Re: [digitalradio] Digital and EMCOMM
John, Consider NBEMS. Read about it at w1hkj.com/NBEMS. For hilly country, HF with NVIS (low) antennas works well and is used by the military. You can expect a range of up to 300 miles on 80m or 40m. NBEMS has two error-checking systems (ARQ and WRAP) for messaging. The suggested modes are high performance modes already on common use. SC MARS uses MT63 for most messaging. The important thing is to try to use low antennas on both ends (12' to 15' is best) so propagation is more constant and reliable. This forces the radiation toward the clouds for short skip propagation. You might also want to subscribe to the Yahoo NBEMSham group and learn about others' experiences using NBEMS for emcomm. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: JonP To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 1:08 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Digital and EMCOMM The purpose of this message is to ask for people's experience and thoughts about which modes and methods of digital to use for specific EMCOMM scenarios. I'm in Fairfield County CT. Relatively small in size, relatively dense in population. Hilly enough that VHF coverage in the northern half of the county is spotty (even with the fixed repeaters currently in place) and in general VHF is limited to about 20 miles radius throughout the county even with a good base station and a reasonably tall antenna. We are told that the most likely scenario is that hams would be deployed to shelters or other fixed locations where our primary responsibility will be passing message traffic -- either formal NTS traffic or long list traffic such as shelter logistics lists, shelter occupancy lists, etc. My question is what modes/methods/protocols to focus on when planning for that kind of usage. Some of the scenarios we are considering are: 1. Long List shelter messages sent radio-to-radio direct on VHF FM (possibly via a repeater). In this scenario, Winlink is not available. We've been experimenting with WinPack and it seems reasonably reliable over short distances. However, it is somewhat slow, and it's not clear to me if it does error checking or not. We've noticed some quirks where the receiving station has to keep hitting enter to get the entire message (it receives two or three lines at a time between hitting the enter key). Is there other software or are there other modes of operation that people would recommend for this purpose? 2. Long List shelter messages sent via WinLink. WinLink via radio is grass-growing slow, but seems to be the major focus of most EMCOMM email planning. We can understand using it to reach internet email if there is no internet service available in the disaster area. What about within the disaster area if we have choice between radio-to-radio direct (e.g., via WinPack) or going via WinLink. Which would you consider the more desirable approach, or is there some other approach you would recommend? 3. Formatted NTS messages. Sending NTS messages by voice is certainly doable, but the idea of sending hundreds of such messages by voice doesn't sound like an efficient method of communications (although it's there if nothing else is available). There are any number of programs and macros that produce formatted NTS text output, so what are people doing in terms of sending such messages digitally? Again, send them via WinLink if available? Send them via WinPack? Send them via something else? If anyone wants to respond to me off the group, you can select my name and email address (instead of the group) when you reply to this message. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ message cross-posted on PacLinkMP group.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
Hi Jose, That can be done, of course, but there is also often a need in emcomm for everyone to be on the same RF frequency, so in order to do that with SSB, everyone needs to be on the same tone frequency, and with VHF FM especially, voice communications has to be on the same frequency (i.e. "channel"), so to switch to MT63, the baseband tone frequency must be the same. In MARS here, the practice is to intermingle phone with MT63, and sometimes stations are copying bulletins when nobody is at the transceiver controls, so the tone frequency needs to be within 100 Hz of an agreed standard, which is 500 Hz in this case. 73, Skip KH6TY Jose A. Amador wrote: > > > > Just one more comment, being on agreement with the previous > postings... on a "linear transponder" (as a SSB transceiver becomes > usually on HF between your antenna and your soundcard) just rock the > transceiver's dial to make the tones fall in the proper place in the > spectrum. > > FLdigi has a sweetspot setting that MIGHT help to set the baseband > start at 1500 Hz (I am not sure because I have not used it). > > On FM (F2D), it is something else, as you must make the baseband > tones coincide.Simon just hit the nail once again. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- > > Simon (HB9DRV) escribió: > >> - Original Message - >> From: "kh6ty" >> >>> The standard for MT63 is to start at 500 Hz. Fldigi follows the accepted >>> standard. Anyone wishing to use fldigi and flarq together on MT63 will >>> have to follow the standard and only use MT63-1000 or MT63-2000 as other >>> versions have too much latency for flarq >>> >> >> Being more exact - Pawel, the designer of MT63 specifically set the lower >> frequency to 500Hz. fldigi and DM780 use Pawel's code, it is not a trivial >> task to work out how to allow a different starting frequency. >> >> As Skip says, the MT63 standard is to start at 500Hz. I think MARS have >> decided to use some other default but it's really their problem. >> >> Simon Brown, HB9DRV >> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com >> > > > > __ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de > firmas de virus 3832 (20090206) __ > > ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje. > > http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com> > > > > > > Participe en Universidad 2010, del 8 al 12 de febrero de 2010 > La Habana, Cuba > http://www.universidad2010.cu > www.universidad2010.cu <http://www.universidad2010.cu> > - > > SEGUNDO SEMINARIO INTERNACIONAL LEGADO Y DIVERSIDAD. ARQUITECTURA Y > URBANISMO. > > El rescate de los valores urbanos y arquitectónicos en tiempos de > globalización > > Colegio de San Gerónimo, La Habana Vieja, noviembre 24-27, 2009 > > > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
Simon, The default here in South Carolina NAVY MARS is also 500 Hz. They use fldigi or MixW, or Pawel's program, and like to adhere to the standards in any event. What I don't really understand is how you can successfully use a center frequency of 1500 HZ with a 2000 Hz-wide MT63 signal. Even when using MT63-1000, a center frequency of 1500 Hz might be a problem on some rigs with narrow IF filters. 73 Skip KH6TY /NNN0VFA Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "kh6ty" mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net>> > > > > The standard for MT63 is to start at 500 Hz. Fldigi follows the accepted > > standard. Anyone wishing to use fldigi and flarq together on MT63 will > > have to follow the standard and only use MT63-1000 or MT63-2000 as other > > versions have too much latency for flarq. > > > > Being more exact - Pawel, the designer of MT63 specifically set the lower > frequency to 500Hz. fldigi and DM780 use Pawel's code, it is not a > trivial > task to work out how to allow a different starting frequency. > > As Skip says, the MT63 standard is to start at 500Hz. I think MARS have > decided to use some other default but it's really their problem. > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
'"I really think the fldigi 3.11.6 works much better. I keep both versions installed in different directories." This may be your problem. Fldigi configuration files of any version are kept in fldigi.files. You cannot run but one version without reinstalling another. The standard for MT63 is to start at 500 Hz. Fldigi follows the accepted standard. Anyone wishing to use fldigi and flarq together on MT63 will have to follow the standard and only use MT63-1000 or MT63-2000 as other versions have too much latency for flarq. Winlink provides an ARQ alternative to NBEMS and so does Multipsk and PSKmail. You can use either of those if fldigi or NBEMS do not do what you need. Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Howard Z. wrote: > > > Stelios, > > I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. If you are a moderator, you can > delete my posting. > > I'm feeling a bit more optimistic today - it's nice to get 8 hours of > sleep. > > It has been frustrating attempting to use fldigi 3.12.3 > I mostly use DM780 rather than fldigi. The Flarq is the exciting new > feature, and my group will not start using it until their Olivia > 1000/8 centered at 1500 hz is added. Here is the scenario: > 1. Sets up Olivia custom mode to 1000/8 centered at 1500 hz, then save it. > 2. Exit Fldigi and restart Fldigi > 3. Select MT63/1000 > 4. Now try to go back to our custom Olivia 1000/8...@1500hz - by > selecting Olivia custom > 5. Fldigi will pop up the custom window showing Olivia 500/8 and > forgot that we centered it at 1500hz. > There needs to be a way to save our custom settings and then to recall > it later on. Otherwise you will have people asking you to add every > customized mode they can think of. We simply can not save and later > recall a customized setting. So the group I am in will not use > fldigi/flarq in their nets until Olivia 1000/8 is added - which I hear > it is a low priority item on the fldigi to-do-list. Personally I don't > see why this is so important to them. It's not so hard to change to > 1000/8 and center it at 1500hz. I think Flarq is worth trying. > > By the way, DM780 has lost the capability to use MT63/1000 centered at > 1500 hz. Fldigi also can not operate MT63/1000 and be centered at 1500 > hz. I can no longer participate in our group's MT63 nets unless I buy > MIXW. I have been resisting buying MIXW because there is so much good > free software to do the job - like DM780. In some versions of DM780 > one can center MT63/1000 at 1500hz, but not with the current version. > DM780 versions have been flip-flopping on supporting MT63/1000 > centered at 1500hz for about 2 years. > > Our group can not deviate from our nationwide mandated Olivia and MT63 > operating parameters. I suspect the reason for always being centered > at 1500hz is so that radio's filters or DSP can easily be used to cut > out nearby noise. Filters are centered at 1500 hz. > > Maybe I'll just need to give up and buy MIXW? People who use it seem > to love it. Or...maybe I'll figure out how to write my own? > > The big problem is that fldigi seems to have no error messages. If > there is anything wrong, it just crashes. For example, let's say > another program has the COM port open to talk to the radio? Will I get > a simple error message that the COM port can not be opened? No, the > program crashes with cryptic useless error messages. > > When I first tried using fldigi 3.12.3 it would only start if I turned > my radio off. If my radio was powered on then fldigi would crash. > Hamlib was somehow not happy - but fldigi did not give me any error > message - it just dies. I followed instructions on the yahoo group to > delete the file with the settings and re-entered the settings, and > this did not help. Moving from hamlib to rigctl seemed to help. > > I really think the fldigi 3.11.6 works much better. I keep both > versions installed in different directories. > > As I am writing this email this morning, I tried to reproduce the > fldigi 3.12.3 crashes - and it won't crash! I don't understand. Late > yesterday I installed Vista Windows Updates and rebooted. Microsoft > issues windows updates every tuesday. fldigi 3.12.3 seems to be stable > at this time - why? I do not know. Right now I can not reproduce any > fldigi crashes - even if I leave HRD or my own radio control program > running at the same time using the rig control com port. After a few > days of instability, it now seems stable. Maybe I am the only one > experiencing these problems? > > I did join a new group - NBEMSham - to report problems and that is > where I saw instructions on how to delete the files that stored the > program
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Soliciting suggestions
See if Dave can help you, w...@bellsouth.net or go to NBEMSham. It should not be that hard! You do not beacon first, but you first establish contact in the mode and then ask the other station to send an flarq beacon. His callsign should appear in your flarq and then you just press Connect. 73 Skip KH6TY John Taylor wrote: > > > Thanks Skip, > > As I replied to Simon, we have been trying the NBEMS modes of FLdigi > and FLarq for a while now. We are able to communicate via fldigi in > virtually every mode, but have yet to establish a connection with flarq. > > Any ideas are welcome ... > > John > KE5HAM > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, kh6ty wrote: > > > > John, > > > > You might consider NBEMS for HF: www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. We have optimized > > the DominoEx and MFSK16 modes for high static conditions and also > have a > > verification program called Wrap if you do not want to use flarq. > > > > 73 Skip KH6TY > > NBEMS Development Team > > > > > > > > > > John Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > > > We are seeking to establish a standard for a digital "network" style > > > system to handle emergency communications. > > > We have established certain standards we are looking to follow. > > > The mode/protocol/package etc. should be based on weak signal HF > > > capability. > > > The mode/protocol/package should be able to handle transferring of > > > data in more than just ascii text format (ie: transfer files such as > > > spreadsheets, etc.) > > > The system must NOT require proprietary hardware such as pactor > II/III > > > modems. In other words, standard modems and/or sound card based. > > > > > > Before the flames start, there are already some out there that are > > > being tested that actually meet these requirements, but are still in > > > testing stages. > > > > > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated > > > > > > John > > > KE5HAM > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Skip KH6TY* > > http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net <http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net> > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Soliciting suggestions
John, You might consider NBEMS for HF: www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS. We have optimized the DominoEx and MFSK16 modes for high static conditions and also have a verification program called Wrap if you do not want to use flarq. 73 Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team John Taylor wrote: > > > We are seeking to establish a standard for a digital "network" style > system to handle emergency communications. > We have established certain standards we are looking to follow. > The mode/protocol/package etc. should be based on weak signal HF > capability. > The mode/protocol/package should be able to handle transferring of > data in more than just ascii text format (ie: transfer files such as > spreadsheets, etc.) > The system must NOT require proprietary hardware such as pactor II/III > modems. In other words, standard modems and/or sound card based. > > Before the flames start, there are already some out there that are > being tested that actually meet these requirements, but are still in > testing stages. > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated > > John > KE5HAM > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS
Rodney, The same interface you use for PSK31 will work. NBEMS is a software suite. Go to www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS and download the software for your windows or Linux version. Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Rodney wrote: > > > > NBEMS - Narrow Band Emergency Messaging System > > > Is anyone familiar with this mode? What type of equipment is needed? > > I have an MFJ-1250C. Will this work with this or will I need a > different type of interface? > > Thanks! > > Rod > KC7CJO > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Zapped PCs, data recovery, and Windows !
The latest Puppy Linux is here: http://puppylinux.org/downloads/official-releases/latest-production-version (not the NBEMS version, but will work). You just need a computer to access the Internet and a program that will burn an ISO. 73, Skip KH6TY Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > yes, I thought of that Skip. I am looking for a copy of my working > Puppy, cleaned the shack last week and have misplaced it. I should > point out that I am close to having almost everything I need ,expect > OS, backed up on teh web and accessible when I need to start over. I > have my log backed up and I email it to myself as an attachment via > Gmail, then use products like DXLab, HRD, Fldigib that can easily be > reinstalled for free, and my Multipsk license is also backup via the > Internet. Today's zapped computer however contains 20 gigs of paid > for Itunes stuff. Luckily a nifty program call copytrans allows me to > retrieve back to Itunes from the Ipod. > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM, kh6ty <mailto:kh...@comcast.net>> wrote: > > > > Andy, > > Try running a NBEMS Puppy Linux CD live. You can access all the > data and > windows partitions with Puppy from the Puppy Desktop. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > > > > After years or running PC's without issues, I have had 4 go bad > in 12 > > months. Two this week, 4 days apart via thunderstorms . One went > > today just an hour after I had fully reinstalled ham equipment on a > > new PC that arrived yesterday. The new one survived, I had > unplugged > > it at the sound of thunder. I powered off the older one but > forgot to > > remove the power cord, it got zapped. I put in a spare power supply > > that i had, that lasted 5 minutes and gave up the ghost. Maybe > > something else was weakened by the original zap and caused the > second > > power supply to burn out. > > > > Anyway, my main issue is the frustrating fact that I have data > on hard > > drives that seems ridiculously complex to retrieve when using > > Windows based PCs. My local computer store tells me that one cannot > > simply take a hard drive from a old Pc and place it in a new PC > even > > if you have a Windows license disc for the new PC. Is this correct? > > In the past I have taken old drives and installed them in different > > PC's as slave drives. However this causes one to have to re-install > > many programs because they were originally installed to the > registry > > on a C-drive. > > > > So what do I do with 5 hard drives laying around the shack ? In > > particular one two-drive system with 160 gigs of useful data on it > > (both have Windows OS on them since both are from different > original > > PC systems!) . It would be nice to install in to a PC without > having > > to get a HD with an OS on it. > > -- > > Andy > > > > > > -- > *Skip KH6TY* > http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net <http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net> > > > > > -- > Andy > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Zapped PCs, data recovery, and Windows !
