[digitalradio] Re: another non- contest on a no contest band

[wd4elg_base]

> It was not until I 
> was relicensed in 1980 that I started to pay more attention to the 
> various subsets of amateur radio. I was quite stunned to find out 
that 
> grown adults will literally spend their entire weekend at a fixed 
> operating position. My reaction was, "this can't be true, people 
would 
> never do such a thing." But I was wrong and they do.
> 




As a fanatical DXer and occasional contester, you are 100% correct, 
Rick.  It is true.  My wife thinks I have something wrong with me.  
Maybe so, but it's harmless I tell her.  Maybe I am too competitive?

Think of the "hacker" golfer who spends tons of time on the golf 
course every free moment.  He sacrifices sleep, social time, and 
relaxation time (the golfing is competitive rather than relaxing) for 
his quest of a par score.  Only for me I sacrifice sleep, outdoor 
time, other hobbies, even eating just to catch some DX.

It's an addictive personality thing, I believe.  I have never smoked 
(only cigars, maybe three times in college) but after I worked the 
YK9G/Syria DXPedition for my 250th country today on 20 meter CW after 
30 minutes through the pileups with my 100 watts, I felt like I 
needed a cigarette and a beer.  Same feeling during contests - 
adrenalin flowing, competitive streak emerging, body tensing.

Having said (confessed?) all that, I am concerned that any contest on 
30M or other WARC bands sets a precedent which might not be a good 
thing.  But it is balanced by increased activity on the band and 
interest in a growing field in our hobby (low power digital), which 
is always a good thing.  Conclusion: result is neutral.

Mark, WD4ELG http://wd4elg.net 

[digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[wd4elg_base]

Hey Bonnie

You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you could educate
me. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to digital modes.



I hear a lot of increased-bandwidth transmissions in the RTTY subbands
(7070 area, 14080 area). I understand that many of these are unattended.
I have issues with that.  Maybe I just don't understand?

Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make an educated
comment to the FCC:

1. Why can't larger bandwidth transmissions (ALE, etc) move above 7100
and 14100?

2. How will this RM will KILL digital radio?  I would like to see narro
bandwidth (PSK31, RTTY) modes only in the first 100 khZ segments.

3. Why do we let unattended operations take place? That seems contrary
to the spirit of the hobby, especially since these transmissions don't
check to see if the frequency is clear first.  To me, that violates Rule
1 of the hobby - don't interfere with others.



I appreciate your time answering my questions - I want to be an educated
ditigal operator.



Mark Lunday

WD4ELG

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://wd4elg.net 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
> all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia,
> MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others.
>
> We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
>
> Only you can save the future of digital radio, by
> your comments to FCC.
> It only takes a few minutes on the web.
>
> Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
>
> Fill in the appropriate parts of the form,
> then write your comments in the lower part
> "Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)"
>
> Here are suggested examples of comments, below.
> Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio.
> Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world.
>
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> ===
> Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments.
>
> 1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller
> seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically
> controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF.
>
> 2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur
> Radio Service.
>
> 3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century
> digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio
> Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data
> to the 20th century.
>
> 4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth
> limit on data emission is too narrow for established
> international standard transmissions and equipment
> bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service.
>
> 5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation,
> technology advancement, and emergency data communications
> in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen.
>
> 6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled
> data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume
> of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth
> is applied, it will severely hamper the ability of amateur
> radio operators to share these small band segments efficiently
> through rapid data time division methods.
>
> 7. There is a huge installed base of Amateur Radio Equipment,
> and millions of dollars of monetary investment by thousands
> of Amateur Radio Operators that use HF digital data systems
> with more than 1.5kHz bandwidths. This investment by
> FCC-licensed operators would be taken away or rendered useless
> if the objectives of the RM-11392 petition were to be adopted.
>
> 8. Several of the primary established HF emergency
> communications networks currently in service and utilized
> by thousands of Amateur Radio Operators in USA would be
> totally eliminated or hobbled if the objectives of the
> RM-11392 petition were to be adopted.
>
> 9. The Amateur Radio Service relies upon international
> communications standards. Many of the present digital data
> communications standards require bandwidths in excess of
> 1.5kHz. The normal amateur radio service bandwidth limit
> by governments of other countries is 6kHz or more.
>
> 10. Thousands of licensed Amateur Radio Operators would
> be disenfranchised if the objectives of RM-11392 were to
> be adopted.
>
> 11. The RM-11392 petition is comparitively similar to
> an Analog Cellular Phone service entity trying to eliminate
> newer Digital Cellular Phone service. The fact is, Amateur
> Radio is now using faster time-multiplexing digital methods
> to enable more stations to efficiently use the same frequency
> channels simultaneously or in rapid succession. These time
> division techniques require at least 3kHz of bandwidth.
>
> 12. RM-11392 petition has not presented a compelling
> need to change the rules for Automatically Controlled
> Data Stations on the HF bands.
>
>
> END
>
>
> Read the petition:
>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_p

