Re: [digitalradio] RTTY Dilemma
On 9/28/2008 9:04 PM, Chuck Mayfield wrote: Are you picking Nits? You actually want all the software developers except three to make modifications for 85 Hz? Of course not. It's be much more effective to ask those using software with that sort of defect to refrain from generating inaccurate spots; or learn how to set up the radios and software they're using according to convention :-) Oh, say, does everyone know which is the Mark and which is the Space? Probably not. All the more reason why it's most effective for software developers to know the difference and to follow the established standard. On twenty meters you are talking about the 5th and 6th decimal places. 14.08 vs 14.080085 MHz. The spotting network was designed to pass 0.1 Hz precision frequency information and not 100 Hz precision for specific reasons. The 85 Hz frequency error in not spotting the mark frequency error puts the space tone of a RTTY signal out of the passband of on a 250 Hz wide filter. Yes, accurate spotting on RTTY does matter to those who use the spotting network for it's designed purpose. Cudos to N2AMG for taking the time to establish that the emperor has no new clothes... 73, Mike K1MK Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 30M digital activity at http://www.projectsandparts.com/30m Recommended software : DM780, Multipsk, FLDIGI, Winwarbler ,MMVARI. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] What frequency for XM/Sirius digital signals
At 11:22 PM 12/21/2007, Andrew O'Brien wrote: Does anyone know what frequency the XM or Sirius satellite services in North America use ? I was thinking, if my radios had the frequency range, that it might be interesting to hear their raw digital signal. Andy K3UK Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service downlinks are 2320 to 2345 MHz. 3 HH, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms
At 10:45 PM 11/29/06, cesco12342000 wrote: Near the equator, there is little frequency spread ( 4 Hz), but it is larger in near-polar paths and can be very large (up to 40 Hz) under disturbed conditions. A question: where does the frequency spread come from ? Is this a doppler effect of a moving ionosphere, or are there other causes ? Yes. It's Doppler spreading because of turbulent motions within the ionosphere. why is the effect bigger in polar regions ? Because the most turbulent regions of the ionosphere are the Auroral zones that are located near the poles. The Auroral zones are regions in which a lot of energy gets dissipated in a relatively small volume. That leads to the same kind of instability and turbulence that one sees in a pot of boiling water. The regions closest to the poles, the polar caps, are significantly less turbulent than the Auroral zones which bound the caps on the equatorward side. The other place that significant Doppler spreading is observed to occur is in the equatorial ionosphere during so-called spread-F conditions. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
At 03:44 PM 9/26/06, Dave Bernstein wrote: So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan. Given normal circumstances, I'd certainly agree with you, Dave. But a more relevant question might be this: would there be any fault to be assigned for non-compliance with a band plan at those times when the band plan is not appropriate to the situation? The ARRL has indicated that band plans are not intended to address atypical situations, such as major contests. As a consequence, I think it's unrealistic to expect strict and universal compliance with the IARU band plans in a situation for which those plans were not designed to apply. I'd have to expect some lesser degree of compliance from hams who pay attention to what the IARU headquarters society has told us. As hams we all utilize the same spectrum and we need to plan how best to share this common resource. But our planning currently does allow for flexibility. Having an endorsed band plan does not establish exclusive enclaves which are inviolate. To view a band plan as a rigid absolute, compliance with which is mandatory is not productive and ultimately divisive, as that view leads to increased frustrations and causes more conflicts as opposed to resolving them. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
At 11:51 PM 9/25/06, Patrick Soileau wrote: I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs. They're not. Which is why the FCC rules do not permit US stations to operate automatically controlled beacons on HF; and why W6WX and KH6YY require STAs for their beacon operations. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] IARU Beacons 14100kHz (14099.5 kHz - 14100.5 kHz guard band)
At 09:10 PM 9/25/06, expeditionradio wrote: Although these band plans do not have the full force of law, there is general agreement that a properly operated amateur radio station should normally operate within such band plans Well, general agreement is an interesting assertion by the NCDXF. It's a concept that was not been endorsed by the FCC which declined to define compliance with voluntary band plans as good amateur practice when asked to declare it such in RM-9259. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.txt Nor does it seem to be an opinion that is shared by the ARRL, which says: Band plans are just that - plans. They are designed for normal circumstances when band loading is much lighter than during a contest. During major contests, the bands will be very crowded, resulting in conditions that the band plan is not intended to address. http://www.arrl.org/contests/hf-faq.html#noncontesters 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: New poll for digitalradio
As with previous dockets, hardcopy (paper) submitals that are part of the offical record are available via ECFS. See for example: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi? native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6518324832 and note (a) it is a scan and (b) the presence of the FCC mailroom stamps, etc. 73, Mike K1MK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was told by my contact at the FCC that the mail in's are not on the site. Just the on line comments. But she did say in her words, as far as I know So anyone of us could be wrong. At 07:00 AM 3/1/06, you wrote: It was my understanding from the FCC site that comments that are mailed in are scanned into a computer and posted on the web site along with the on-line comments and file transfer comments. Is that an incorrect reading of the what the site says? tim ab0wr --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker w0jab@ wrote: At 09:33 PM 2/28/06, you wrote: When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM- 11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306. Don't bet on that 927... That is only the on line count I and a number of others have used the US mail to send in ours. Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL to file Encryption Petition with the FCC