Andy, Try running a NBEMS Puppy Linux CD live. You can access all the data and windows partitions with Puppy from the Puppy Desktop. 73, Skip KH6TY Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > After years or running PC's without issues, I have had 4 go bad in 12 > months. Two this week, 4 days apart via thunderstorms . One went > today just an hour after I had fully reinstalled ham equipment on a > new PC that arrived yesterday. The new one survived, I had unplugged > it at the sound of thunder. I powered off the older one but forgot to > remove the power cord, it got zapped. I put in a spare power supply > that i had, that lasted 5 minutes and gave up the ghost. Maybe > something else was weakened by the original zap and caused the second > power supply to burn out. > > Anyway, my main issue is the frustrating fact that I have data on hard > drives that seems ridiculously complex to retrieve when using > Windows based PCs. My local computer store tells me that one cannot > simply take a hard drive from a old Pc and place it in a new PC even > if you have a Windows license disc for the new PC. Is this correct? > In the past I have taken old drives and installed them in different > PC's as slave drives. However this causes one to have to re-install > many programs because they were originally installed to the registry > on a C-drive. > > So what do I do with 5 hard drives laying around the shack ? In > particular one two-drive system with 160 gigs of useful data on it > (both have Windows OS on them since both are from different original > PC systems!) . It would be nice to install in to a PC without having > to get a HD with an OS on it. > -- > Andy > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] 2 Meter FM Digital Modes
In my reply, IC-2000H should have read IC-2200H. 73, Skip KH6TY Phil Williams wrote: > > > Is there anyone out there who is active in using digital modes on 2 > meters? > > I would be especially interested in experiences with digital modes > such as MFSK and DominoEX. > > There has been a number of presentations on this particular aspect of > the hobby and it would be interesting to know how what is being used > for equipment and software. > > 73 > > philw de ka1gmn > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] 2 Meter FM Digital Modes
Phil, We have been running a 2 meter FM net in FM02 using DominoEx 8 with great success for over a year now. Various transceivers are used, such as FT-897, IC-746Pro, IC-2000H (FM only) and others. We have had checkins from as far away as 200 miles. Antennas are all horizontally-polarized beams. Local stations mostly use 2-element quads and distant stations use 14 dBi or greater antennas. Software is either fldigi, Multipsk, or DM780. Many signals are under limiting and under the noise threshold, but by using DominoEx, we still get good print. The mode is very tolerant to mistuning (unlike MFSK16) and fairly resistant to multipath interference. 73 Skip KH6TY Phil Williams wrote: > Is there anyone out there who is active in using digital modes on 2 > meters? > > I would be especially interested in experiences with digital modes > such as MFSK and DominoEX. > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Possible Purchase
If you are not an ARRL member, a description of the interface described on page 30 of the June QST is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/interface.htm 73 Skip KH6TY Tim N9PUZ wrote: > If you do not have to have an external sound card the various > interfaces that use your computers internal sound card are much less > expensive. With some, such as the Rascal GLX you switch cables to use > them with different transceivers. There are many other choices, I just > happen to be familiar with that one. > > Tim, N9PUZ > > > Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle wrote: > >> Thanks Simon, >> >> But the big issue is the price. This one you mention is also up in the >> US$200 area, which is nearly NZ$400 for us, exchange rate. >> Makes me think twice before I purchase. >> >> I think I will get a sound interface it's just twisting my arm a little >> more to finally do the bank transfer. >> >> Regards >> Kevin., ZL1KFM >> >> BTW, version 7 is working great for me. Had one issue with DM780 >> shutting down when going into TX mode. Might of been because the network >> link was not active between it and HRD. >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Simon (HB9DRV) <mailto:simon.br...@kns.ch> >> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:34 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Possible Purchase >> >> Look at the microHam USB Interface III - soundcard and CAT in one >> package, I have one and use it with my own TS-480SAT. >> >> http://www.microham-usa.com/Products/USB3.html >> <http://www.microham-usa.com/Products/USB3.html> >> >> Simon Brown, HB9DRV >> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com <http://www.ham-radio-deluxe.com> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle >> <mailto:spar...@gmail.com> >> >> I had a look at the Rigblaster Pro, but at US$299 I felt this >> was a little high (I could be wrong here) >> > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Recommended digital mode software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk Logging Software: DXKeeper or Ham Radio Deluxe. 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:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto: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] Possible Purchase
See page 30 of the June QST for an inexpensive interface design and circuit board. As of this date, 250 have been built and all worked without any problems as far as I have been told. No SMT parts are used, and soldering is easy, even for an old man like me. Cost of all parts is less than $20 and no USB or serial port is needed. Joe Veldhuis wrote: > > > I continue to be puzzled as to why anyone would spend more than $50 on > a soundcard and/or CAT interface, when both can be built for about $10 > in parts. > > > 73 -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Thanks Vojtech! 73, Skip Vojtech Bubnik wrote: > > > Hi Skip. > > The DOS executable is here: > http://www.cnunix.com/ftp/hamradio/tapr/software_lib/utils/7plus20.exe > <http://www.cnunix.com/ftp/hamradio/tapr/software_lib/utils/7plus20.exe> > > The source code is here: > ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/apps/ham/7pl217sr.tgz > <ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/apps/ham/7pl217sr.tgz> > > 7plus is available as installation package in some Linux > distributions. I was maintaining 7plus installation package and other > HAM applications for SuSE Linux in Prague when I was a student. > > There is one neat thing about 7plus. 7plus files have standard header > and tail. The packet radio modems often snipped out the 7plus sections > from their RX window and stored them into appropriate files. Some > applications even executed the 7plus utility to decompress the data > when all pieces were received. There were even programs, that > extracted 7plus files from monitor. This allowed for multicasting, if > the link quality was good. > > 73, Vojtech > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, kh6ty wrote: > > > > That's neat, Vojtech. Is there a link to download 7plus? WRAP only > > calculates a checksum for the entire file, and if it will not "unwrap", > > we just resend the whole file. > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > > Vojtech Bubnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end > > > > of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. > > > > > > Hi Skip. > > > > > > >From the Packet Radio times, we have a 7plus utility, which splits a > > > longer binary file to multiple parts and adds mild error detection / > > > correction codes. After you receive all parts and run them through > > > 7plus, if there are errors, the application will generate a "request" > > > message, which will identify missing parts to be repeated. > > > > > > 73, Vojtech AB2ZA > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Skip KH6TY* > > http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net <http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net> > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
That's neat, Vojtech. Is there a link to download 7plus? WRAP only calculates a checksum for the entire file, and if it will not "unwrap", we just resend the whole file. 73, Skip KH6TY Vojtech Bubnik wrote: > > > > so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end > > of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. > > Hi Skip. > > >From the Packet Radio times, we have a 7plus utility, which splits a > longer binary file to multiple parts and adds mild error detection / > correction codes. After you receive all parts and run them through > 7plus, if there are errors, the application will generate a "request" > message, which will identify missing parts to be repeated. > > 73, Vojtech AB2ZA > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] QRV ALE-400 ARQ chat mode -- 14074.0
Rick, ARQ is perfect for being sure emcomm and other messages are delivered error-free, but for chatting, most people will not want to slow things down waiting for an acknowledgment. Rather, they just ask for a repeat when it is needed. In addition, we can correct errors (a single apparently misspelled word, for example) with what we think is the right word, or fill in a missing word with our brains (since we can visualize things in context). Overall, this is usually faster than using ARQ and good enough for casual conversation. However, for sending pictures, ARQ is sometimes absolutely necessary, especially with a compression technique in which a single byte ruins the whole picture. The Western Pennsylvania emcomm group has fully implemented NBEMS over both repeaters and simplex, but mostly over VHF, and, because VHF tends to be more constant and tends to be much more error-free than HF, did not want to spend the extra time (on any mode or speed) to slow down for ARQ, so we developed the Wrap program, which sends a checksum at the end of the message, and error-free reception can be verified that way. On our MARS emcomm net, MT63 on HF usually produces error-free copy on the statewide net, and Wrap is useful with MT63 also just for verifying that there were no errors, or indicating that a resend is necessary. However, far enough away, there may always be some stations, under poor conditions, that either need a repeat of the whole message, or need to have ARQ used to repeat bad blocks if there are many. The advantage of Wrap is that a one-on-one ARQ link is not needed except when that is the only way to get the message through. Bulletins can be transmitted in MT63 and received error-free by most stations, with others needing a resend, or perhaps a relay. On VHF SSB weak signal phone, it is common practice to use "vocal FEC" (to coin a term!) and just repeat callsigns twice or "over" twice to accomplish the contact during poor conditions. The standard call on CW is a 3x3 call, which is a type of "manual" FEC to try to get at least one of each callsign through. Most files these days are very large, compared to those in DOS days, and with the bandwidth limitations on HF, it just takes too long to send a very large file, even using a fast mode and ARQ, so I think there is little interest in file transfer on the bands either. Still, I have always though it would be very convenient to be able to send a schematic to explain something, but these days, that can be done with most stations by using the Internet. FAE400 is a great development, but the learning curve is too steep for emcomm operators thrust into a position without much training. That is why we elected to use commonly used digital modes and provide ARQ with flarq when necessary, and the learning curve is not as steep that way. ARQ definitely has its place, but is usually needed for messaging or when poor conditions require it (for example, if QSB is strong). I think that is why only a handful of hams have any interest in ARQ modes for chatting. That is how I see it. Other's opinions may vary, of course. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Rick W wrote: > > > It seems that there are only a handful of hams who have any interest in > ARQ modes for chatting. There don't even seem to be many interested in > even using this for public service communications either and quite > frankly I am very concerned by this. > > There is nothing wrong with using older techniques and technologies, but > when breakthroughs occur that move us much farther along the path to > having the ability to both keyboard and send files error free for the > first time with a sound card mode, it tells you that hams really are not > interested in this after all. I have brought this up on a number of > other groups with nearly no response. > > FAE400 is not that new since it has been around for several years. Maybe > part of the problem is that it is only available on one program that is > less popular, but I have not been able to get much interest from other > multimode digital mode developers. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > . > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Peek-a-boo sound devices
Andy, I have also found that Windows will reassign USB ports if anything is plugged in or unplugged. My solution was to set the default sound system to the onboard system and use USB for the ham devices, such as the SignaLink USB. The problem is especially troublesome when I plug my WebCam microphone in and out. If you use Skype, it will also "grab" your microphone. Sorry, that I don't have a foolproof solution for you., but offer you comfort in misery! ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > I use an internal sound card for ham operations and an external sound > device , in the form of USB speakers, for routine PC/Internet work > including DX announcements via Spotcollector. This works well except > that every know and again ham applications that have been working well > via the internal sound device all of a sudden have their settings > switched and the sound for transmission gets sent to my speakers > rather than to the rig. > > I can't figure out what triggers this? Sometimes Multipsk, Winwarbler, > and WSJT, just tell me that "USB AUDIO" is set for my transmitted > audio even though I had manually set it for the other device. It seems > that is connected with changes I may make, like unplugging and then > plugging in the USB speakers if I need to "borrow" the USB ports for > something else for a few minutes. > > I have missed few QSOs when caught by surprise with the wrong xmit > card. Ideas ? >
Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI - Feature Request and Thanks to W1HKJ
No problem. The next release is going to have Farnsworth spacing, according to Dave. 73, Skip KH6TY CW Black wrote: > > > OK, > > First let me say that I clearly shouldn't compose messages at 11:00pm. > > While Skip Teller is a great guy, I meant my thanks and my request to > go to Dave Freese - W1HKJ and the NBEMS development team. > > I suspect they both deserve praise for their long-term contributions > to the radio arts. > > Sorry for whatever consternation my mistake may have caused. > > Thanks Dave, > > vy 73 de WR5J - in West Seattle > > bl...@nwfirst.com <mailto:black%40nwfirst.com> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "WR5J" wrote: > > > > Skip, > > > > First, I am very favorably impressed with the NBEMS package. Thanks > to you > > and the team for all of your work. > > > > I have a request for two features. > > > > We've been using FLDIGI and getting folks up to speed on a "Summer of > > Digital Fun" theme using our Educational Radio Net - 8:00pm on Wednesday > > evenings in Seattle - sorry, the 146.96 machine we use doesn't have echo > > link (maybe someday). > > > > The educational radio net used to end with a CW practice. You were very > > kind to include a nice CW mode in FLDIGI. I'd like to continue our code > > practice and just wondered if it would be difficult to add a Farnsworth > > spacing control to the window on the CW modem setup page so that I might > > send the 5 or 7 WPM code at a character spacing of 13 wpm (or even > 20) with > > all the advantages to the student which come from getting the sound > down and > > skipping the counting dots and dashes stage. > > > > The second feature would be adding ALE-400 as implemented in > MULTIPSK. It > > is looking like one heck of a mode. > > > > Thanks for the RS-ID and TUNE and WRAP functionality. > > > > This is getting more and more fun. > > > > vy 73 de WR5J - Curt Black in Seattle > > > > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] FLDigi / Cygwin Question
Hi Tim, Fldigi will look first for the one in the same folder as fldigi.exe, so just make sure the latest is in there and keep them together. The latest public release is 3.11.5, which you can download at http://w1hkj.com/NBEMS/, and includes the latest cygwin1.dll. I doubt if the other programs will look in the folder with fldigi.exe. Just leave the folder intact and create a shortcut from fldigi.exe to the Desktop or elsewhere and you probably already do. You can leave the other cygwin1.dll's where they are. 73, Skip KH6TY Tim N9PUZ wrote: > > > FLDigi uses the cygwin1.dll file in it's Windows installation. There > is a caution in the documentation that it is bad ju ju to have > multiple cygwin1.dll files on your computer because they may be > different versions and not get along. The docs say the dll needs to be > in the same directory as the executable but don't really say how to > resolve the issue of needing more than one copy. > > What's the proper way to handle this? > > I ask because a search of drive C: shows 6 copies of cygwin1.dll for > various applications I use. > > Thanks, > > Tim, N9PUZ > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound Cards
Hi Vojtech, My experience with it was strictly anecdotal, and had no noticeable problems on the air on HF compared to the SignaLink, but I did not make any quantitative evaluation other than to notice the absence of the low end noise on the waterfall that my SignaLink has. I just checked it and do measure a 0.05 ma DC current through the earphones. Too bad - I wonder if the C-Media motherboard chips have the same problem. I finally gave up on clone motherboards - too many other problems! We were using it under Linux because there are too many hardware compatibility problems with Linux recognizing soundcards, but it sounds like even the SignaLink would be a better choice. Since then, we have come out with a Windows version of fldigi which has no problems recognizing soundcards. Thanks for the heads-up, Vojtech! 73, Skip KH6TY Vojtech Bubnik wrote: > > > Hi Skip and others. > > I bought the other USB sound card dongle: > http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=CL-USCM2&cpc=SCH > <http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=CL-USCM2&cpc=SCH> > > I was disappointed with it. The microphone input was noisy and A/D > resolution was far lower than 16 bits. I do not remember exactly, I > think it was either 10 or 12 bits. With the noise taken into account, > the input resolution was probably about 8 bits. > > There are no decoupling capacitors on the earphone output. And I don't > think that it is a switched class amplifier or bridge amplifier. The > earphones are grounded to common ground. If the earphones were > plugged, there was DC current flowing through the earphones. It seems > the manufacturer simply saved money and space by sparing two capacitors. > > I dissected one and the second one is still on my shelf unused. > > 73, Vojtech OK1IAK >
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Cards
Try this link, Tim. I ordered five of the adapters, all had the C-Media chip, and all worked very well. Don't know if Geeks.com can guarantee shipping only the C-Media version, but maybe you can ask them. The audio output is a little less than with some soundcards, but that is usually not a problem - just readjust the level controls under Windows. Also use this adapter under Linux for NBEMS. The PTT output works, but it is hard for me to work with such tiny parts, so I just use VOX for PTT switching - no need to even open it up. Be careful about putting too much strain on the USB adapter when it is plugged into the USB port as you can break the connection to the circuit board if it bends too far. http://images.qrvc.com/usbfob.pdf Good luck! 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team Tim N9PUZ wrote: > > > Tiny circuit work isn't a problem. Do you have a link to that > modification? > > It's sort of amazing that $7.50 will get a working external sound card > but obviously you've tried this and found it to work. > > I actually had a couple of other items to order from them as well. > Spreads out the shipping. > > Tim, N9PUZ >
Re: [digitalradio] Sound Cards
Tim, have you tried the "USB sound adapter"? The low end noise that the standard SignaLink has is not there and you can just use VOX for PTT switching. It is also an external soundcard. For only $7.50, you can hardly go wrong! If you can handle tiny chips, there is also a PTT output that you can bring to the outside. http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=HE-280B&cat=SND 73, Skip KH6TY > > > Thank you Peter. I've been looking at external sound cards to use with > a laptop for portable work. The internal unit in my laptop doesn't > work all that well and my thinking was if I use a good quality > external unit it can move to a new laptop when I upgrade some day. > > Tim, N9PUZ > > _ > > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Time to start a PSK qrp freq?
Frank, often the loss of a weak signal in the presence of a strong one is due to AGC capture by the strong station, which reduces the gain you need for the weak one. Try using passband tuning or IF shift to reduce the presence of the strong station in the passband so the AGC will not be affected by it so much. If you see the waterfall suddenly grow more dim when a strong station comes one, then you can suspect that the strong station has caused the AGC to reduce gain. On our PSK-20 QRP design (Smallwonderlabs.com), we do not use any AGC but have a wide dynamic range detector and there is never any loss of a weak signal when a strong one comes on, even right adjacent to the weak signal. I wish the transceiver manufacturers would start designing receivers that can dispense with AGC on digital modes without overloading the IF chain. 73, Skip KH6TY frankk2ncc wrote: > > > More an issue for me is losing the other stations from the over-driven > signal of a strong one. I have a noise canceling signal enhancer now, > but it's proving to require more experience and a good sensing antenna. > > Using a Kenwood TS-450S and a Sound Blaster Live PCI card. SignaLink > interface (no USB, thus no soundcard in it.) > > f > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New version of Mixw
I think MARS uses MixW mostly for MT63. Here in South Carolina, in Navy MARS, we are standardizing on using fldigi for MT63, and before that some people used MixW and some used Nino's program. It all boils down to whicher user interface is easier to use, or to train people to use. If everyone uses the same program in a traffic net, then training on one single program is much simpler. We have also started introducing a utility we call "Wrap" (http://w1hkj.com/wrap.html) to South Caroina NAVY MARS, which is used to verify the error-free receipt of the message. Fldigi can automatically parse all the incoming text, extract the wrapped messages, and numerically date stamp and file them for later "unwrapping". None of the other MT63 modems do that, of course. 73, Skip KH6TY NNN0VFA Rick W wrote: > > > chas, > > What are the MARS operators using MixW for? Are there modes that are not > available on other programs that they find compelling? >
Re: [digitalradio] How do I get started with digital radio?