[digitalradio] Issue resolve Re: MixW, FT817, and Signalink USB

[wd4elg_base]

Thanks to Dave G3VFP for the assist.  Issue was with the mic setting 
in FT817 and the audio setting config on the PC/SL.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "wd4elg_base" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> New owner of FT-817, experienced user of SignaLink USB and MixW.
> 
> The SignaLink unit works perfectly, with my TS480 and MixW.  Now I 
> want to use the FT-817.  I am using the same cable (I presume that 
> since they are both 6-pin data cables, it should work fine).
> 
> I am able to receive perfectly using MixW.  I can't get the 
transmit 
> to work on the rig.  I tried USB (AFSK like on the Kenwood) and 
DIG 
> modes with no luck.  I varied the level of TX on the SignaLink 
with 
> no results.  The MIC level on the FT-817 was varied as well.  
Still 
> no activation of the TX.
> 
>  * I have checked to make sure the SignaLink soundcard is 
> selected for audio output.
>  * The FT817 itself appears is working fine, I made 2 contacts 
> with EU last night on this antenna on CW.
> 
> Any ideas appreciated.  Thanks
> 
> Mark, WD4ELG
>

[digitalradio] MixW, FT817, and Signalink USB - I think it's me, but I can't figure it out

[wd4elg_base]

New owner of FT-817, experienced user of SignaLink USB and MixW.

The SignaLink unit works perfectly, with my TS480 and MixW.  Now I 
want to use the FT-817.  I am using the same cable (I presume that 
since they are both 6-pin data cables, it should work fine).

I am able to receive perfectly using MixW.  I can't get the transmit 
to work on the rig.  I tried USB (AFSK like on the Kenwood) and DIG 
modes with no luck.  I varied the level of TX on the SignaLink with 
no results.  The MIC level on the FT-817 was varied as well.  Still 
no activation of the TX.

 * I have checked to make sure the SignaLink soundcard is 
selected for audio output.
 * The FT817 itself appears is working fine, I made 2 contacts 
with EU last night on this antenna on CW.

Any ideas appreciated.  Thanks

Mark, WD4ELG

[digitalradio] Important info for digital operators: signal quality

[wd4elg_base]

Ladies and Gentlemen

I respectfully request that each of us take a moment to read page 50 in
ARRL's QST magazine, December 2007 edition.

It addresses signal quality of digital transmissions using the PC
soundcard, and how to avoid over-driving the signal.  Overdriving causes
spallter and occupies unnecessary bandwidth.  Specific, simple detailed
steps are provided.  Terrific explanation and great info!

Please share this with other hams, new and old.  Some of us (myself
included) have made mistakes in the past.  While these were made out of
a lack of knowledge/skill, it is the responsibility of those more
experienced in our hobby to share and help educate others.  The result
will be more proficient operations by all, through cleaner signals and
proper operation of our equipment.

If you do not subscribe to QST, I would be happy to share the summary of
the article (without violating Copyright).

Mark, WD4ELG http://wd4elg.net   (30+ years in the
hobby, and learning new things every day)

[digitalradio] Re: USB Rig Control Interface

[wd4elg_base]

Dave



Try right-clicking on the icon, select properties, and put a check-mark
in the option to run the app in legacy "Windows XP" mode.  This may
help.



Mark, WD4ELG
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>AA6YQ comment below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, mrfarm@ wrote:
>
> Are you saying that this problem does not occur if you are not
> simultaneously running the "file manager?"
>
> >>>Exactly. There is a defect in Windows Explorer.
>
>
> When you completely lose control of even being able to shut down a
> computer, I consider that crashing the OS, even if it is "only"
> causing total loss of control of the video.
>
> >>>Vista's kernel remains intact, and any running applications
> continue to run correctly. If you terminate Windows Explorer and
> refresh each window (e.g. by clicking the DXLab Launcher's Minimize
> button followed by its Restore button), all will be well -- but its
> easier to simply terminate the explorer.exe process beforehand.
>
>
> Even so, I wonder if any other programs can do this to Vista? I
> consider it to be a serious shortcoming.
>
> Vista was prematurely released to avoid adding yet another big
> slip to the Longhorn disaster. My strong advice is to avoid it until
> it works; around SP2 or SP3, I would guess.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>

[digitalradio] New user assistance

[wd4elg_base]

Friend of mine is using Ten-Tec Paragon, Donner interface and HP Brio
PC.  Already tried tinkering with volume control and mic gain, still
looks like a distorted waveform when transmitting on air.

Anyone with experience, please advise.  Thanks,

Mark Lunday, WD4ELG

[digitalradio] Re: VISTA and PSK

[wd4elg_base]

Another way around software issues is to run the program in
"compatibility mode":

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/using-windows-vista-compati\
bility-mode/