 
>need wait for the other station to un-key in order to change the subject or 
>inject a comment. Patrick's use of FAE (Fast Acknowledgment Exchange) allows 
>for ACKS / NACKS every 6 to 7 seconds.  
> 
>Another advantage of ARQ is that it can check for errors that occur as the 
>band changes. With non-ARQ modes, data can be lost during long key downs and 
>the sending station has no way of knowing that. With ARQ, the constant 
>exchanges let the sending operator know if the data is getting through.  

And I think the best is that it does away with the "hidden transmitter" since
one side of the QSO is sending while the other is "ack'ing" at all times.


AIN'T no guessing about  " is the frequency busy " 

John W0JAB
ARQ'ing since to 1970's

Re: [digitalradio] Packet configurations?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 11:21 AM 1/29/2010, you wrote: (in part)

:  No serial connections and no external TNC please.

Is there a reason?

Re: [digitalradio] Estimating multipath delays using Hellschreiber

[John Becker, WØJAB]

the last time I seem a real good multi path was back in the 19080's
while using amtor. really made a mess of things.

I would not mind getting looking into that again with all
the good software we now have.

Of course back then when I would talk about it the would ask 
me if I have been smoking that  "stuff"  again.

got my interest up !

John

Re: [digitalradio] Re: source of 8 pin female radio connectors?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 03:43 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote:
>I thought of digikey or mouser, but what is the generic electronic part name 
>for it?

got me ! not having either one.

Re: [digitalradio] source of 8 pin female radio connectors?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

www.digikey.com


At 12:46 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote:
>I have a aea pk-88 tnc and a kenwood radio, they both have the same 8 pin male 
>connector, so I need to buy some female 8 pin connectors and wire it up.   
>Know of any good cheap sources (online) or in MA?

RE: [digitalradio] Future of ALE and HF Link.

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 07:18 PM 1/24/2010, you wrote:


>Re the control is to prevent ALE bashing"

That control is a Gestapo, Marxist type. She will flat out tell you that she may
not be "always" right, but never "wrong" No one and I do mean no one can use 
any other
mode on or near the frequency they use without getting a email letting you know 
that "that is their frequency."

This issue is far from being over, done, kaput.

John, W0JAB
In the cold heartland 

[digitalradio] VX1700

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Anyone on this list have one of there rig's?
If so please get back to me.

Tnx, John, W0JAB 

Re: [digitalradio] Who Is The PK-232MBX Expert?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

As the owner of 4 of them going back to the late 
1970's let me jump in here for a bit.

Your answer depends on what you are looking to do with it.

I still use a program called YAPP for QSO's 

John, W0JAB


At 12:07 PM 1/19/2010, you wrote:


>Hello,
>
> 
>
>Now that the major issues with WINMOR are largely settled, I am looking to 
> put my old PK-232 back on the air to get a little play time with PACTOR 1.
>
> 
>
>   What is a good software package to run with it in the Windows environment?  
> I have a copy of Lan-Link 2.32 for DOS from 1994 but nothing else.
>
> 
>
>   What are the hardware upgrades that are available?  Is the company still in 
> business?
>
> 
>
>Rick KH2DF/W5

Re: [digitalradio] Icom IC-718 & AMTOR

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Fancy that Icom never got back to you.
Ask me why I switched from icom to Yaesu.

I did read about a fix for that. I'll look and see 
if I saved it. If not you may like to ask on the

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pactor_packet/

yahoo as well.

John, W0JAb


At 01:28 PM 1/17/2010, you wrote:
>I read the QST review of the IC-718 (from 2000) and it made mention that the 
>radio didn't switch fast enough for AMTOR ARQ but Icom had a fix in the 
>pipeline. Can anyone confirm that later models work correctly in AMTOR?
>
>I tried asking Icom tech support but they never replied to my email.
>
>73
>
>Sholto
>K7TMG

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NEW : Digitalradio 2010 Challenge via Clublogs

[John Becker, WØJAB]

I guess that's because you Andy are the only one that I know
of that try's  *every*  new mode that comes down the pike.

I guess I really need to take a good look at some of the newer
sound card modes. I just got so turned off by that "do nothing" 
PSK 31.