For about $500 you can get a secondhand IC-706MKIIG and be able to work SSB, CW, FM, or digital modes from 160m through UHF. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] 6M 2M 70cm Periodic for digital operations
The SS5 is a true skeleton-slot beam with five skeleton-clot elements. Each one is a skeleton-slot. The overall dimentions are 13" x 2 plus the width: Reflector width: 7 5/8" Driven element width: 6 1/4" D1 width: 6 1/4" D2 width: 6 1/8" D3 width: 5 7/8" I standardized on the height of each skeleton-slot at 13" and just varied the width as needed for the different elements so I could use parallel booms to hold the wires. To find the overall dimensions of each loop, add two times the width to two times 13, or 26". That comes out to .98 WL for the driven element, which is excited in the middle by the split center wire. The theory for this antenna design follows the research by Jefferies and Handlesman: http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennexarticles/qloop.htm You cannot eliminate the center wires, as you would find if you model it. The link to the SS5 file for MANA-GAL is http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/ss5.maa I was surprised at the large interest in this antenna at the Conference, so I wove it into my presentation as I gave it. I have since received many requests for the dimensions, so I added it to my web page as you can see. The benefit of the design is that it packs a lot of gain into a short boom. If you want one with even more gain, but requires a four foot boom, I have uploaded the file for the SS7 to my other website: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/ss7.maa. These antennas are tall compared to a yagi, so when they get much bigger, they get rather unwieldly. The SS7 calculated gain in free space is 14.5 dBi, which is pretty good for such a small antenna. Just follow the same construction as the SS5 as it uses the same vertical height. I developed these little beams to pack as much gain as I could get and still fit into the trunk of a car for NBEMS. 73, Skip KH6TY ** Andy obrien wrote: > > > Thanks Skip, I had a K1FO design 2M beam but took it apart , too big > for me. I also have old large 2M and 440 cross polarized Yagis > laying in the garage doing nothing , but again too much antenna for my > back yard these days. Your SS5 skeleton-slot beam is a clever > design. What is the actual function of the horizontal sections across > each loop? Also, in my quick read, I did not find the over dimensions > of each loop. Did I miss it? > > Andy > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:28 PM, kh6ty <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > I operate 2 meters and 70 cm every day from here in Mount Pleasant. You > > really need 14 dBi of antenna gain on 2 meters and 17 dBi on 70 cm to > > reach 200 miles on phone if there is no propagation enhancement. A > > log-periodic will probably not have enough gain on any one of the bands > > it covers. Using DominoEx 4 (not critical for tuning) will get you > > farther, but there are not many people to talk to yet. Almost all 2 > > meter QSO's are on phone, with CW used when phone cannot make it. The > > biggest VHF contest of the year is the June VHF QSO Party, June 13 to > > June 15, because there is more chance for tropospheric ducting during > > the summer. This is the best time to find someone on the air. At other > > times, check the APRS propagation map at > > http://www.mountainlake.k12.mn.us/ham/aprs/path.cgi?map=na > <http://www.mountainlake.k12.mn.us/ham/aprs/path.cgi?map=na> for > > propagation in your area. Even if you are not ready for the June > > contest, get up whatever you can and you will probably find activity. > > The calling frequency for 2 meter phone is 144.2 and for 70 CM phone it > > is 432.1. > > > > Most 70cm QSO are coordinated on 2 meters first, so that the beam > > heading is already set, so align your 70 cm beam and 2 meter beam > > carefully in the same direction. You generally need 3 to 6 dB more gain > > on 70cm than you have on 2 meters, but the antennas are 1/3 the size of > > a 2 meter antenna, so if the boom lengths are equal, you should be OK. > > > > Check out my FM DXing presentation I made at the Southeastern VHF > > Society conference at Charlotte, NC, in April for other ideas. That link > > is also on my web page. > > > > If you want a medium gain antenna for 70 cm that you can easily > > homebrew, consider my SS5 skeleton-slot beam: > > > > http://home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/site/ > <http://home.comcast.net/%7Ekh6ty/site/> and click on the SS5 link. Two or > > four of these stacked will give you enough gain to reach 200 miles or > > more if there is no ducting. When there is an opening, one of these > > antennas will get you 200 to 300 miles. > > > > For 2 meters, you can homebrew a cubical quad
Re: [digitalradio] 6M 2M 70cm Periodic for digital operations
Andy, Another excellent high gain antenna for either 2 meters or 70 cm that can be homebrewed is the quagi: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/quagi.htm You will be happiest with at least this much gain on either band. 73, Skip KH6TY Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > I am tempted to try get active on 6M-70cm for digital modes and CW > this summer. I am looking to avoid multiple runs of coax and thought > of a homebrewed log periodic for these bands, using one feedline . > Does anyone here use one, or have favorite software for log periodic > design? Is the range too great? Any commercial ones? > > Andy K3UK > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] 6M 2M 70cm Periodic for digital operations
Hi Andy, I operate 2 meters and 70 cm every day from here in Mount Pleasant. You really need 14 dBi of antenna gain on 2 meters and 17 dBi on 70 cm to reach 200 miles on phone if there is no propagation enhancement. A log-periodic will probably not have enough gain on any one of the bands it covers. Using DominoEx 4 (not critical for tuning) will get you farther, but there are not many people to talk to yet. Almost all 2 meter QSO's are on phone, with CW used when phone cannot make it. The biggest VHF contest of the year is the June VHF QSO Party, June 13 to June 15, because there is more chance for tropospheric ducting during the summer. This is the best time to find someone on the air. At other times, check the APRS propagation map at http://www.mountainlake.k12.mn.us/ham/aprs/path.cgi?map=na for propagation in your area. Even if you are not ready for the June contest, get up whatever you can and you will probably find activity. The calling frequency for 2 meter phone is 144.2 and for 70 CM phone it is 432.1. Most 70cm QSO are coordinated on 2 meters first, so that the beam heading is already set, so align your 70 cm beam and 2 meter beam carefully in the same direction. You generally need 3 to 6 dB more gain on 70cm than you have on 2 meters, but the antennas are 1/3 the size of a 2 meter antenna, so if the boom lengths are equal, you should be OK. Check out my FM DXing presentation I made at the Southeastern VHF Society conference at Charlotte, NC, in April for other ideas. That link is also on my web page. If you want a medium gain antenna for 70 cm that you can easily homebrew, consider my SS5 skeleton-slot beam: http://home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/site/ and click on the SS5 link. Two or four of these stacked will give you enough gain to reach 200 miles or more if there is no ducting. When there is an opening, one of these antennas will get you 200 to 300 miles. For 2 meters, you can homebrew a cubical quad like the 12-element cubical quad that apparently was published in CQ Magazine. The dimentions are in the MMANA-GAL VHF ANT folder. You need MMANA-GAL http://mmhamsoft.amateur-radio.ca/mmana/ to display the beam dimensions. To work 2 meters and 70 cm with a common feedline, many people use a diplexer. You would probably want to have a separate feedline for 6 meters, and your transceiver may use a common antenna connector for 2 meters and 70 cm, but perhaps a different one (together with HF) for 6 meters. The best commercial antennas for 2 meters and 70 cm are probably the K1FO designs sold by Directive Systems: http://directivesystems.com/ Be sure to use low loss feedline for long runs, like hardline (the lowest loss), or RG-8, especially on 70 CM, unless your runs are very short, and at least RG-8 on 70 CM. WSJT is also a digital mode, and with 100 watts and a long yagi, you can also try EME on the rising moon using WSJT. The challenges for VHF/UHF DX are quite different from those on HF, but lots of fun in a different way. Signals, except during a 6 meter opening, are generally truly "weak signals"! You need all the antenna gain you can get, and will always wish for even more! I host a 2 meter DominoEX 8 net, using FM (and horizontally-polarized antennas) twice a week and we have had checkins by stations with long yagis from as far away as 200 miles. Everyone uses horizontally-polarized antennas. These opinions are based on my own rather recent excursions into VHF/UHF over the past two years- others may vary. 73, Skip KH6TY Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > > I am tempted to try get active on 6M-70cm for digital modes and CW > this summer. I am looking to avoid multiple runs of coax and thought > of a homebrewed log periodic for these bands, using one feedline . > Does anyone here use one, or have favorite software for log periodic > design? Is the range too great? Any commercial ones? > > Andy K3UK > > -- *Skip KH6TY* http://KH6TY.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT
Rick's right, Andy. You can use the SignaLink +, or SignaLink USB, or build your own interface. If you want to build an interface, here is a link to one that does not use the serial port or USB port, but is powered from the IC-706 mic jack: http://home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/interface/ I have made a few commercial-quality circuit boards available as stated on the web page. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Rick Ellison To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:04 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT Recent Activity a.. 14New Members Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Weight Management Challenge Join others who are losing pounds. Yahoo! Groups Cats Group Join a group for cat owners like you John McEnroe on Yahoo! Groups Join him for the 10 Day Challenge. .
Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT
Andy, double-check the configuration items. I have the IC-7000 and the RigCat works perfectly. I'll try to find out if RigCat works with any other IC-706MKIIG's. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT We did that and nothing worked at all , so we figured hamlib was closer to working... On 4/11/09, kh6ty wrote: > Andy, try using RigCat for radio control. Download the IC706MKIIG file from > http://www.w1hkj.com/xmls/icom/ICOM706MKIIG.xml, put it in the > fldigi.files/Rigs folder, select the ICOM706MKIIG, and be sure the tiny > diamond to use RigCat is selected. > > You may have better luck with RigCat than HamLib. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net > - Original Message - > From: Andrew O'Brien > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:05 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT > > > > > > I am helping someone set up FL-DIGI with an Icom 706MKII. Using Hamlib and > the radio from the drop-down list "Icom796MKII Untested" we achieve rig > control for frequency changes but NOT PTT. Using "rig control" and a XML > file for the 706MKII we did not achieve either. So, it looks like Hamlib is > doing everything except PTT, anyone have any suggestions? > > Andy K3UK > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT
Andy, try using RigCat for radio control. Download the IC706MKIIG file from http://www.w1hkj.com/xmls/icom/ICOM706MKIIG.xml, put it in the fldigi.files/Rigs folder, select the ICOM706MKIIG, and be sure the tiny diamond to use RigCat is selected. You may have better luck with RigCat than HamLib. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:05 AM Subject: [digitalradio] FLDIGI with a Icom706MKII no PTT I am helping someone set up FL-DIGI with an Icom 706MKII. Using Hamlib and the radio from the drop-down list "Icom796MKII Untested" we achieve rig control for frequency changes but NOT PTT. Using "rig control" and a XML file for the 706MKII we did not achieve either. So, it looks like Hamlib is doing everything except PTT, anyone have any suggestions? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] QRV Contestia / MT63 14108.0
Tony, Cannot hear you at all, but copy VE5MU S-5. On MT63-1000, Multipsk is OK, but print on fldigi is all run together like this: THEPRINTISALLRUNTOGETHER. Contestia print on John was poor compared to MFSK16. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:18 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV Contestia / MT63 14108.0 All, I'm QRV Contestia 16/1K, MT63-1K on 14108.0 USB + 1000Hz. It's 22:15 utc, March 26. I'll be listening till 00:00 utc. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help
> I still don't understand why anyone would want the increased > complication of using RigCat if the Hamlib works well for you. There are > no files to put anywhere. It just works for me. I think I tried it on > one of my wife's ICOM IC-7000 rigs, and I could also test it on my ICOM > 746 Pro as well. \ If Hamlib works fine, use it, of course, but if it does not, and your rig is supported by an xml file, or if you can modify an xml file to suit your transceiver if it is not yet supported, RigCat provides a way out of the problem. Unfortunately, Hamlib does not work right for all listed transceivers - just for some. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Skip-Fldigi help
You have to set the baud rate at whatever your transceiver requires. It is probably stated in the manual. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Russell Blair To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Skip-Fldigi help Hi Skip, I have tryed both files and all the setting combo, I guess the default is n-8-1 and I set the speed at 4800. Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Thu, 3/26/09, kh6ty wrote: From: kh6ty Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 8:38 AM Russell, If you look at the fldigi HamLib selections, the TS-450S is listed as a "beta" version (which means it probably does not work! hi!) Instead try using RigCat with fldigi and download the TS-450 xml file from this link: http://www.w1hkj. com/xmlarchives. html Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files, configure for RigCat (the diamonds are sorta faint, so be sure they have color if need to be checked) and see if that works. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty. home.comcast. net - Original Message - From: Russell Blair To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help Hi Andy, I all so used the pull down secltion (TS-450s) option, my interface for the radio is home made it works fine with (HRD-MMTTY-Commande r) it control the radio as in (Txing-freq tracking-change mode), I all so check commander to see how the (RTS and DSR) was set and set the same in Fldigi, all I get is a ficker from the mode mode below the frequency window, Maybe I'm reading more into this then is there, will Fldigi track my radio frequency as it moves up and down the band ?, or do I need to add it frequency to the list next to the read out ?. I now have access to the Fldigi group now and they will be able to help me I hope this is my 2nd time trying to get this to work. Thanks Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell. Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien wrote: From: Andy obrien Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 9:14 PM I have it set up to use HAMLIB and have the TS2000 chosen in the drop down list. I have that tiny diamond filled in that says PTT VIA HAMLIB COMMAND . Rig control and PTT is thus on the same comm port. What interface are you using ? Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Russell Blair wrote: > Hi Andy, well I cant seem to get to work here with my TS450s, The > radio works Commander, HRD, MMTTY, and a few others. I just dont know what > to do next, So I need some information about what to change in the rig scrip > to get to talk to the raadio. > > Russell > > Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its > called the PRESENT! > > > " IN GOD WE TRUST " > > Russell Blair (NC5O) > Skype-Russell. Blair > Hell Field #300 > DRCC #55 > 30m Dig-group #693 > > --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien wrote: > > From: Andy obrien > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please > To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM > > I have it work
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> Except for the fact that PSK has no error correction, no compression, no > formatting capabilities and no way to accurately > know if the traffic was > delivered properly other than read back, your figures are fairly accurate. David, check out our NBEMS system at www.w1hkj.com/NBEMS Many of the modes in fldigi can also be used with our flarq program, which adds ARQ (just like Winlink uses), for assuring that the traffic was delivered error-free. Instead of going into storage at an unmanned robot, we just insist that there be a live operator at both ends of the link, and that the live operator on the receiving end actually confirm delivery so the message does not lie unnoticed in an inbox somewhere. Since there is a live operator at each end, there is someone always present to check for a QSO that might be in progress on the frequency and also negotiate a QSY when necessary, which a robot cannot do. In the next release of NBEMS, we have a unique utility called "Wrap" which calculates a checksum for the file, and allows ZIP compression to be used very effectively. This makes it possible to "broadcast" messages to many (without linking!), instead of having to link on a one-to-one basis. On MARS frequenices(, which are dedicated 3K channels), instead of ham frequencies (which have to be shared by all), MT63-2000 can also be used with our flarq program for relatively fast, error-free transfers at 200 wpm. For formatting, we use"Qforms", or a Word or Excel document zipped up, "wrapped", and sent with all formatting, using any of the modes we recommend for NBEMS on either HF or VHF. We provide a variety of HF modes, hardened against static crashes, of many speeds, from MFSK16 up to MFSK64, which can be used, depending upon the path S/N and available space, without causing QRM to adjacent stations and without taking up excessive bandwidth. Using our MFSK derivatives, we can also transmit images (without error-correction) either as narrowband FAX, or as compressed zip files with error correction. The redundancy to provide error-free reception using the narrow modes is already part of the MFSK modes (i.e. FEC), which can be used together with flarq (adding ARQ) for error-free reception at a reduction in speed of one half compared to not using ARQ, but in the same relatively narrow bandwidth. Because NBEMS is not dependent upon a handfull of PMBO stations that might or might not be in range and not busy, ANY station with Internet connectivity or phone connectivity can serve as the forwarding station, and once NBEMS gets fully deployed, there can be a unlimited number of forwarding stations, drastically cutting down the time to find a station to connect with and dramatically increasing throughput beginning from first connect attempt to final message delivery. This involves as many amateurs as would like to assist, further supporting the interest in preserving the Amateur Radio Service (as an "amateur" service!), instead of moving farther and farther toward becoming a "common carrier" by using automation. Take a good look at what NBEMS has to offer, and I think you will like what you see! 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
> " Moving traffic " IS NOT what 99% of hams want to do on > 20 meters working > DX IS. > And this band is filled with stations doing just that. I think you are quit right, Bruce, and the Winlink 2000 network is probably currently the most efficient say of "moving traffic", but that interests less than 1% of the licensed hams in the US. A single 3 KHz-wide Pactor-3 channel can, under average good conditions, process about 400 wpm per minute, and this assumes the channel is busy all the time. In comparison, a single 3 KHz-wide "channel" can accomodate 30 PSK63 stations, all simultaneously sending traffic at 100 wpm, for a total of about 3000 wpm. Since the traffic on PSK63 can be passed in parallel, instead of serially, as on the Pactor-3 channel, the narrowband modes are obviously more efficient overall than a sngle Pactor-3 channel. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help
Russell, If you look at the fldigi HamLib selections, the TS-450S is listed as a "beta" version (which means it probably does not work! hi!) Instead try using RigCat with fldigi and download the TS-450 xml file from this link: http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files, configure for RigCat (the diamonds are sorta faint, so be sure they have color if need to be checked) and see if that works. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Russell Blair To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Andy-Fldigi help Hi Andy, I all so used the pull down secltion (TS-450s) option, my interface for the radio is home made it works fine with (HRD-MMTTY-Commander) it control the radio as in (Txing-freq tracking-change mode), I all so check commander to see how the (RTS and DSR) was set and set the same in Fldigi, all I get is a ficker from the mode mode below the frequency window, Maybe I'm reading more into this then is there, will Fldigi track my radio frequency as it moves up and down the band ?, or do I need to add it frequency to the list next to the read out ?. I now have access to the Fldigi group now and they will be able to help me I hope this is my 2nd time trying to get this to work. Thanks Russell Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its called the PRESENT! " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien wrote: From: Andy obrien Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 9:14 PM I have it set up to use HAMLIB and have the TS2000 chosen in the drop down list. I have that tiny diamond filled in that says PTT VIA HAMLIB COMMAND . Rig control and PTT is thus on the same comm port. What interface are you using ? Andy K3UK On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Russell Blair wrote: > Hi Andy, well I cant seem to get to work here with my TS450s, The > radio works Commander, HRD, MMTTY, and a few others. I just dont know what > to do next, So I need some information about what to change in the rig scrip > to get to talk to the raadio. > > Russell > > Yesterday is HISTORY. Tomorrow is a MYSTERY. Today is a GIFT! Thats why its > called the PRESENT! > > > " IN GOD WE TRUST " > > Russell Blair (NC5O) > Skype-Russell. Blair > Hell Field #300 > DRCC #55 > 30m Dig-group #693 > > --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Andy obrien wrote: > > From: Andy obrien > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Fldigi with windows XP, need so help please > To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 7:02 PM > > I have it working with a TS2000 and XP. > > Andy K3UK > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Russell Blair > wrote: >> >> I have subscribed to the Fldigi group but I needed to ask if anyone is >> using >> Fldigi 3.0 and if so I cant get program to talk to the Kenwood TS450s >> using >> Cat cable the cable works fine with other programs, , I did download the >> rig >> file and put it the folder for rigs, at the bottom the error is a timeout >> on >> connection. I'l work on the Rec audio next. >> >> Thanks for any help Russell NC5O > >
Re: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham rules
The short answer, as Steve Ford likes to say, based on the Cohen paper, is that the "necessary bandwidth" appears to be "roughly" twice the frequency shift, although an exact calculation is obviously very complicated. More importantly, with regards to the amateur radio service is the summary statement, "The necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service." It has already been concluded, after many months (even years!) of debate, that radio amateurs are "amateurs" and not "professionals" and do not have either the ability or the means to measure "necessary bandwidth" of their signals. Their communications are casual "amateur"communications and not "professional" communications. If the "necessary bandwidth is the minimum emission bandwidth required for an acceptable quality of service" were to be codified into the radio amateur service regulations, it would also be necessary to also define what "acceptable" quality is, in particular for the radio amateur service. That definition will obviously be different for casual conversation, DX exchanges, and contest exchanges, than it is for commercial or quasi-commercial "messaging" services. It will probably fall somewhere between PSK31 and MFSK16 or WSJT bandwidths, which provide "casual" communications quality in exchange for the higher bit rates needed for sending long messages. Even narrow bandwith modes, like PSK31, can be utilized to reduce the error rate to zero through the use of ARQ. It is just that the throughput is half that of the non-ARQ use of the mode, but that is generally "acceptable" for casual communications. What would NOT be acceptable is using a 150 KHz-wide signal on a band that is only 350 KHz wide merely in order to achieve faster throughput for two dominating stations at the expense of hundreds of others. Should 150 KHz-wide signals start being used on 20m, for example, it would not take very long for the FCC regulations to be changed (or re-interpreted) to protect the "casual" communications use of the 20m band. To infer that using "low power" would make that acceptable ignores the fact that "low power" to someone distant is "high power" to someone close by. The BPL debacle should have made that clear by now. The regulations already require that the minimum power necessary for communicatons be used, and if a similar requirement were made for emitted bandwidth, it could easily stifle innovation (at least with regard to using wider, or spread-spectrum modes), and not promote it. We might all then wind up having to be content with PSK31 plus ARQ for our casual communications! Better not ask for something you may not want! I agree that the regulations do not "specifically" limit bandwidth on the HF bands, but that does not mean this could not easily happen if there are enough abuses to justify it. It is true that the regulations have not kept up with technology, but the intent to protect casual communications is still there, and that intent could be codified if it becomes necessary. However, we may not be happy with the end result, especially considering the extremely minor interest in digital messaging or using digital modes other than PSK31, CW, and RTTY. With the advent of satphones, cell phones, and the Internet, the relevance of amateur radio as anything more than a hobby activity is rapidly diminishing and we can expect future regulatory changes to further support the hobby interests rather than quasi-commercial interests in amateur radio. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tony, I think I heard Contestia, but too weak to copy. Also, the frequency is pulled a lot by noise and static. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse QRV - 14108.0 USB - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Hi Cortland, 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Cortland Richmond To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse Hello Skip! There are too many choices, which is one reason I lurk here picking the brains of people who have evaluated a lot of them. Which of the many digital modes ends up as MARS standards must be decided by the State, Region and Service MARS directors. I have heard MT63 2000 Hz, 1000 Hz and 500 Hz (all long interleave), Olivia 32, 16 and 8 tone, and MFSK 8 and 16 (IIRC) tone -- at different center audio settings for different Service's MARS. Some months ago I heard a MARS net running AMTOR. Tonight in Michigan we were experimenting with Domino EX 11 tone. I will say that we here in Michigan Army MARS are presently using MT63 1000 at 100 Hz center, with 2000 Hz (1500 Hz center) for especially large messages or files, and for weak signal work, Olivia 32 and 16 tone at 1 KHz center frequency. Roger, we are using MT63-1000 here for MARS but the latency is too much for net callup, so something like MFSK16, DominoEX 8, or Olivia will reach weaker stations better. The jury is still out as to what to recommend to use. DominoEX 8 is still fast enough for net callup but more sensitive than DominoEx 11. No reason to use a less-sensitive mode for net callup I think. It seems most of us, MARS or Amateur, don't put the harmonics of our tones outside the IF filter passband. On the other hand, modern rigs don't seem (from my waterfall) to produce much. Does not seem to be a problem here either. 73, Skip KH6TY/NNN0VFAT Cortland KA5S/AAR5UT ex AAR9UT, AAR6QC (1990's) and other calls
Re: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ?