At 07:36 PM 2/10/06, Tim Gorman wrote: The ARIL just got roundly criticized by the Amateur Radio community for its HF Internet petition with the FCC. Here comes the next installation - this time for VHF. Check out the following URL's: http://www.arrl.org/announce/board.html http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2006/january/ For those who don't have access to the ARRL site, here is an excerpt. --- Minutes of the 2006 Annual Meeting ARRL Board of Directors January 20-21, 2006 29. On motion of Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Bodson, it was unanimously VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors instructs the General Counsel, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission permitting security of data for computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions above 50 MHz at the earliest opportunity. --- When excerpting, it's always best to capture what was actually done... In looking at slightly more context, the minutes of the 2006 Meeting of the BoD are seen to read: 28. By request, Mr. Imlay expanded upon the written report of the General Counsel, highlighting the background for and implications of moving forward with filing a petition for encryption of data for computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions above 50 MHz. On motion of Mr. Bodson, seconded by Mr. Bellows, it was VOTED to relieve the General Counsel of the requirements set forth at Minute 29, of the 2004 Second Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors, which reads: 29. On motion of Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Bodson, it was unanimously VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors instructs the General Counsel, Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission permitting security of data for computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions above 50 MHz at the earliest opportunity. 29. Mr. Fallon, as Chairman, presented the report ... So, the Minute 29, excerpted in teh original message in this thread was actually Minute 29 from the BoD Meeting in July, 2004. Check that out here: http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0407/ So, the motion and vote from the Board meeting last month was to relieve the General Counsel of the requirements set forth... by the action taken back in 2004; those requirements were for the General Counsel to file a petition... at the earliest opportunity. In essence the Board's action was to remove the matter from the fast-track and put it on the back burner. It's an extremely confusing bit of anti-serendipity that had a quotation of Minute 29 from the July 2004 Meeting just happen to fall right between Minute 28 and Minute 29 of the January 2006 Meeting. Which variant of Murphy's Law was that? 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF
At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote: 1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations. Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or higher. They all use multiple tone modems and modulate individual pairs at a substantially lower baud rate. Like 12 tone pairs, each at a rate of 60 baud which give an equivalent rate of 720 baud, substantially over the 300 baud regulation. To help avoid the confusion that seems to creep in when talking about bauds, for the example given, the state of each of the twelve binary sub-carriers represents one bit of the symbol being transmitted. That's one 12-bit symbol that changes state 60 times a second; the symbol rate is 60 symbols per second while the data rate is 720 bits per seconds. The rules put a limit on symbol rate that can be used not the bit rate that can be achieved. Inter-symbol interference due to delay spread from fading/multipath makes the restriction to a maximum symbol rate 300 baud a phantom limit at HF. Using DV as an example, the AOR modem sends a bit stream at a rate of 3200 bits per second using a symbol rate of 50 symbols per second; the various DRM modes send a comparable speeds with a maximum symbol rate is 37.5 symbols per seconds. Olivia (which is m-ary FSK and not multiple sub-carriers) includes a two tone configuration with symbol rates of 500 or 1000 symbols per second; the utility of that at HF is quite dubious. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Digital voice on HF
At 07:53 PM 1/31/06, Danny Douglas wrote: I keep waiting for someone to come out with the program for my computers sound card, which lets me do DV... It is no different than SSTV. When it first came out, it was pretty much one company, with their equipment for sale that led the way. DV is a bit different. Back in the Stone Age of SSTV the first commercial gear from Robot was built to an open standard and it would interoperate with the existing base of homebrew systems. The first generation of commercial DV hardware, the AOR fast modem, is built upon a proprietary technology that's only available as a custom chip (a voice codec from Digital Voice Systems). A software/sound card implementation, and especially a free implementation, that is capable of interoperation with the AOR fast modem standard is not just around the corner; it'll probably never happen. In looking for a software/sound card DV implementation, it's necessary to consider alternative standards, like WinDRM. Of course DV with WinDRM is not compatible with AOR DV. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 5600 baud circuit in 2400hz
At 10:32 PM 1/28/06, you wrote: Respectfully, you are talking about compressing the content. That won't help with cramming a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz bandwidth. It might help send more content faster - making a slower circuit look like a 5600 baud circuit, but it won't help put a 5600 baud circuit into a 2400hz bandwidth. Anybody else got any ideas? tim ab0wr One encounters a fundamental problem with Nyquist in attempting to use a signaling rate that's more than twice the baseband bandwidth. If the baseband signal is then translated to RF with a balanced modulator, the occupied bandwidth doubles. In this case a signaling rate equal to the occupied RF bandwidth, i.e. 2400 baud for a 2400 Hz bandwidth, is the limit. That said, it's readily possible to fit a 5600 bit per second data stream into a 2400 Hz bandwidth by picking a modulation scheme that has a bandwidth efficiency of greater than 2.33 bits/s per Hz; in this case, 8-PSK at a signaling rate of 1867 baud is but one way to send 5600 bits per second over a 2400 Hz BW channel. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