1. Start with PSK31 and transceiver turned to 14.070, USB 2. Start with DigiPan 3. Read the DigiPan Help (http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/DigiPan.pdf) if you are using VISTA ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] So, what advice would you give to PSK rookies ? Usually , every week,we get at least one new member that indicates they are new to PSK. So, what advice would you give to those hams that are about to embark on the digital frontier ? Your top three things ??
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse
Tony, Glad you are doing this! I have been thinking about using Contestia for MARS in conjunction with MT63 for messaging. Unfortunately, I have one net to call tonight and one to checkin to, so will have to wait to see the results of your tests. Unless Conestia is especially good in other parameters, MFSK16 still holds a 1.5 dB edge in minimum S/N, and seems to work very well in heavy static, so it may turn out to be the best overall, but let's see. I used MultiPSk for my comparisons. Anxious to see what you find out! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Contestia / MT63 Skeds pse All, Would like to run a few tests with Contestia (16/1K) and MT63 (1K) this evening. The goal is to see if sensitivity simulations compare well with on-air testing. Contestia should have an advantage since the peak-to-average output is much better. Not sure about it's QRM resistance. The MT63 mode is somewhat faster in terms of characters-per-minute, but it also has quite a bit of latency that adds to the total TX/RX turn around time. I tested both using a 100 word Pangram and found that MT63-1K (long interleave) took 50 seconds to finish the text and 61 seconds to complete. Contestia-16/1K took 64 seconds. The 8/1K Constestia mode took 43 seconds. Should be interesting to see how these modes compare. Not exactly lighting speed and not much call for this other than those who prefer high-speed chatting, but I think it's useful information nonetheless. I'll be QRV this evening - March 25/26. Skeds welcome Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63)
We did not test MT63, because only MT63-2000 could work with flarq and ARQ, and we think it would be irresponsible to use that on the shared ham bands for the little benefit it would bring compared to much more narrow modes. It is OK to use on MARS, because each MARS frequency "channel" is dedicated, not shared (well, "time-shared" by different nets", and the channels are voice-bandwidth as they are also used interchangebly with voice. My experience with MT63-1000 on MARS is that it works very well under QRM and static, as expected, but that is with S5-S9 signals in the South Carolina - Florida corridor, and weaker stations often report "negative copy", probably because the S/N is not good enough at their locations. Will find out more about the MT63-1000 real-world static resistance as summertime approaches. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63) Skip, >MT63-1000 has a -5 dB minimum S/N, but MFSK16 has a -13.5 dB >minimum S/N, so the static tests you made must be at signal levels >high enough that MT63-1000 decodes, which may not be a realistic >level. That is true. Fortunately, there are times when signals are above the decode threshold for the majority of modes. That gives us the chance to test the higher throughput modes to see what works in heavy static. >MFSK16 turned out (after three months of testing) to be the most >static-resistant mode of all That is interesting Skip. It did seem to do slightly better than THOR22 during n simulated tests. Did you see any advantage in throughput with MT63 during the static crash tests when signals were adequate? Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] PSKmail QRG and features/issues
Rick wrote: > It was very difficult to actually use the frequency due to many other > stations transmitting on top of the server and my signals. What! You were on the frequency first and someone transmitted over top of you? Don't they always "listen first"? ;-) Therefore, we must be very grateful for Rein's decision to stay in the area with the other "automatic" stations, even if his signal is narrow and could go elsewhere. However, it might be feasible to operate PSKmail in the guardbands between Pactor-3 station assigned frequencies with less QRM. I think that Pactor-3 seldom uses more than 2100 Hz bandwidth, but the "channel" is 2500 Hz wide. I hope all future mailbox operators will be just as considerate. An automatic station is unable to QSY, even if it could hear that it was interferring with an ongoing QSO, because it is necessary for it to remain on a published frequency in order to be contactable, and besides, there is nobody present at the automatic station in order to shift frequency. How long do you REALLY expect the Winmor "busy channel detector" to stay enabled! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Rick W To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] PSKmail QRG and features/issues Of course, about 1 minute after I sent the message, I discovered the information on the center frequency and it is as I had hoped. But ... Wow! Just tried out some of the PSKmail features and find it very interesting. Once I realized that the Ping command will bring up any of the servers that can hear you and tried it, the latency is about zero. Almost instant response from a human perspective. Then no problem connecting to the server that I kicked up. This is better than any other mail system I have used in the past. Issues/Suggestions: - It was very difficult to actually use the frequency due to many other stations transmitting on top of the server and my signals. - on the 30 meter band here in Region 2, the 10.140-10.150 area is quite busy with the wide bandwidth modes that must operate here in order to follow the band plan and FCC requirements for wide band. For example, one of the two tones of a Pactor station covered the PSK250 tone and then a MIL-STD-188-141A 8FSK125 transmission had its uppermost tone obliterating anything that tries to use a narrow mode centered on 10.148. In fact, at one point all three of us were trying to us the same frequency! - since PSK250 is just about right at 500 Hz in bandwidth, wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep PSKmail in the 10.130-10.140 area which has the band plan already designed for modes up to 500 Hz wide? We do need to keep away from the commercial?/government? RTTY station located around 10.130. - here in the U.S. stations that are operating automatically on HF can operate anyplace within the RTTY/data portions of the bands as long as the server stations only transmits when interrogated by a human operator on the other side. And I think I am correct that this is the way PSKmail works. - the other issue is the pulling of fldigi's receive frequency too far from the center frequency. I am skeptical that PSK250 is the best mode for any but good conditions since it is not very sensitive (- 2 db SNR). It will be a tremendous benefit if we can use modes such as DominoEX that would not require AFC. 73, Rick, KV9U Rick W wrote: > What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server > is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have > the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at > 10.146.5 USB dial frequency? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signs of life : PSKMail 30M
That's right, Andy. PSKmail uses fldigi and at Rein's request, the "sweet spot" default in fldigi is 1000 Hz. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:41 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signs of life : PSKMail 30M --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick W wrote: > > What should be the set frequency? If the listed frequency of the server > is 10.148, does that mean the center frequency? Therefore, if you have > the center frequency set at 1500 Hz audio, you would put the rig at > 10.146.5 USB dial frequency? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U Rick, they refer to 1000Hz difference, not 1500. Thus dial at 10147 for the ones listed as using 10148, waterfall 1000 Hz.
Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63)
Tony, Further complicating the static crash test conclusions is the effect of the static on the receiver AGC. If a long AGC constant is being used, the static crash is going to desensitize the receiver for as long as the AGC holds the receiver sensitivity above the decoding threshold. In such a case, the mode with the lower minimum S/N may recover sooner to the decoding threshold than the mode with the higher S/N. This may be why MFSK16 appears to beat out Thor (on the average). MFSK16 has both a low minimum S/N AND FEC, which appears to be a winning combination, especially as the band is starting to go out, as we experienced during our MT63-1000 trials (but without a lot of QRN, since we were on 20m). Depending upon the proximity of lightning strikes, and when signals are fairly strong, MT63-1000 may easily be the best mode - even better than Olivia - but there is ALWAYS some point that "the last mode standing" (probably the one with the lowest minimum S/N) is going to win when the band is going out. The idea behind using NVIS antennas for NBEMS on HF is that propagation is more constant, since there is less dependence on the skywave, and also that noise arrives at a lower angle than the NVIS "cloud burner" signal. This reduces the effect of the static crashes, but limits the distance on 80m and 40m to about 300 miles. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63)
Tony, Static crash resistance is not the only parameter to consider. The problem is that you can have static and weak signals at the same time. MT63-1000 has a -5 dB minimum S/N, but MFSK16 has a -13.5 dB minimum S/N, so the static tests you made must be at signal levels high enough that MT63-1000 decodes, which may not be a realistic level. Last summer, during the lightning season in Florida, MFSK16 turned out (after three months of testing) to be the most static-resistant mode of all, even surpassing Thor, which we had worked on so hard to harden against static crashes. However, THOR is tolerant of mistuning, whereas MFSK16 is not, and MFSK16 needs AFC, which Thor does not, but overall, we concluded that MFSK16 was the best for NBEMS messaging on HF unless conditions (QSB and QRN) were such that a faster mode would work. Of course our tests were to find the best mode for messaging, which has to be a combination of reasonable speed and minimum S/N, and MT63-2000 is the only MT63 variant that is fast enough to overcome the extreme latency of MT63 and allow successful ARQ transfers without unreasonable wait times. MT63-1000 is not fast enough. The problem is that MT63-2000 is 3 dB worse on minimum S/N than MT63-1000, so the spread in minimum S/N between MT63-2000 and MFSK16 grows to about 11 dB, which is a LOT! As you point out, the list of variables is very long, and a mode for one situation may not work for another. As you observed during the MT63-1000 tests we made together, MFSK16 would print 80% when MT63-1000 would not print at all, and Olivia was printing 100% under roughly the same conditions. There is a resonably acceptable speed for message transfers, with and without ARQ (ARQ cuts the speed in about half), and a different reasonably acceptable speed for QSO's, just as JT65A is acceptable for short exchanges, but not so much for QSO's. So, for NBEMS, since the primary objective is messaging, on HF we found MFSK16 to be most suitable overall, but on VHF, where there is no static, for instance on 30m there is little static (where PSKmail operates), PSK250 can be used instead, when it is impossible to control the static crashes, or even noise, on the lower HF bands from capturing the AFC and shifting the tuning off frequency on HF, simply because you need to have AFC for PSK250, and between ARQ exchanges, there is no signal to lock on, so the AFC locks on a noise burst. Olivia would be great to use, but takes forever to get a message through, so the better minimum S/N of Olivia has to be sacrificed for greater speed in messaging and use MFSK16 instead, and let the ARQ just resend blocks when necessary. Of course, at some point, enough blocks may be damaged that the link simply fails or times out. Once you add ARQ to MFSK16, you have a speed of only about 20 wpm, which is very slow for anything than a very short message, but the ARQ guarantees error-free reception in return for the slow speed. Minimum S/N, QSB, QRN, doppler distortion, inter-symbol interference, tolerance to operator tuning, transceiver frequency stability, minimum necessary bandwidth, etc. etc., all figure into the decision as to which mode is "best". "No one shoe fits all", and we can only choose the "best" mode for our particular mission out of all the many available choices. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] THOR is static-proof (Re: KV9U - MT63) Jaak, > What about THOR? Thor stated to be more static-proof. It depends which THOR mode is used. It seems THOR-22 is the best of the bunch for static crash resistance. I've done a few static crash tests by generating noise at regular intervals; the noise obliterates the signal in short bursts. I would imagine this method would give some indication of on-air performance. I'm sure there are simulators out there that can produce more accurate results. The list of variables that would add to the mix are endless; ionospheric distortion, weak / strong signal performance, QRM etc. As the disclaimers say, your mileage may vary! See below... Tony -K2MO ___ Text Message: Quick Brown Fox Pangram Static Crash: Duration: 1 second Interval: Every 5 seconds THOR-11 µ9i$:neíICK olrsplnOX JUAnopco vsR THE l¶unknOG TËq ©E QUICK BRetqksˆX JUMPS«aa±n THE )txeTaTic DOG X erEÒtCK BROsbßnn”X JU 5¶R THE ¡t,a0ssY DOG TŒi R ta BROWN THOR-22 THE QUICK BRwnoacebnOX JUMPS OVER THE Lti ) tla ey tktzlQ HE QUICK BROWtzoh JUMPS OVER THE Lpc·¢fG THE QUICK BROWN L xth Ítl t1 JUMPS OVER THE LAZYk rNyp+THE QUICK $ MT63 1K Long Interleave THE QUICK BREWQUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG THERQUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
Re: [digitalradio] Skip 14106.0 MT63 CQ CQ CQ de kh6ty kh6ty
Rick, Conditions were excellent for weak signal testing. MT63-1000 was not printable by the time the band had started going out. Olivia 16/500 proved to be the best. We tried DominoEX 4 (about the same wpm as Olivia 16/500), but copy was not as good as Olivia. We then tried DominoEX 8 with FEC, and copy still not as good as Olivia. Looks like Olivia is still the best with MFSK16 a close second, but need more tests between Olivia and MFSK16 to be sure. Thanks Tony for sticking with me for some very interesting comparisons! I think the popularity of Olivia is deserved because it does keep printing during deep QSB. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Rick W To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Skip 14106.0 MT63 CQ CQ CQ de kh6ty kh6ty Tony, You have done the tests and found that MT-63 is not very good at handling weak signals compared with other modes. Is you recent on air testing to determine that or some other parameters, such as ability to handle interference, etc.? By the way copying both you near noise level, and Skip, KH6TY, a bit stronger at S3-4. Tried to decode an earlier narrower mode but no luck. Was it MFSK8? 73, Rick, KV9U Tony wrote: > Skip, > > CQ CQ CQ de]kh6ty kh6ty kh6ty > CQ CQ CQ 6e kh6tN kh6ty kh6ty > CQ CQ Cy de(kh6ty kh6ty khX > > Your signal is in the noise. Hope the band changes... > > Tony -K2MO > >
Re: [digitalradio] Skip 14106.0 MT63 CQ CQ CQ de kh6ty kh6ty
Will try MFSK16 instead. 7 dB better than MT63-1000 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 7:04 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Skip 14106.0 MT63 CQ CQ CQ de kh6ty kh6ty Skip, CQ CQ CQ de]kh6ty kh6ty kh6ty CQ CQ CQ 6e kh6tN kh6ty kh6ty CQ CQ Cy de(kh6ty kh6ty khX Your signal is in the noise. Hope the band changes... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 14106.0
Calling CQ at 7:00PM, but not answer. mt63-1000 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:53 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 14106.0 All, QRV 14106.0 USB / MT63 1K / long interleave. Time is 22:55 utc, March 20. I'll be here for a while... Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 40m Band what is going on???
Kim, For a "dial scale" for LSB, run DigiPan (www.digipan.net). In Configure>Band, set the Spectrum Start frequency 3 KHz higher than the known watering holes, put a dot in LSB, and DigiPan will display the correct RF frequencies above the waterfall. For PSK31 on 20 meters, use a Spectrum Start frequency of 14.073 to receive stations from 14070 to 14072.5 on LSB. For 40 meters, use either 7038 or 7073, LSB, for the PSK31 activity. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Kim To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:21 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 40m Band what is going on??? You're going to have problems with 30M down because all transmissions are in USB. Best place for signals on 20M are around 14076-14078. On 30M 10139=10141 and 40M 7036-7039. Kim AB7JK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Toby Burnett" wrote: > > I know this is digi related group but having just got my 135 foot doublet > back up after new year storms. What is going on on 40M. Is it me or is > there no English speaking hams on this band during the day. Used to be lots > of UK net's on during the day and could work all over UK / Ireland and EU. > Now we have even a ham I guess playing music at s9 on 7.092. Has something > happened since I been away. > The bans sounds like a CB free for all. > > Dissapointed!! > > Toby > > ---Original Message--- > > From: skip19755 > Date: 17/03/2009 13:33:57 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] using WSPR > > Hello to all...I am new to this mode and also trying JT65A...question is I > am using a Ten-Tec Scot 555 and the sideband is not switchable...it is set > for USB 20 up...LSB 30 down...works fine on psk and RTTY (can reverse) on > DM780...using the K1JT or WSPR program will it make any difference...also > where can I find a spotting sight that will show the frequency being used.. > thank you for your time Ken N5LYJ/5 >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: using WSPR
For working PSK31, DigiPan can set either sideband for any band in the Configure/Band and a "start" frequency. If you then select the desired sideband, the DigiPan dial scale will show you the RF frequency. Check the DigiPan Help. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Andrew O'Brien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: using WSPR --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "skip19755" wrote: > > Hello to all...I am new to this mode and also trying JT65A...question is I am using a Ten-Tec Scot 555 and the sideband is not switchable...it is set for USB 20 up...LSB 30 down...works fine on psk and RTTY (can reverse) on DM780...using the K1JT or WSPR program will it make any difference...also where can I find a spotting sight that will show the frequency being used...thank you for your time Ken N5LYJ/5 > Good questions Skip, first the easy answers http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ for general digital spots http://www.hamspots.net/home.php general digital JT65A Spots http://jt65.w6cqz.org/index.html JT65A spots http://www.chris.org/cgi-bin/jt65talk WSPR http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/spots So, above 20M , for the 14075-77 range, you are OK. For the busy 30-40-80 activity you will have to tune the signals in via LSB and then figure out the transmit off-sets. If you want to play around and see if we can figure it out, email me and then we can go to one of the spotting sites to type to each other as we try to find each other. I just tested, signals I was hearing on 14076 USb are coming in around 14079 LSB (I had to tune a little higher due to a birdy), should be able to see them around 14078 LSB. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 1k 14109.5
FB Tony, I only copied a few characters and words also. We'll have to try it earlier in the day. It was a good chance to compare MT63 to DominoEx, but the band shifted too fast for us! :-( 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 1k 14109.5 Skip Copied a few words on MT63 and DominoEx. We're a bit close for 20 meters, but I'm sure we can work the band when the short skip comes in. It would have been nice to try a few messages with Flarq. I'm sure 40/80 would work fine for us, but I don't have anything for the low-bands at the moment. Thanks for trying... Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:15 PM Subject: [digitalradio] QRV MT63 1k 14109.5 > All, > > I'm QRV MT63 (1K Long Interleave) 141095 USB. It's 00:15 UTC, March 13. > I'll be here for an hour or so. > > Tony -K2MO > >
[digitalradio] Re: Newb digital mode guy with Newb questions
Doug, poke around the laptop a little more and see if there is "boost" on the Mic input. On my laptop, turning off the boost turns the mic input into the equivalent of a line input. 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Simon, The problem is not with Pactor, per se, but with the arrogance of those who consider retrieval of their precious email more important than the QSO that is already on the frequency. They just happen to be using Pactor, but since Pactor is an ARQ mode, and usually linked to a robot, by using ARQ they can, and usually do, keep transmitting, even in the face of QRM until anyone else using the frequency first is run off. This is why we designed the NBEMS system to REQUIRE listening operators on BOTH ends of the link, and a facility (Plain Talk) to coordinate moving to a different frequency if necessary. The Winlink VE2AFQ mailbox is using Pactor 3 and constantly covering up the lower part of the historical PSK31 activity on 20 meters. I had two different QSO's at 14070.5 obilterated Monday when they came on. Use of Pactor 3 is illegal in the US outside of the automatic subbands, but because VE2AFQ is Canadian they are not under FCC regulation, and the Winlink Administrator still gives them access to the Winlink RMS servers on 14069.5, even knowing they could not do that if they were FCC licensed. Arrogance is the problem, not Pactor, and there is no shortage of arrogance among those mailbox users! 73, Skip KH6TY http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity "let's ditch PACTOR please" -no la5vna Steinar Simon (HB9DRV) wrote: > Two areas where there is a need for digital comms: > > 1) Satellite / deep space > 2) Boat owners far away without internet (let's ditch PACTOR please) > > I'm indirectly involved with 1) and am following the WINMOR project which looks very interesting. Here in central Europe there's not a huge need for emergency comms as we have a good infrastructure. > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com > - Original Message - > From: kh6ty > > > Rick and Dave, > > (Chopped) >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE digital activity
Rick and Dave, NBEMS was created and submitted at the eleventh hour as a reply to Rinaldo's search for an HF protocol, but instead as a VHF system, mainly for emcomm. We afterwards expanded it to include HF messaging for extended range where VHF does not work, but is still primarily a digital messaging system, which only a few have any use for. I am now working with Navy MARS to help them incorporate the benefits of point-to-point digital communications, but much of their activity is already focused on messaging, so it is a good fit. For messaging, transmission of a message phonetically is much less efficient than digitally, but still important to have when no computer is available, or when your computer batteries run down. However, hams in general are apparently much more interested in contesting or ragchewing than in either emcomm or mailboxes (including leaving messages using ALE). So, for most, a computer may only be used for logging, which is not hard to understand. Nothing is simpler than just picking up a microphone, or if you know Morse Code, sending with a bug and listening with your ears. Digital modes are also more enjoyable if you can type than if you cannot, so typing proficiency is another drawback to using digital modes. However, the release of fldigi after this next one will incorporate both speech-to-text and text-to-speech, making using narrowband digital modes somewhat like using phone (with macros for callsign exchanges), but with a synthesized voice. This is now my top priority for 2009. The competition from email, text-messaging, email reflectors, and the now almost everywhere broadband Internet access, has probably relegated the popularity of BBS and radio mailboxes to the dust bin of history. Why then should programmers spend a lot of time writing code for such a shrinking audience? It is even hard to interest teenagers in radio itself, since they are so accustomed to text messaging or picture transfers instantly with their cell phones (which is also "radio" of course). They do not understand the appeal of "random" contacts like we hams do on radio, and neither do many hams that only work repeaters, as that is just "too easy". I hope that taking some interest in FM DXing will provide a deeper glimpse for some repeater users into what ham radio is REALLY (mostly) about, and has always been. If anyone is not familiar with the idea of FM DXing, see page 95 of the March QST. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > "expeditionradio" wrote: 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about? Wow! That is just unbelievable! At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in a week, or WAS in just a couple of days. How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at... 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . > Q Why not .. looks like with the passage of 'noble cw' we now have > a new wave of message handeling systems to replace it, which 'will > not' support a direct qso ? > Can we have a little button that says 'arq qso mode' that would > be 'fun' > G . Graham, when we implemented ARQ in NBEMS, we could have included an ARQ chat mode, but, instead we included "Plain Talk", which communicates "between" ARQ blocks for coodination purposes (such as suggesting a speed change), but not using ARQ, because using ARQ slows down the communication exchanges so much. The mode selected for ARQ needs to be pretty good anyway in order to keep the error rate down, or there will be too many repeated blocks, and the link may even timeout. So, by using a low error-rate mode to start with, ARQ is not needed for a QSO, because hams are used to seeing some errors in the reception (just like you can also get with CW), and either mentally correct for the error or may just request a partial repeat. ARQ is more important for messaging (vital actually!), to be absolutely sure the message does not have any errors at all, for even a single error in a phone number for delivery will render the entire message undeliverable. However, in QSO's, we hams often use a type of "manual FEC" by just repeating an important word (such as a callsign, or grid square) two or three times, which is faster than repeating a whole block just to correct a random error which may not destroy the meaning of the communication. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Transceiver Mode Setting - Digital or USB
> Can I use Flarq directly on Windows??? > 73 > Omar YK1AO Yes, it works under Windows XP or VISTA, or Linux. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM
Vojtech, Another good suggestion! :-) I see the wheels have been turning in Vojtech's mind! RSID is already in fldigi, so will try that. I hope others reading this will also try that, and all the modes, and let us know their experiences. Testing is slowed down by the necessity to find someone else with the same setup, but that should become easier to do as time goes on. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Vojtech Bubnik" To: Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM > As more people try using digital modes on 2 meter FM, the overall best > performing mode will automatically surface, but for the longest range on > digital modes (not counting CW), it is really necessary to use SSB, and in > that case, we have found that MFSK16 is just too critical for tuning to be > used with transceivers without a TCXO. Skip, how about to try MFSK16 with RSID? The RSID solves the intial tuning on key down. Once the signal is tuned, AFC shall track it. 73, Vojtech No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 2/21/2009 3:36 PM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM
> Thank you for that explanation. I didn't know the modulation mode would > make > a difference. It would have been interesting to test the theory with Skip. > Unfortunately, we live too far apart for VHF/FM. > > Thanks again... > > Tony - K2MO Tony, You do not need to test only with me! You can test with anyone else the proper distance away who has both 2 meter FM and SSB capability and an interface. In fact, such a test will be more informative with one other than just myself. Andy's sked page is one way to arrange for tests, and an email to this reflector might also uncover someone who would like to work with you and is the right distance away. In fact, you can sometimes just rotate a beam to reduce a signal to become however weak you need it to be. You could also use contacts on HF to arrange for a sked with someone at the right distance and with the necessary equipment. The IC-706MKII, FT-857, and FT-897 are all popular rigs with multimode capability, as are the IC-746Pro and TS-2000. This kind of thing is what ham radio is all about - go for it! :-) 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM
Hi Vojtech, Thanks for the tip. I totally forgot about the possible effect of deemphasis and what effect the center audio frequency might have. Our goal with NBEMS has always been able to reach at least 100 miles reliably, in order to span the largest expected disaster area to reach Internet or phone connectivity. We were recently surprised to find over a 117 mile path on 2 meters, that, on the average, FM with DominoEx actually worked better than SSB with DominoEx, even with the poorer S/N of FM compared to SSB. The surprise was an unexpected, consistent, fast flutter which did not seem to affect FM nearly as badly as SSB. Thanks to Tony's wondering, we will continue to evaluate different modes (and different audio center frequencies!) and post the results here. 73, Skip KH6TY > Skip, it would be interesting, if you could investigate, which > modulation bandwidths and at which center audio frequency the common > FM transceivers work best with common HF weak signal digital modes. > Keep the good work. > Someone able to do the math? > 73, Vojtech OK1IAK > White noise tests show DominioEX-4 to be a bit more sensitive than MFSK16, > but it doesn't seem to handle HF distortion nearly as well. > > I was surprised that it did better than MFSK16 with multipath and was > wondering if you thought the better throughput was due to MFSK16 tuning > issues rather than actual robustness? > > Tony - KHMU >
Re: [digitalradio] NBEMS QST article/digital weak signal FM
KV9U wrote: > He mentions that it is a suite of Windows sound card programs allowing > ARQ exchanges of messages, but one of the compelling features of fldigi > and flarq which make up the suite of programs, is that they work cross > platform. No other software of this type has this capability to work > with Windows XP, Vista, Mac, Linux and Free BSD. The impression seemed > to be that fldigi can work with Windows and Linux. Yes, fldigi is a cross-platform program and works on both Windows and Linux, etc. > > A really important point was that Skip, KH6TY, found it possible to use > DominoEX modes with FM modulation and work farther than SSB phone. That > is a very significant new finding. Anyone else having luck with that? > What about other modes with FM? DominoEx has been found to be more successful than either PSK31 or MFSK16 (the two most popular high sensitivity modes), and for QSO's and contest exchanges, DominoEX 4 is still fast enough (but too slow for messaging) at 25 wpm, and works the best of all when you are far under limiting and with poor S/N. DominoEX is not as critical to tune and more resistant to multipath interference than PSK31, so I think it will be the mode of choice for FM DX, outperforming both PSK31 and MFSK16 when the S/N is very poor, as will always be the case for the weakest stations. > > Would it also be true that DominoEX (and other modes) would work even > farther with SSB digital vs FM digital? Yes, the advantage of SSB over FM we find to be around 3-4 dB or more. However, CW works as well as DominoEx 4, and going to CW is already customary in the weak signal community when SSB phone cannot make it. When propagation is poor, you will sometimes find stations calling CQ in CW on the phone calling frequency (144.2 MHz), and then QSY'ing to a clear frequency, just as phone operators also generally do. > > Even though horizontal polarization was emphasized, the fact is that > hams with FM only rigs do not have horizontal antennas and vertical to > vertical should work very well, even if there may be a slight edge to > horizontal. Has anyone else been able to do any comparisons between H to > H and V to V on FM? All the current SSB phone weak signal operators and VHF contesters use horizontal polarization. If those operators simply download fldigi and get an interface (the SignaLink USB works really well, even on FM-only transceivers with no VOX), they will have an incentive to work more grids and states during contests. For long distance FM DX, these operators, already equipped with high gain antennas (horizontally polarized) and amplifiers, looking for more grid multipliers and Q's during the VHF contests, probably represent the largest potential intererst group for working FM DX other than those with FM-only transceivers looking for new ways to enjoy the hobby. So, those who want to work them will need to get a horizontally polarized, fairly high gain antenna, and a small rotator. The gain of most current verticals that are not on a rotator probably tops out at around 6.2 dBi, which is not enough gain to work very far, except during strong openings. To work any reasonable amount of FM DX, a rotator and an antenna with at least 10 dBi of gain will be needed, and the VHF contesters generally have 14 dBi of antenna gain or more. It is not anticipated that very many of those interested in working toward VUCC on 2 meters, or even doing fairly well in VHF contests, will be satisfied with the range of their current verticals (even to someone else's current vertical), so if a higher gain antenna is needed, they might as well go to a rotator and horizontal polarization and be able to work the existing weak signal operators that we think will only need to add an interface in order to improve their contest scores by working both FM DX and SSB DX. Those who already have vertically polarized yagi's and still want to work repeaters can just rotate the yagi 45 degrees in roll and cover both polarizations with 3 dB less gain on each polarization. However, 3 dB is very significant in terms of range on 2 meters, so the operator may later decide to rotate the additional 45 degrees and pick up the additional 3 dB in gain. We are using 145.000 MHz as a calling frequency in our area, which has seemed to work out quite well. It is still within the SWR bandwidth of the high gain 2 meter SSB weak signal antennas and far enough away from repeater frequencies so as not to experience any desensitization. 145.000 is also within the ARRL Bandplan for 2 meters in the "Weak signal and FM simplex " area. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0
Try 3585 usb + 1000 Copied ur beacon, but too much QSB. Will be on 3585. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 > Roger Skip... > > Lots of big signals on the band -- no one to play with : ) > > Tony - K2MO > > > - Original Message - > From: "kh6ty" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 > > >> Tony, try calling CQ EM. I am QRV on 14.074 + 1000 USB >> >> 73, Skip KH6TY >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tony" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:13 PM >> Subject: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 >> >> >>> All, >>> >>> I'm QRV 14074.0 USB Fldigi / Flarq as of 2200z Friday the 20th. Would >>> like >>> to test Flarq email throughput / ARQ mode. >>> >>> Dial Frequency - 14074.0 >>> Offset - +1000Hz >>> Mode - MFSK32 >>> >>> Beaming southwest - I'll be here for a while... >>> >>> 73, Tony - K2MO >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: >>> 1/28/2009 6:37 AM >>> >>> >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 6:37 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0
Started to copy some of your beacon, but too weak to connect. Try MFSk16. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 > Roger Skip... > > Lots of big signals on the band -- no one to play with : ) > > Tony - K2MO > > > - Original Message - > From: "kh6ty" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 > > >> Tony, try calling CQ EM. I am QRV on 14.074 + 1000 USB >> >> 73, Skip KH6TY >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tony" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:13 PM >> Subject: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 >> >> >>> All, >>> >>> I'm QRV 14074.0 USB Fldigi / Flarq as of 2200z Friday the 20th. Would >>> like >>> to test Flarq email throughput / ARQ mode. >>> >>> Dial Frequency - 14074.0 >>> Offset - +1000Hz >>> Mode - MFSK32 >>> >>> Beaming southwest - I'll be here for a while... >>> >>> 73, Tony - K2MO >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: >>> 1/28/2009 6:37 AM >>> >>> >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 6:37 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0
Tony, try calling CQ EM. I am QRV on 14.074 + 1000 USB 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:13 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Flarq -sked pse 14074.0 > All, > > I'm QRV 14074.0 USB Fldigi / Flarq as of 2200z Friday the 20th. Would like > to test Flarq email throughput / ARQ mode. > > Dial Frequency - 14074.0 > Offset - +1000Hz > Mode - MFSK32 > > Beaming southwest - I'll be here for a while... > > 73, Tony - K2MO > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 6:37 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5
Tony, the recommended ARQ procedure is in the Help menu in flarq: "Initiating an ARQ connect session Start by sending a 'CQ NBEMS' or some similar unique way of indicating that you are seeking to send ARQ traffic. Do this from the digital modem program and not from flarq. The potential station for receiving your ARQ traffic will answer in the clear. Negotiate what digital mode you will use for the ARQ connection; ie: PSK-63, PSK-125, PSK-250, MFKS-16 etc. Then try that mode without ARQ to be sure that QRN and QSB will not seriously disrupt the connection. Ask the responding station to send an ARQ beacon using flarq. You will then see his ARQ callsign appear in the callsign window. Click the CONNECT button to connect with that station. The text next to the diamond will change to CONNECTING and remain that way during the connect time out period. During the connection process the CONNECT button will be disabled (greyed out)." There is more which I do not reproduce here. I suggest you make a sked or call "CQ NBEMS" at a time that you post here. The reason for this is that MFSK16 or MFSK32 require accurate tuning, and the beacon does not stay on very long so someone can tune you in, especially using MFSK32. If you use DominoEx 11 you will have a better chance, since tuning is not nearly as critical. The reason we do not want people to "beacon" before establishing a connection is that the possibility of transmitting over someone already using the frequency is very high, and that is inappropriate for these shared ham bands. By calling CQ, you will find a clear frequency that will not override anyone else. Once you are in QSO, the frequency is yours until you sign, just like any other QSO. If you start with the slower modes, you will have a better chance to connect, as their minimum S/N is lower. You can even shift to a faster mode during the transfer, coordinating with "Plain Talk". I am available for a sked if you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5 > >> Copy you in South Carolina, but very weak as ur beam is headed West. >> Unable >> to connect. >> Skip > > Thanks for trying Skip. Lots of big signals on the band, few takers. I've > tested Flarq from PC-to-PC and it seems to work fine with both Vista and > XP. > Will try for a live connect again tomorrow... > > Thanks again. > > Tony - K2MO > > > - Original Message - > From: "kh6ty" > To: > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5 > > >> Copy you in South Carolina, but very weak as ur beam is headed West. >> Unable >> to connect. >> >> Skip >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tony" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:51 PM >> Subject: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5 >> >> >>> All, >>> >>> I'm running Fldigi's Flarq mailbox on 14107.5 USB (+1000Hz offset) >>> MFSK32 >>> ARQ mode. The beacon is set to go every 10 minutes starting at the top >>> of >>> the hour. It will be on until 23:30z. >>> >>> The antenna (5 element monobander) is pointed due west. Power output is >>> 20 >>> watts. Please connect and send a message. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tony - K2MO >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: >>> 1/28/2009 6:37 AM >>> >>> >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 6:37 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5
Copy you in South Carolina, but very weak as ur beam is headed West. Unable to connect. Skip - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Flarq Mailbox Running 14107.5 > All, > > I'm running Fldigi's Flarq mailbox on 14107.5 USB (+1000Hz offset) MFSK32 > ARQ mode. The beacon is set to go every 10 minutes starting at the top of > the hour. It will be on until 23:30z. > > The antenna (5 element monobander) is pointed due west. Power output is 20 > watts. Please connect and send a message. > > Thanks, > > Tony - K2MO > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 6:37 AM > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Contgratulations, Andy! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer Skip, FYI... Success, we have his Digikeyer , FLDIGI and Icom 746 Pro playing together nicely. We have up on RIGCAT and tried HAMLIB again. Using one port for rig control and another for PTT in Microham's device router, we have all going well. Look for Ted W3VG dominating the PSK bands tomorrow :>) Andy K3UK Andy K3UK--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" wrote: > > Skip, thanks again. > > I am familar with Microham and its device router, my friend has that > installed and working correctly. The Icom and the digikeyer can > communicate without problems. It is when we try to set up FLDIGI > that the problems begin. Using hamlib we can get frequency read out > but no PTT. When we try rigCAT we get neither, and NO CAT is > displayed in FLDIGI just above the frequency readout. > > We will work on it some more tomorrow night > > Andy > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > > > Andy, here you say he has frequency display, but now you say he > does not. > > > > According to the manual, he has to CREATE virtual ports. I guess > you do this > > and then configure fldigi to use the port of your choice, but it > must not be > > a port already in use. > > > > When the ports are created, I think fldigi will detect them, so > restart > > fldigi and then choose the port. > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andrew O'Brien" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:11 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer > > > > > > I am trying to help a friend set-up FLDIGI on his new laptop using > his > > Microham Digikeyer. Using the device router for the digikeyer > (control > > port 5 and PTT port 6) the digikeyer PTT test button does toggle the > > PTT. However when using FL-Digi , frequency display corresponds > with > > the Icom 746 but the T/R button fails to place the Icom in to > transmit > > mode. Any ideas ? When configuring FL-DIGI, we did try to use > HAMLIB > > and PTT via CAT control, but that did not produce a PTT wither. > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: > 1/28/2009 > > 6:37 AM > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Read the manual carefully. You must specailly configure Microham to work with each radio and each application. Download the manual here: http://www.microham.com/Downloads/MK2_English_Manual.pdf 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:17 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer He has rig control with the Microham, just not with FL-DIGI Andy --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > Did he select "ICOM746PRO.xml.xml" under RigCat? > > OK, I see he has no rig control. That is why he has no PTT. Must be a bad > setting in the Microham keyer. Once he gets rig control, he will have PTT by > CAT command, I think. > > I use the IC-746pro also, but with the Radio Shack scanner USB programming > cable. With this interface, there is no problem. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew O'Brien" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:29 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer > > > Still no go. I am talking him throught this via Skype, so it is not > easy. > > He placed the Icom 746 Pro xml file in the FLDIGI.FILES/RIGS path, > He selected RIGCAT in FLDIGI CONFIGURE area and selected USE > RIGCAT. He saved and re-booted. When rebooted, FLDIGI says no > RigCAT above the frequency read out, there is no rig control. > > He has baud rate set to same baud rate his rig 19200, and comm port > selected is comm 5, same one he previously had some rig control (but > no PTT) when using HAMLIB. > > He is not sure which setting for PTT to use, RTS or DTR, he tried > both, no control. > > Andy K3UK > > > -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > > > Yes, get the 746Pro file from here: > http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html > > > > Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files. > > > > Set the baud rate, comport, and check PTT via Cat Command. > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andrew O'Brien" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:41 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and > Digikeyer > > > > > > When using RIGCAT with an Icom 746P, should we be using a xml for > for > > that rig ? > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 > 6:37 AM > Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Andy, The Microham manual says you must disable autobaud in any ICOM used with the router. Make sure it is disabled and either 9600 baud or 19200 baud is selected in the ICOM. You must get frequency control working before you can use PTT by CAT. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer I am trying to help a friend set-up FLDIGI on his new laptop using his Microham Digikeyer. Using the device router for the digikeyer (control port 5 and PTT port 6) the digikeyer PTT test button does toggle the PTT. However when using FL-Digi , frequency display corresponds with the Icom 746 but the T/R button fails to place the Icom in to transmit mode. Any ideas ? When configuring FL-DIGI, we did try to use HAMLIB and PTT via CAT control, but that did not produce a PTT wither. Andy K3UK Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Andy, here you say he has frequency display, but now you say he does not. According to the manual, he has to CREATE virtual ports. I guess you do this and then configure fldigi to use the port of your choice, but it must not be a port already in use. When the ports are created, I think fldigi will detect them, so restart fldigi and then choose the port. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer I am trying to help a friend set-up FLDIGI on his new laptop using his Microham Digikeyer. Using the device router for the digikeyer (control port 5 and PTT port 6) the digikeyer PTT test button does toggle the PTT. However when using FL-Digi , frequency display corresponds with the Icom 746 but the T/R button fails to place the Icom in to transmit mode. Any ideas ? When configuring FL-DIGI, we did try to use HAMLIB and PTT via CAT control, but that did not produce a PTT wither. Andy K3UK Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Did he select "ICOM746PRO.xml.xml" under RigCat? OK, I see he has no rig control. That is why he has no PTT. Must be a bad setting in the Microham keyer. Once he gets rig control, he will have PTT by CAT command, I think. I use the IC-746pro also, but with the Radio Shack scanner USB programming cable. With this interface, there is no problem. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:29 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer Still no go. I am talking him throught this via Skype, so it is not easy. He placed the Icom 746 Pro xml file in the FLDIGI.FILES/RIGS path, He selected RIGCAT in FLDIGI CONFIGURE area and selected USE RIGCAT. He saved and re-booted. When rebooted, FLDIGI says no RigCAT above the frequency read out, there is no rig control. He has baud rate set to same baud rate his rig 19200, and comm port selected is comm 5, same one he previously had some rig control (but no PTT) when using HAMLIB. He is not sure which setting for PTT to use, RTS or DTR, he tried both, no control. Andy K3UK -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > Yes, get the 746Pro file from here: http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html > > Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files. > > Set the baud rate, comport, and check PTT via Cat Command. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew O'Brien" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:41 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer > > > When using RIGCAT with an Icom 746P, should we be using a xml for for > that rig ? > Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Is "Use PTT via Cat Command" black (i.e. checked)? DTR and RTS are not needed when using CAT for PTT. Is he getting a frequency readout of the IC-746pro on fldigi? 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:29 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer Still no go. I am talking him throught this via Skype, so it is not easy. He placed the Icom 746 Pro xml file in the FLDIGI.FILES/RIGS path, He selected RIGCAT in FLDIGI CONFIGURE area and selected USE RIGCAT. He saved and re-booted. When rebooted, FLDIGI says no RigCAT above the frequency read out, there is no rig control. He has baud rate set to same baud rate his rig 19200, and comm port selected is comm 5, same one he previously had some rig control (but no PTT) when using HAMLIB. He is not sure which setting for PTT to use, RTS or DTR, he tried both, no control. Andy K3UK -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > Yes, get the 746Pro file from here: http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html > > Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files. > > Set the baud rate, comport, and check PTT via Cat Command. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew O'Brien" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:41 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer > > > When using RIGCAT with an Icom 746P, should we be using a xml for for > that rig ? > Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Yes, get the 746Pro file from here: http://www.w1hkj.com/xmlarchives.html Put the file in the Rigs folder in fldigi.files. Set the baud rate, comport, and check PTT via Cat Command. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:41 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer When using RIGCAT with an Icom 746P, should we be using a xml for for that rig ?
Re: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer
Andy, try Rig Cat instead of Ham Lib. That should trigger the PTT with a CAT command. There seem to be quite a few reported problems trying to use Microham Digikeyer, but I do not have one, so it is hard to help understand what is wrong. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Andrew O'Brien" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: [digitalradio] No PTT, FLDIGI with ICom 746P and Digikeyer I am trying to help a friend set-up FLDIGI on his new laptop using his Microham Digikeyer. Using the device router for the digikeyer (control port 5 and PTT port 6) the digikeyer PTT test button does toggle the PTT. However when using FL-Digi , frequency display corresponds with the Icom 746 but the T/R button fails to place the Icom in to transmit mode. Any ideas ? When configuring FL-DIGI, we did try to use HAMLIB and PTT via CAT control, but that did not produce a PTT wither. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Interface and computer problems
Mike, Have you switched to digital mode on the 746Pro? You need to hold in the SSB button for two seconds until a "D" appears on the display. This activates the data jack and disables the microphone. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "mac2251" To: Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:40 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Interface and computer problems I recently purchased a Signalink USB interface which works fine all but, no audio to the rig. This was also a problem with my last interface that didn't use a USB port bit rather the computer sound card. The rig is 746 pro connected via the data jack. Any one else have any ideas before I have the computer checked ? Thanks..Mike K9HCK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Yet Another Newcomer to digital
> > I'm still fairly inexperienced at the whole amateur radio thing - so > far, I have my basic license and a VHF handheld. I'd like to start > exploring digital modes, and am hoping that you might be able to > suggest what sort of rig would work well for that. > > I do have two limitations, though; I live in what's effectively a > ground-floor apartment, and am thus limited in what sort of antenna I > can put on my patio; and have a somewhat limited budget - call it > US$500 at the outside, and preferably less, if possible. Given that, > does it seem feasible to start getting involved in this aspect of ham, > or should I focus my attention elsewhere? > Daniel, excellent advice from Andy! You will probably get the best "bang for the buck" by purchasing a secondhand HF SSB transceiver, building a simple meter vertical with four elevated radials, and using PSK31 on 20 meters, but getting a General license would be a necessary and most beneficial priority. The Small Wonder Labs (smallwonderlabs.com) PSK20 kit is only just over $100 and you can work the world with it on PSK31. However, while you are studying for your General license, check out the "Eclectic Technology" column in this March QST for an additional idea. Maybe you can get something going in your area that will generate activity. We have had a nice little twice-weekly informal 2 meter FM ragchew net going now for two years, covering a radius of 40 miles using simple homebuilt horizontally polarized antennas without using the repeaters at all, and are now beginning to even make random contacts as more people become interested in digital FM on 2 meters. The secret to achieving long range is using horizontally-polarized antennas, but it takes another station doing the same, and I hope it will come in time. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Phoenix Area PSK on VHF
Mike, We started out on SSB using PSK63, then switched to FM using PSK63, but have had the most luck with DominoEx 8 for our twice-weekly FM net, so I suggest you look at DominoEx 8, which is in fldigi or Multipsk. Theoretically, when using FM, drift should not be a problem and PSK31 should work as well as DominoEX, but we have found that for signals under limiting and quieting, DominoEx seems better. For those with FM-only transceivers, VOX is usually not available, so you need an interface with built-in VOX, like the SignaLink USB, for PTT switching by the software. I have developed a low cost alternative interface for FM-only transceivers. The schematic is here: http://home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/interface/schematic.jpg 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "ke7tqc" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:11 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Phoenix Area PSK on VHF Anyone in the Phoenix area interested in VHF PSK31?, I'm looking to try and get a FM or SSB 2M net on PSK31 established in the Phoenix area. I know the range isn't like HF, but it could be something to break the same old same old on 2M. Thanks Mike, KE7TQC
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY
Buddy, suggest a frequency and time here: http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ 73, Skip KH6TY > What activity? I have yet to hear a MFTTY signal on any band. I've > called > CQ for hours but no response, mainly on 20 and 80 meters. > > 73 Buddy WB4M
Re: [digitalradio] RE: [multipsk] ALE400 and 141A
John, Rick, Copied the following on 3584.5, 1631.1 Hz. It might help to specify the tone frequency next time. Not sure I every copied John on my end. CQ KV9U>VE5MU CQ KV9U>VE5MU CQ KV9U>VE5MU CQ KV9U>VE5MU VE5MU DE KV9U H H ad to get me sound card switched back properly to mike in put from auxilary input. This happ to mike in put from auxilary input. This happ ens every time I run my contest logging progra m, n1mm. Very odd. Good to make the connecti on this evening. Running 20 watts at the moment . lly think that this mode is w ay underutilized for public ser ivice and emergency use since it is fairly sensitive and not too wide either. I tried 40 meters first but no thing connected and there is foreign br oadcast stations on or very near the frequenc on the disc. AS DE K(V9U VE5MU DE KV9U Sign Sign als are just at the noise level at the moment . . W ell on second thought, not qui te true, several s units above the noise . I would be surprised if 141A will work but lets try it. Why not connect and try and send message from you to me again? DE KV9U End of QSO VE5MU DE KV9U F or some reason it will someti mes lock up and I can not seem to stop the current status and reset job though had to completely terminat e the program a few times and restart . Maybe I just don't know the correct procedu and it was very close to a cw station that I could not clip off without affecting the lower tone. wish that this mode was in the NBEMS suite , but thus far they feel that this may be beyond their ability to include. I thi I thi nk that Winmor, if it has a peer to peer mode, w ill be VERY popular since once you set it up f or one mode such as e-mail it can adapt to other conditions. And the nice thing is that you can u se the narrow modes down to 200 Hz wide which should make it ham friendly when you don't nee d the speed. The Winlink 2000 group holds it s cards very close to the vest as they are not rea lly looking at what is good for amateur radio, but what is good for Winlink 2000. That is past deeds of not being willing to open even the protocol. But maybe they will even the protocol. But maybe they will ve several specific frequencies I understand. If you have listened to their sample, it is really not a pleasant sounding mode, and is mor e like you get with higher baud rate signals. D E KV9U H FLink tried to go t heir own way, then tried to "interoperate " with Winlink 2000 which is really not ver y practical and is downright foolish when you Instead they put their system in line with Winli nk's servers, so if Winlink 2000 fails , they are likely to fail as well. They have not been able to give me a reason why they want to use Winlink's system when they really don't h ave to do this. Bonnie had a real shouting match 00 site and the next day, everything was OK an d all FB. Needless to say, she had to get on the phone and agreed to just do whatever they wanted because she knew that she wou ld be frozen out otherwise. DE KV9u ... i , it sure is a nice setu p, but with my situatiuon, I would have no ohter stat ions to communicate with here in Wiscosnsin, since no one else has it to speak of and Pactor itself, the ori ginal pactor is not going t o be competitive with PWinmor. Even P2 will get some competition with Winmor exc really poor condx. I thnk I thnink the signal to noise ratioi is getting a b it better than when we started. Y es, the tremendous advan tage with a stand alone box that uses the computer primarily as a dumb terminal is that it is so much easier to get it to work. We have had the local EC demonstarate the VHF type of Winlink 2000 on two separate times to our group. Both times it failed to work even one mi le to the Telpac!!! pretty bad. Not sure what was causing the problem, but obviously no t a good thing to fail if we had really needed i t. I can type fairly fast, but I can't keep the error rate down wit hout going back quite often and redo stuff. S ometimes I can get a good stream going and then e verything falls apart, HI HI. DE KV9U \ OK John great to chat a bit and try something like file transfers that actually work AR Q. HI. 7 7 3's for now VE5MU DE KV9U and see u later this has bee 3's for now VE5MU DE KV9U CLyou disco\nnect Signals were easily visible on the waterfall, but sometimes there was no decoding. Fast QSB here in South Carolina. Signal from Rick were 2 S-units over the noise level. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "John Bradley" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:27 PM Subject: [digitalradio] RE: [multipsk] ALE400 and 141A > As of 22:30 UTC both stations are beaconing every 2 minutes using > ALE400FAE. Both stations are transmitting callsign and locator > > > > VE5GPM 7110.5 USB (unlicensed version) > > > > VE5MU 3584.5 USB > > > > Try a connect , or
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY - HF Path Simulations
Selective Fading SNR -8db >> MFSK1690% >> Olivia 500/15 100% >> PSK31 65% >> RTTY 45 25% Although MFSK16 produced 10% errors when Olivia produced no errors, Olivia 16-500 (20 wpm) takes twice as long to send the same information as MFSK16 (42 wpm), so it is exposed to QRM and QSB over a much longer time. If you are only interested in exchanging name, qth, and signal report, Olivia will usually do that better than MFSK16, but for ragchewing, over a longer time period, using IMHO MFSK16 will probably be as good as Olivia without having to wait as long for the text to appear. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY - HF Path Simulations
Thanks for the tests, Tony. The numbers confirm what NC5O and I found yesterday with our on-the-air comparisons between MFTTY, PSK31, PSK63, PSK125, and MFSK16 over a period of four hours and changing band conditions. We could communicate on PSK31 long after MFTTY had quit decoding, and solid copy using MFSK16 (but with a wider bandwidth, of course) when PSK31 started producing errors. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Tony" To: Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:59 AM Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY - HF Path Simulations > All, > > I was able to take some time to test MFTTY with the HF path simulator this > evening. I added a few commonly use modes for comparison. As expected, the > slower / narrow MFTTY modes seemed to have a definite weak signal > advantage over the faster ones. > > The minimum SNR test showed a wide 12db gap in sensitivity between 1/8 > speed and double speed modes. This should show when testing the different > MFTTY modes on the air. > > In the HF simulator tests, each mode was subjected to same HF path > distortion. The less tolerable a mode is to this distortion, the greater > the throughput errors. > > It would seem that MFTTY would compare well with other more robust modes > if the character speed is kept down using the half and quarter speed > modes. At least that's what the HF simulator seemed to indicate. > > I'd appreciate hearing about on-air tests from you all so I can compare > some real data to the simulators. > > Thanks, > > Tony -K2MO > > > Minimum SNR > > MFTTY > Double Speed -5db > Normal Speed -7db > 1/2 Speed-9db > 1/4 Speed -13db > 1/8 Speed -17db > > > MFSK16 -14db > Olivia 500/16 -13db > PSK31-10db > RTTY -dab > > > > Path Simulations > > Path Simulation: > Mid Latitude Disturbed > SNR -8db > > Mode Throughput > > Double Speed <10% > Normal Speed10% > 1/2 Speed25% > 1/4 Speed50% > 1/8 Speed85% > > MFSK16 100% > Olivia 500/16 100% > PSK31 70% > RTTY 4520% > > ___ > > Selective Fading > SNR -8db > > Double Speed 10% > Normal Speed 30% > Half Speed45% > Quarter Speed 60% > Eighth Speed70% > > MFSK1690% > Olivia 500/15 100% > PSK31 65% > RTTY 45 25% > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 > 3:09 PM > >
Re: [digitalradio] MFTTY error '380'
The reason for a version change IS because something has changed. There are many reasons under Visual Basic for getting a run-time error message, and perhaps your reload then overwrote the older values the program was still using, and that is why it is working now. Just my guess, not knowing the details of Norbert's code. It is usually best when upgrading to delete all previous code, such as a .ini file, etc, but I do not know what or where MFTTY is writing to the hard disk, so deleting all the previous files before upgrading is not possible, and we are left with having the program just overwrite them. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Russell Blair" To: "Digital Radio" Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:43 AM Subject: [digitalradio] MFTTY error '380' I updated to the newer version 3.0.146, and I am getting a (run-time error'380' Invalid property value), this error didn't show up in any of the older version, I have to delete the program and reload it to get to run. After that it work fine. Has something changed in between versions. That would cause this to happen? Russell = IN GOD WE TRUST ! = Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 9:12 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145
There is always a search for a "Holy Grail" of digital modes for ham radio, with ease of use, performance, robustness, resistance to atmospheric doppler, bandwidth, speed, FUN, etc! Personally, I just like the musical sound of MFTTY and appreciate the uniqueness of Norbert's approach. Once the user friendliness gets ironed out, I look forward to being able to find people using the mode often. MFTTY is easily distinguishable from other modes - it sounds a little like Throb perhaps, but not idential, so I do not think it is so much a "different tongue" on the Tower of Babel that is difficult to distinguish on the waterfall presentation, as some of the flavors of Olivia and DominoEx are. Other opinions may vary, of course, but my opinion is that I just ENJOY using the mode. It probably will never be as popular as PSK31 for chatting, but it definitely is FUN in my persoanl opinion! (I am one of those old guys who started with a green key machine on RTTY and miss the clatter and smell of the machine oil - but I also appreciate the progress in performance, convenience, and friendliness of the soundcard modes). Let's all play with MFTTY and send Norbert our comments and suggestions. It might turn out to be more than it appears at first glance. One thing is for sure, Norbert has done a very complete and respectable job on these initial beta implementations! 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New MFTTY Version 30.145 > > > Well, I don't see the problem if the "Tower of Babel is getting larger > and larger". I think diversity is crucial to innovation. > I find it satisfactory to play with new modes, and I have to play with > them to find out " what the > advantages are (..) over previous modes" . > > My thanks to all of you guys who is working making free software for the > ham community . > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > > > Rick W wrote: >> Is it just possible that there is not that much interest in the mode? I >> did download the software yesterday and tried setting it up but I was >> not able to get the RTS line keying the rig. I was able to listen to the >> tones and it does appear to be DTMF tones. >> >> The question is ... why have yet another mode, unless it has some new >> capabilities over what we already have? I think that some of us are >> getting a bit concerned that the Tower of Babel is getting larger and >> larger, and the result is not necessarily better digital communications, >> but just more separate communications which reduces our interoperability. >> >> Would it not be better to use this tremendous energy and knowledge to >> further the radio art and develop low cost technologies that work better >> and faster and most importantly, adaptable to conditions? >> >> If some feel that I am being unfair, then could you please explain what >> the advantages are of this mode over previous modes? >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> F.R. Ashley wrote: >> >>> *I've tried calling CQ endlessly on 20 and 80 meters but never once >>> gotten a response or even heard an MFTTY station. Where is everyone >>> hiding?* >>> *I've read where some use 14.068 on 20 meters but it is so crowded >>> there with PSK and all. I've also tried 3.591 on 80 meters but no >>> luck there either.* >>> ** >>> *Can we all try to establish a meeting frequency for using this mode?* >>> ** >>> *73 Buddy WB4M* >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1894 - Release Date: >> 14.01.2009 19:27 >> >> > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 > 9:12 AM > >
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [digitalradio] Dumb Question
> What is MFTTY? Google doesn't turn up much. Go to http://www.polar-electric.com/MFTT/index.html for MTFFY information. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
Thanks Seigfried! That works now. I could not find where that was in the Help. Now, if Norbert can only code a double-click to enter the call in Box2, that would be great. I know that it is possible under VB6 as I always code it that way in my own VB PSK31 programs. For example, I code according to the following double-click rules (double-clicking in Windows usually automatically selects a word, as I remember.): 1. If the "word" contains three consecutive numbers, it goes into the RST field. 2. If the "word" contains one or two numbers, it goes into the callsign field. 3. If the "word" has no numbers, it goes into the operator name field. 4. For QTH, I select all the words and use a right-click context menu to enter the text into the QTH field. I do not attempt to distinguish between something like "PSK31" and a callsign, but rely on the human brain to make the distinction by where the operator makes the double-click selection. 73, Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Siegfried Jackstien" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out the macro-name for "box1" is ... for "box2" it is that should solve the problem greetz dg9bfc - Original Message - From: kh6ty To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out > I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and > also allow for manual insertion as needed. > > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN > Howard, for manual Pilot insertion, just configure a macro as only and click that to insert a Pilot whenever you want. What I think FMTTY needs more than anything is the ability to double-click on a callsign and use it for the macros, such as (for the other station's callsign). I cannot seem to get the TxMacro boxes to work. When I configure a macro with and put a callsign in for Box 1, I still get "" transmitting instead of the callsign. The macros also need to be linked to function keys for ease of keyboarding use. There really is not enough time to fill in the TxMacro box for every QSO. You have to capture a callsign as quickly as possible in order to keep from losing a contact. A double-click has proven to be the fastest way to do that. For example, the significant default DigiPan macros which many are familiar with are: F2 CQ F3 Call 3 (transmit, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, receive) F4 Call (transmit, 1x1) F5 BTU (1x1, receive) F6 Signoff (73, 1x1, SK, receive) This way, the new user only has to press F2 to call CQ, F3 to answer a CQ, and then just alternate between F4 and F5 for the QSO. When finished, he just goes to the next function key in line to signoff. Of course preferences of others may vary! 73, Skip KH6TY Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 9:12 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: MFTTY 3.0.143 is out
> I think we just need to adopt a reasonable protocol for the tone use and > also allow for manual insertion as needed. > > Howard W6IDS > Richmond, IN > Howard, for manual Pilot insertion, just configure a macro as only and click that to insert a Pilot whenever you want. What I think FMTTY needs more than anything is the ability to double-click on a callsign and use it for the macros, such as (for the other station's callsign). I cannot seem to get the TxMacro boxes to work. When I configure a macro with and put a callsign in for Box 1, I still get "" transmitting instead of the callsign. The macros also need to be linked to function keys for ease of keyboarding use. There really is not enough time to fill in the TxMacro box for every QSO. You have to capture a callsign as quickly as possible in order to keep from losing a contact. A double-click has proven to be the fastest way to do that. For example, the significant default DigiPan macros which many are familiar with are: F2 CQ F3 Call 3 (transmit, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, receive) F4 Call (transmit, 1x1) F5 BTU (1x1, receive) F6 Signoff (73, 1x1, SK, receive) This way, the new user only has to press F2 to call CQ, F3 to answer a CQ, and then just alternate between F4 and F5 for the QSO. When finished, he just goes to the next function key in line to signoff. Of course preferences of others may vary! 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Digital FM versus Digital SSB on VHF
s on a 200 feet hill next to a cell phone tower, and my 13B2 is in my attic at only 25 feet. Did not have a chance to try it using DominoEx, though, but I suspect print would have been very good. We will be doing long range tests together on FM using DominoEX in the next few weeks, and I'll report the results here. I have repeatedly worked WO4DX, as he travels on business from my qth town in Mount Pleasant to his home in Dawsonville, GA, with my 13B2 when he was using stacked halos on his mobile. Signals always hold up for about 90 miles from me and then they become too weak to copy on SSB phone. Of course, typing while driving is not recommended, so for mobile operation while moving, phone is used most often. If you have to stop to type using digital modes, you might as well just plop the OptimizedQuad on a magmount on the roof and turn it toward the station or desired direction instead of being limited by the range of a halo. You can probably exceed the SSB phone range using DominoEx plus FM, but we have not yet made that comparison to get a hard number at long distances. I hope to be able to arrange that in the next couple of weeks. What slows down getting tests done is that phone is currently the convention for 2m weak signal work, so you need to add a computer, interface, and software to work digital modes. However, I am hoping I will soon confirm that FM plus DominoEX will go as far as SSB plus phone does, but using horizontally-polarized, gain antennas. Tests locally here so far indicate a 3-6 dB disadvantage using digital FM over digital SSB, but consistently an advantage over SSB phone. What I do is just turn my beam away from a station at 30 miles and reduce power to simulate a distant station, but that does not include any QSB over a longer path. We just know for sure, and have already confirmed this, that 100 miles using DominoEx and SSB with 10 dBi antennas on each end, is always possible in flat country. We now just need to confirm the range using FM. > > The Cebik antenna was in March 2008 QST entitled, "A New Spin on the Big > Wheel." While the three dipole design could be homebrewed, a well made > more wheel like design would be needed to operate mobile due to his HPOD > triangle probably not handling vibration and wind as well. I like the > easy matching approach taken. The article has some background > information I have not seen elsewhere. He considers the gain to be about > 7.2 dBi at 20 feet height, and with very accurate omni characteristics. We built one of Cebik's dipole "Big Wheels", compared it on our 2m SSB digital net several times, as well as on my beacon (8 miles away) that I use for an antenna range, and a turnstiled skeleton slot ourperformed it by 1-2 dB. I call my turnstiled skeleton slot design the "Jolly Roger" http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/JollyRoger.zip because it reminds me of the skull and "crossbones" pirate flag, with its "crossed" PVC construction. There are five of these omnidirectional antennas in use on our 2m digital SSB net, and would probably be the best antenna to use for an EOC that has a high location or tower, since it can hear from any direction. In this case, the additional gain needed to go the distance must made up by the portable station by using a 2, 3 or 4 element quad, and pointing at the EOC or net control station. The way we run our 2m digital net is have all stations beam (mostly with gain antennas) toward the net control station (which is using an omnidirectional antenna of low gain), and then the net control station simple retransmits (by cut and paste) all incoming text for everyone to read in case they cannot copy some other station. This is not possible using phone, but using DominoEx, the retransmission is very fast (70 or 100 wpm) compared to the average typing speed of the net member, which may be around 20 wpm. This way, nobody gets left out, and there is a minimum of dead air time compared to the typical weak signal VHF net. This works well, and we have been doing it this way for over two years now, twice a week. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
ingly, these are hams who are also > more into public service and don't normally get involved in weak signal > work. It is a tough call to decide which way to polarize since hardly > anyone is going to have H with any mobile setup and you need to have > mobile to base communications. If you already have mobile to base communications, then you do not need horizontal polarization, but if you do not (because the distance is too far), then you need the extra 3 dB or greater that horizontal polarization brings to the table. > > NBEMS, which I support wholeheartedly since it is the only cross > platform open source digital software program of this type, is not > really that easy to use compared with some other systems. You do have to > practice this on a regular basis to get hams comfortable with how it > works. And the weak signal NBEMS, where there is no phone communication > possible, is going to need some very savvy ops who also know where the > other station is located on the dial. We start with PSK31 so it stands out against the noise, tune in the station, and switch to DominoEx. It works just as well, or better, to use the "Tune" mode of fldigi, tune that signal in, and then switch to DominoEx. > > The only 144.144 signals on 2 meters in my area likely originate from my > station. I may be able to get some others to try. One of our local hams > unfortunately decided to buy a Yaesu FT-450 instead of an 857D/897D so > even though he is on digital with some OJT with the two of us getting > together earlier this week, no go on 2 meters. We did OK on 10 meters > though. With NBEMS, we are looking for the most consistent, reliable messaging communications possible, and 2 meters seems to be the only band that can provide that. Otherwise, we use NVIS antennas and have to deal with the static and time-dependent propagation on HF. Weeks of tests on 80m and 40m this past summer showed that HF is a reasonable compromise, especially since the MFSK modes in fldigi have been modified to handle extreme static quite well. You might want to test HF in your hilly terrain and see how it works out, but be sure to use NVIS antennas at both ends. Although more trouble to set up than a 2m quad, I can imagine one end of a 130 foot wire attached to a building and the other end to a mast on a car trailer hitch or a mast on a plate mount so that the car tire holds in place as one way to get a NVIS antenna. At least the antenna does not need to be high for NVIS. I think we have beat the horizontal vs vertical polarization issue to death now, and need to proceed with additional tests to find out what range can be expected. SSB provides the greatest range, but the number of transceivers in the field with 2m SSB is limited. Horizontal polarization provides the greatest range, but the number of horizontally-polarized antennas in the field is limited, and many of the vertical yagi's in use do not have rotators. If we are going to limit ourselves to existing FM transceivers and existing verticals or yagi's, then we are probably going to need a repeater, because you can only stand so much degredation of S/N over SSB and horizontal antennas before you can no longer communicate point-to-point. 3 dB of gain on VHF makes a huge difference! That is why weak signal ops go to the expense and trouble of putting up two stacked yagi's instead of just one. FM costs 3 dB or more in S/N over SSB, and vertical polarization cost another 3 dB in S/N over horizontal polarization, so it is not too long before you cannot communicate at all point-to-point at with the EOC, except only over 15 to 20 miles. Once again, "there is no free lunch"! 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
anything. Anyway, currently, there is not much PSK31 activity on 144.144 and probably none in range of your station, even if you have a horizontally-polarized yagi. > > The period transmission is very clever, something like Patrick, F6CTE's > Multipsk programs sending of repeated characters. You could just have a > macro set with the repeating character, and you probably do this. Actually, I use a macro or just send a file with fldigi. My 2m PSK31 beacon uses a chip programmed to send the beacon message, which is 50 periods plus my callsign and grid square. I use it almost daily for comparing antennas. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
"50eroids" should read "50 periods", and "on periods" should read "non periods", fldigit should read fldigi. Sorry - must be the wine - just got back from a family dinner! Skip KH6TY ----- Original Message - From: "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? > > >> If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating >> between the stations? To date, we have been able to use a cell phone. >> >> How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? > > We send 50eroids.(..). > Anything > that is not a period is easily recognized as an error. Three "on-perionds" > equates to a 6% error rate. >> >> If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to >> quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't >> it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are >> increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? > > The test was a vertically polarized quad to a 5/8 wavelength whip, and a > horizontally polarized quad to a horizontally polarized quad. The quad had > 7.5 dBi of gain versus perhaps 5 dBi of gain for the vertical whip. That > makes up about 2.5 dBi of the 6 dBi, and the rest is an approximation of > the > S/N as measured by flidit in both cases. As you can imagine, it is > extremely > difficult to make exact quantitative measurements under such conditions, > but > even modeling shows the 6 dB that Cebik references. Our experience is that > the 6 dB is about correct. >> >> Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad >> horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch >> properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a >> difference? > > Based on two different modeling programs, and our own simple tests, I > think > so. The most significant finding is that we lose communicaton over about > 30 > miles using vertical-to-vertical, but easily over 70 miles using > horizontal-to-horizontal, even though the horizontal antenna on the mobile > end is 5 feet higher than the whip is. In the end, anectodal evidence from > others also suggests a 15 to 20 mile range with vertical whips, and we > already know we can exceed 70 miles in flat country using a low, > horizontally-polarized quad instead of a vertical, and that is all that is > important to our purpose. It would be nice to have more and better > controlled tests, but you can just imagine the difficulty in arranging for > such tests without doing it on an antenna range. You have to switch > polarization on both ends, and one existing antenna may be on a tower, 50 > feet in the air. Of course, any such tests are possible, but the > difficulty > of finding people to participate is difficult, at best. As far as we are > concerned, together with the common knowledge that all weak signal > communications on 2m use horizontal polarization, TV stations use > horizontal > polarization because long ago it was found to be better for propagation, > and > the confirming results from modeling, are sufficient enough reasons to > insist on using horizontal polarization for distances longer than a > repeater > can provide. Add to that the probability that many existing vertical beams > are not mounted on rotators, and the change to horizontal polarization > appears to be well worth the effort, based on available information. You > can > also include the possibility that using a horizontally polarized quad > provides a lower takeoff angle close to ground that a yagi, and you can > see > why there are many reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization. > Finally, in a serious emcomm situation, NBEMS only needs to reach > connectivity with the Internet for email delivery or POTS for phone > delivery, so any available forwarding station will suit the purpose, > whether > a part of an organized emcomm effort or not. The need is only to get the > message to the EOC or other recipient, and all existing weak signal 2m > stations are using horizontal polarization. > > Our main interest is emcom messaging, and even a single dB of advantage > may > mean getting the traffic through or not, so we have use the best methods > at > our disposal, and the preponderance of evidence says that horizontal > polarization has an advantage over vertical polarization. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > NBEMS Development Team > >> >> 73, >> >> Rick, KV9U >> >> >> kh6ty
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
> > If the signals are in the marginal range, how do you do the coordinating > between the stations? To date, we have been able to use a cell phone. > > How do you calculate the error rate (such as the 6% mentioned)? We send 50eroids.(..). Anything that is not a period is easily recognized as an error. Three "on-perionds" equates to a 6% error rate. > > If I understand this correctly, the test was between a 5/8 vertical to > quad for vertical polarization vs. quad to quad for horizontal, wouldn't > it be about right to see 6 dB difference considering that you are > increasing the path budget with the inclusion of the quad? The test was a vertically polarized quad to a 5/8 wavelength whip, and a horizontally polarized quad to a horizontally polarized quad. The quad had 7.5 dBi of gain versus perhaps 5 dBi of gain for the vertical whip. That makes up about 2.5 dBi of the 6 dBi, and the rest is an approximation of the S/N as measured by flidit in both cases. As you can imagine, it is extremely difficult to make exact quantitative measurements under such conditions, but even modeling shows the 6 dB that Cebik references. Our experience is that the 6 dB is about correct. > > Several ways to do this is with quad to quad vertical and quad to quad > horizontal polarization, or some other gain antenna that can switch > properly between polarizations. I wonder if you would see such a > difference? Based on two different modeling programs, and our own simple tests, I think so. The most significant finding is that we lose communicaton over about 30 miles using vertical-to-vertical, but easily over 70 miles using horizontal-to-horizontal, even though the horizontal antenna on the mobile end is 5 feet higher than the whip is. In the end, anectodal evidence from others also suggests a 15 to 20 mile range with vertical whips, and we already know we can exceed 70 miles in flat country using a low, horizontally-polarized quad instead of a vertical, and that is all that is important to our purpose. It would be nice to have more and better controlled tests, but you can just imagine the difficulty in arranging for such tests without doing it on an antenna range. You have to switch polarization on both ends, and one existing antenna may be on a tower, 50 feet in the air. Of course, any such tests are possible, but the difficulty of finding people to participate is difficult, at best. As far as we are concerned, together with the common knowledge that all weak signal communications on 2m use horizontal polarization, TV stations use horizontal polarization because long ago it was found to be better for propagation, and the confirming results from modeling, are sufficient enough reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization for distances longer than a repeater can provide. Add to that the probability that many existing vertical beams are not mounted on rotators, and the change to horizontal polarization appears to be well worth the effort, based on available information. You can also include the possibility that using a horizontally polarized quad provides a lower takeoff angle close to ground that a yagi, and you can see why there are many reasons to insist on using horizontal polarization. Finally, in a serious emcomm situation, NBEMS only needs to reach connectivity with the Internet for email delivery or POTS for phone delivery, so any available forwarding station will suit the purpose, whether a part of an organized emcomm effort or not. The need is only to get the message to the EOC or other recipient, and all existing weak signal 2m stations are using horizontal polarization. Our main interest is emcom messaging, and even a single dB of advantage may mean getting the traffic through or not, so we have use the best methods at our disposal, and the preponderance of evidence says that horizontal polarization has an advantage over vertical polarization. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > kh6ty wrote: >> Hi Rick, >> >>> Have you found that DominoEX is the best overall digital mode for FM? I >>> know that PSK modes can have doppler errors from aircraft, but otherwise >>> seem pretty good for weak signal. >>> >> >> Yes, definitely! DominoEx is a frequency shift keying mode, not a phase >> shift mode, but doppler problems are still sometimes a problem, but not >> nearly as much as on PSK31 or PSK63, so that is one reason why we now use >> DominoEx. Once the reflected signal arrives 180 degrees out of phase with >> the direct signal, it cancels out the direct signal for a while and there >> is >> no mode that is going to print under that condition. The wider, multitone >> modes have less problem because the data is redund
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
eoff angle of a yagi of the same gain increases to as much at 40 degrees off the horizon, which means a quad may be the best choice for portable operation anyway. > > We will probably bite the bullet eventually and put a rotor back up on > the low tower and maybe go with a Gulf Alpha 11 element V and H antenna > for some reasonable gain. Then we could do the test. The ham that was > going to help us lost his QTH and will not be able to relocate his VHF > antenna farm. Of course they are quite high so maybe there would not > have been as much difference in such a case. One of the best known VHF > ops in my Section says that after running many tests he has never found > either polarization is any different. But he has high antennas so maybe > that accounts for it. Yes, high antennas are probably the reason. At seven wavelengths from real ground, the disadvantage to using vertical polarization over horizontal drops from 6 dB at two wavelengths to only one dB at seven wavelengths, but portable stations or mobiles generally are not going to be able to get have antennas much higher than 2 wavelenghts. The jury is also out whether horizontal polarization is an advantage over several hundred miles. I will not be able to test this until the coastal tropo scatter season comes back in the spring. If your yagi has more gain that you need, you can just rotate it 45 degrees and cover both polarizations, but with a 3 dB gain loss on both. > > We hope at least soon do some digital mode comparisons on 2 meters, > whether SSB or FM. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U That would be great! We need as much information as we can get, especially since lower South Carolina is quite flat, with no hills until you get to the upper part of the state. We do know this for sure - using a sensitive digital mode with either SSB or FM greatly extends the range over using phone, simply because the digital mode can copy under the noise level and phone cannot. The average modulation of a phone signal is only 30%, or maybe 50% with compression, but the passband needs to be over 2 KHz. With a narrow digital mode, the DSP filters in the software (and at IF if available) can be used to narrow the noise window by at least four times, improving the S/N by 6 dB or more and still use 100% average modulation for another 3 dB or more improvement in S/N. You simply cannot do this with phone and remain intelligible, and you cannot use redundancy with phone as you can with digital modes. > 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
No hard feelings, Howard! Your passion for the hobby is appreciated, and many of us have hit the Send key, wishing immediately afterward that we had not! Regardless, I thought many of your points were well made and bared repeating. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: "Howard Z." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? I deleted that posting soon after I made it. However, I suppose those who get emails still got it. My posting was not appropriate. I appologize. Howard Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1785 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 9:12 AM
[digitalradio] Correction on URL for Optimized Quad
The correct URL for the picture of the two-element Optimized Quad is http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OptimizedQuad.jpg A period at the end of the link in my email accidentally got included in the URL. Skip KH6TY - Original Message - From: "Howard Z." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? SKIP SKIP SKIP READ READ READ I, HOWARD, AM not not NOT NOT not THE PERSON WITH THE QUESTION NOR THE PROBLEM. GEEZ, I TRY TO ANSWER SOMEONE'S QUESTION, AND SUDDENLY IT BECOMES MY QUESTION AND MY PROBLEM. If you are going to address someone - address the individual who has the problem or question in the first place. Personally - I don't care. Personally, I am an emergency worker who will never ever be sent to help in an ARES/RACES HAM group, because my agency will need me here. If it snows 20 feet one day, I'll be disciplined if I do not get to work - lose all bonuses and raises for a year. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. I am not the one who asked the question. I am not the one who asked the question. Don't try giving me advise when I am not the one who asked the question. The original poster who posed the question and who has the problem was considering HF as a solution. Watson, I think he's got it... maybe. Howard --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Howard, > > We already achieved successful, error-free, VHF communication (with no > repeated blocks) using NBEMS software over a 70 mile path in flat country > between two 50 watt FM transceivers, one with a 7.5 dBi antenna at 10 feet > off the ground and the other with a 7.5 dBi antenna 25 feet off the ground. > I have also developed a DOX interface for FM transceivers which have no VOX. > A schematic is here: > http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/Interface%20schematic.jpg > > We are now in the process of determining just how much farther we can go > using FM. However, using SSB with DominoEX, we have already reached 100 > miles consistently between a 9 dBi antenna and a 13 dBi antenna. We think > that a 100 mile capability is sufficient to reach outside connectivity for > email or phone delivery and confirmation. If so, then VHF can be used most > of the time. By using 2m, if the S/N is sufficient, we can also use phone > and data interchangably on the same frequency, which is not permitted on > HF. > > When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS > antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high > static conditions. > > However, it obviously easier to put up a small beam than it is to always > find supports for a NVIS antenna for portable use. A picture of my 2m > portable setup is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/sideview.jpg. By > using a two section mast, everything will fit in the trunk or in the back > seat. > > NBEMS does not support "push" emcomm email, because there is no confirmation > of delivery. Instead, there must just be an operator present at each end of > the link. This also helps prevent transmitting on an already active > frequency. > > As you correctly note, VHF FM transceivers cost only a couple of hundred > dollars instead of a thousand for SSB-capable transceivers, however, it is > absolutely necessary to use horizontally-polarized, gain, antennas to go > farther than a repeater can go. The portable station antenna is usually > going to be near the ground, and at 10 feet off the ground, there is a huge > 6 dB penalty to using vertical polarization. We are now changing the > emphasis of NBEMS from SSB to FM with DominoEX in order to make it possible > for more people to use NBEMS and also take advantage of the low cost FM-only > transceivers in the field. > > There appears to be a 3 dB or greater disadvantage to using FM over SSB, > even with horizontally-polarized antennas, but that can be made up with > increased antenna gain or power. Phone will not work on VHF over the same > long distances as DominoEX or MFSK16 will work, because the noise level is > often so high, the voice just cannot be understood or even heard at all. > However, DominoEX and MFSK16 can still decode when the S/N is 10 or 12 dB > UNDER the noise level, and that is how we get such long distance > communication on 2m. > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Hi Rick, Thank you for your comments on Howard's and my posts. Of course, we prefer using SSB on VHF, because the range is longer. First tests indicate that DominoEX with SSB has at least a 3 dB advantage over using FM with DominoEx. We are arranging more tests to be sure. However, the fact that today, maybe half of the U.S. amateurs hold only a Technician license, and do not have access to full HF priviledges, together with the fact that many hams only have inexpensive FM-only transceivers (but only a relative few may have VHF or multimode 2m transceivers with SSB capability), we have decide to explore ways that more hams can participate in emcomm activities, which means finding out how to use FM-only transceivers without repeater assistance. Although you have previously pointed out that many hams already have vertical antennas, the fact remains that a vertical antenna close to the ground (2 wavelengths), has about 6 dB less gain than the same antenna horizontally polarized. At VHF, a 6 dB disadvantage is an enormous disadvantage, plus many of the directive antennas used for FM are fixed on a particular repeater, and cannot currently be rotated anyway. Just model a vertically-polarized antenna over real ground at 2 wavelengths and compare the gain to the same antenna rotated 90 degrees to horizontal polarization to see the difference. In order to confirm Cebik's assertion about the gain difference, I did the modeling myself and found that he is absolutely correct. No difference in free space, but a huge difference over real ground. So, putting it all together, we can get significantly more range by simply investing in a horizontally-polarized antenna, using the same FM transceiver that people already have, and, better yet, in an inexpensive TV antenna rotator so we can communicate in any direction. The optimized two-element quad that we used for the FM/DominoEx tests (7.5 dBi in free space) can be built for less than $15 in an hour with all parts from Lowes, plus a SO-239 connector, and turned with a $60 Philips TV antenna rotator from Walmart, because its wind loading and boom length (13") is so small. A picture of the little quad is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OptimizedQuad.jpg. It is only 20" x 20" x 13", so it will fit in the trunk of a car without having to be dismanteled. Construction uses schedule 40 PVC, fiberglass "driveway markers" for spreaders, and #14 insulated house wire, so it is very rugged. I wish that all existing equipment could be used intead, but without a gain antenna and horizontal polarization, range without repeater assistance appears to be just too limited. It would be useful to know how much range you can get in your hilly rural area by using FM, DominoEx, and horizontal antennas on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: "Rick W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? > Hi Howard, > > If you respond to someone's response to a question, with asking > questions of your own, then it might be reasonable for some to respond > as Skip did. It seems reasonable to me considering you asked "Is the > volunteer out of VHF range?" You also asked about setting up something > in the bed of a truck and asked about setting up something on HF after > arrival at the destination. All good questions. > > While your particular job situation does not seem relevant to this > discussion, the use of VHF, especially SSB VHF does seem particularly > relevant since it is the only other way to get increased distance of > communication between a mobile and fixed/portable/mobile station if HF > is not workable. > > The most expensive HF equipment may of of no value when you are trying > to communicate between two points that do not have NVIS propagation. It > can be frustrating, especially during high QRN as well as the skywave > signal just going through the ionosphere and not reflecting back down. > For those experienced with Section level nets that only use 75/80 > meters, you know what I mean. > > Going higher in HF frequency doesn't work any better (actually shorter > ground/direct wave), and that is why STANAG systems won't work for > "local" communication. > > VHF simplex with FM and with minimal antennas are not going to go all > that far as you point out. In fact, in our area, it is difficult enough > for mobiles to repeaters. Sometimes 15 to 20 miles is the best you can > do in shaded areas. With 2 meter SSB, we seem to be able to still get > through when FM can not get through although signals can be very weak. > That is using half wave base to quarter wave mobile antennas. With > improved antennas, dependin
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Howard, First of all, there is no need to shout! My old eyes are still fine for reading without your using caps! :-) This group is for the purpose of discussion about using digital modes in amateur radio, all opinions are welcome, and nothing should not be held against a person for posting a contrary opinion. >Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. Your statement that "VHF is nice for 10-20 miles", is what we find also (using phone, and a 5/8 wavelength vertical whip on a car), but I was only tryng to point out that if you use horizontal polarization and sensitive digital modes, you can go much, much, farther, and we have established that over flat country. Vertical polarization with omnidirectional antennas are perfect for mobile use, and that is why we have repeaters today, but the range is very limited, as you point out. However HF is also often not reliable, especially during the time of day that 40m fades out and 80m comes up, or later, when 80m fades also, even using NVIS antennas. We have made many months of NBEMS tests on HF to realize that. In contrast, when VHF can be used, propagation is always consistent up to about 100 miles away. We are continually looking for ways to provide the most dependable messaging system at any time of day or night, and using VHF is one of those ways. I also clearly stated, "When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions". However HF is not the only way reliable communications can be achieved, at least in non-hilly country. I was not trying to give you any "advice", or make someone elses "problem" yours, but only to address the opinions in your own post. It is not necessary to be sarcastic - if my post, opinions, or findings displease you, simply use your delete key! ;-) For everyone else, please take note that it is a significant finding that long-range communications using FM and DominoEx can more than triple the range of FM phone communications "in flat country", but we still have to find out what ranges are possible in hilly country compred to phone communications. Perhaps someone will explain it better, but my guess that when all signals encounter an obstacle such as the curvature of the earth (line of sight?), they diffract and scatter, losing most of their original strength. However, sensitive digital modes can still recover information from the very weak scattered waves, and that is why we can still copy with digital modes when you cannot even tell that a phone signal is no longer present. Since VHF phone signals are limited in general by the encounter with the curvature of the earth, it just makes sense to see what can be done with those weak scattered waves, and that is what we are trying to find out. If anything in my previous post is useful to anyone, please feel free to use it. Even the digital interface for FM transceivers can be useful, as it can be built for $10, which is much less than the $100 SignaLink USB, which also has its own DOX. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: "Howard Z." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? SKIP SKIP SKIP READ READ READ I, HOWARD, AM not not NOT NOT not THE PERSON WITH THE QUESTION NOR THE PROBLEM. GEEZ, I TRY TO ANSWER SOMEONE'S QUESTION, AND SUDDENLY IT BECOMES MY QUESTION AND MY PROBLEM. If you are going to address someone - address the individual who has the problem or question in the first place. Personally - I don't care. Personally, I am an emergency worker who will never ever be sent to help in an ARES/RACES HAM group, because my agency will need me here. If it snows 20 feet one day, I'll be disciplined if I do not get to work - lose all bonuses and raises for a year. Personally, I already own expensive HF equipment and consider VHF short range no matter what you do with it - compared to a few hundred miles one gets via HF with a NVIS antenna 10 feet above ground. Personally, I think VHF is nice for 10 to 20 miles - you can go further - nice for you. I'll keep it in mind if anyone gets a team of bulldozers and makes Maryland flat - I can't walk a block or two with reaching a hill. I am not the one who asked the question. I am not the one who asked the question. Don't try giving me advise when I am not the one w
Re: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field?
Howard, We already achieved successful, error-free, VHF communication (with no repeated blocks) using NBEMS software over a 70 mile path in flat country between two 50 watt FM transceivers, one with a 7.5 dBi antenna at 10 feet off the ground and the other with a 7.5 dBi antenna 25 feet off the ground. I have also developed a DOX interface for FM transceivers which have no VOX. A schematic is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/Interface%20schematic.jpg We are now in the process of determining just how much farther we can go using FM. However, using SSB with DominoEX, we have already reached 100 miles consistently between a 9 dBi antenna and a 13 dBi antenna. We think that a 100 mile capability is sufficient to reach outside connectivity for email or phone delivery and confirmation. If so, then VHF can be used most of the time. By using 2m, if the S/N is sufficient, we can also use phone and data interchangably on the same frequency, which is not permitted on HF. When the terrain is too hilly for VHF, NBEMS also supports Hf using NVIS antennas with several modes specifically tailored to work under very high static conditions. However, it obviously easier to put up a small beam than it is to always find supports for a NVIS antenna for portable use. A picture of my 2m portable setup is here: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/sideview.jpg. By using a two section mast, everything will fit in the trunk or in the back seat. NBEMS does not support "push" emcomm email, because there is no confirmation of delivery. Instead, there must just be an operator present at each end of the link. This also helps prevent transmitting on an already active frequency. As you correctly note, VHF FM transceivers cost only a couple of hundred dollars instead of a thousand for SSB-capable transceivers, however, it is absolutely necessary to use horizontally-polarized, gain, antennas to go farther than a repeater can go. The portable station antenna is usually going to be near the ground, and at 10 feet off the ground, there is a huge 6 dB penalty to using vertical polarization. We are now changing the emphasis of NBEMS from SSB to FM with DominoEX in order to make it possible for more people to use NBEMS and also take advantage of the low cost FM-only transceivers in the field. There appears to be a 3 dB or greater disadvantage to using FM over SSB, even with horizontally-polarized antennas, but that can be made up with increased antenna gain or power. Phone will not work on VHF over the same long distances as DominoEX or MFSK16 will work, because the noise level is often so high, the voice just cannot be understood or even heard at all. However, DominoEX and MFSK16 can still decode when the S/N is 10 or 12 dB UNDER the noise level, and that is how we get such long distance communication on 2m. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: "Howard Z." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: How Can We Push HF Emcomm Messages to the Field? Is the volunteer out of VHF range? If the base station has a 100 watt VHF radio like the 746pro - you might be able to still reach the volunteer, but he may not have enough power to get back to you. Or he may be out of VHF range. HF is the way to go - but both ends of the conversation need NVIS antennas. HF antennas tend to be large, and NVIS needs to be horizontal. I'm not sure there exists an NVIS antenna for a car or truck. Maybe something horizontal can be setup in the bed of a pick up truck? In general HF antennas for vehicles do not perform very well - but they are better than nothing. There are portable NVIS HF antennas available that can be setup rather quickly. Perhaps this is something to be done when he arrives at his destination, and then call the base on HF? Also keep in mind that HF radios typically cost over a thousand dollars compared to maybe two hundred for a VHF radio. Howard N3ZH
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question
Patrick, John, The link on the Thor web page, http://w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/Thor.html, provides some additional technical specifications for Thor: http://w1hkj.com/FldigiHelp/Modes/THORdesc.htm To answer John's question, Thor uses full time FEC. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team - Original Message - From: Patrick Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question Hello John, As far as I know, there are no public specifications or description of THOR modes. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: "vk2eta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:01 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Sound card question > Vojtech and Patrick thanks you for the reply. I effectively didn't > realize synchronization was so critical too. Interesting. > > Just a comment/question to both, since you are both developers of > widely used programs (and I take this opportunity to thank you both > for that), I discovered the THOR mode as release by Dave in Fldigi and > I have to say based on the preliminary test that I have done (and > echoed by tests done by Rein developer of the PSKmail system), that I > am very impressed by the performance I get. > > It is also an ifsk mode like DominoEx but for some reason performs > much better at least as implemented in fldigi. Not sure if it is the > permanent FEC but is seems quite robust in my tests between VK and ZL. > > Have you had any comments or request for implementation in your > software or is it just too new, or not different enough? > > 73s, John VK2ETA (And for Patrick, Ex FK8DV. Merci) > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: 8/21/2008 6:54 PM
