[digitalradio] SlowFeld

Talking all about airplanes last week led to airplane bounce software this week. by Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU G3PPT's VHF Communication via Aircraft Reflections Web page describes the aircraft propagation anomaly and includes software to ex

[digitalradio] EPC PSK63 QSO Party 0000 UTC 19 November.

Date and Time Starting time is at 00:00 UTC, and ending time is at 24:00 UTC on Sunday 19th November, 2006. Objective The European PSK Club has the honour to invite the radio amateurs all over the world to participate in the EPC PSK63 QSO Party. The objective of the competition is to establish

Re: [digitalradio] Comment from an ARRL staffer J2B/D

> Given what you say, i.e. the ambiguity, the ARRL should have announced > that in its opinion the new regs permit 1Khz Olivia and MT63 and similar > modes. The FCC would probably have done nothing. As it is, we could be > talking years before this mess gets straightened out, given the amount

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Net Saturday

I missed it, sorry! Andy K3UK

Re: [digitalradio] Poor Excuse for FCC Staff Re: Part of the problem

expeditionradio wrote: > > > Whoever wrote the the recent "omnibus" rule changes at FCC should not > be allowed to touch another official ruling until they get better > micro-management supervision. Not only was the work sloppy, but it > was self-contradictory. One wonders if they had ever read

[digitalradio] Fw: Test in PAX through a repeater

Hello to all, We are going to do again a small test to-morrow 19/11/2006 from 13h30 to 14h00 UTC (in better propagation as the 20 m band closes here a bit after 15h00 UTC), with the same paper as below described. The Fred's frequency will be 14.110,50 KHz USB AF=1000 Hz. 73 Patrick - Ori

Re: [digitalradio] Comment from an ARRL staffer J2B/D

Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > I have been in touch with some staff at ARRL HQ about the >500Hz data > matter. Their official position is that U.S. hams should be > "conservative" about this, and avoid using >500Hz data transmissions > until they have clarified the matter with the FCC. Unofficia

[digitalradio] Digital Net Saturday

All: Digital voice (WinDRM) net started 2000z, Satuday on 14236.0 Tony KT2Q

Re: [digitalradio] Most robust <500 Hz Digital Mode ?

The best digital mode for a Q is the one that others are willing to operate. At this time, most Q's are done with PSK31 because it is simple, has many programs that have this mode or primarily this mode, is easy to tune, and about the most narrow bandwidth for the throughput, at least for speed

[digitalradio] RFSM2400?

Steinar, I downloaded it and have it "working" with my rig, what frequencies are people using this standard ? Andy K3UK - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> . Have > you tested the MIL-STD-188-110 PSK modem yet ( > http://neurosis.hungry.com/~ben/radio/188

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance difference between 500 Hz and 1000 Hz digital modes?

Hi Bonnie, It seems to me that it is more freedom in my "socialistic" country than in US regarding ham radio, but the politics are not my strong side. Have you tested the MIL-STD-188-110 PSK modem yet ( http://neurosis.hungry.com/~ben/radio/188-110/rfsm2400_v037.zip) ? It is really a nice piec

[digitalradio] 72 Hour Notice: FCC Part 97 threads

To the many USA based members the changes that will be implemented December 15 2006 are extremely important. The discussion here the past few days has been quite valuable and some of the points made may be significant in enacting future changes to part 97. I would like to keep the policy mat

[digitalradio] Most robust <500 Hz Digital Mode ?

So, given "average" conditions (no weird polar "stuff" ) for weak signal decoding, which of the digital modes provides the best chance of having a successful QSO ? I think past discussions focused on Olivia 32/1K, and MT63 in wide BW , as perhaps the most robust. Is it appropriate to conclu

[digitalradio] Re: Performance difference between 500 Hz and 1000 Hz digital modes?

> Andrew O'Brien wrote: > While some of us try to calm down from the Part 97 revisions in the > USA, I wonder how big a deal having to use <500 HZ data modes really > is? Take Olivia for example , what real performance differencs are > there between 16/500 Oliva and 32/1K oLivia ? > Hi Andy, S

Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"

Yes Erik and Steinar, I will let discussion flow here for a little longer and then cut it off and ask that it move to the sister group, Andy. - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:57 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] "T

Re: [digitalradio] Poor Excuse for FCC Staff Re: Part of the problem

Hello All, I've been watching this FCC discussion for some time regarding your rule changes. It would seem that, like it or not, that these changes are coming. And what can you all expect - the ARRL and others have been feeding ideas into a huge government bureaucracy for some time and like all o

Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"

Thank you Erik:) 73 de LA5VNA list email filter wrote: > > Andy, > > Would it be too much to ask to request that these rule changing > discussions move to the 'political' group? They started out being > informative and of interest to all subscribers, by pointing out the new > regs, but they're

[digitalradio] Performance difference between 500 Hz and 1000 Hz digital modes?

While some of us try to calm down from the Part 97 revisions in the USA, I wonder how big a deal having to use <500 HZ data modes really is? Take Olivia for example , what real performance differencs are there between 16/500 Oliva and 32/1K oLivia ?

[digitalradio] Hamscope direct keying FSK via MFJ "deluxe" interface

After some effort, I got the MMTTY engine to properly key FSK data to my output jack on my interface box. Keys my transmitter, etc. For the life of me, I can't get Hamscope to do the same. Works fine in AFSK mode. Anyone have any ideas? Won't read my Rig data either for rig control, but that'

Re: [digitalradio] "The Digital Radio Group"

Andy, Would it be too much to ask to request that these rule changing discussions move to the 'political' group? They started out being informative and of interest to all subscribers, by pointing out the new regs, but they're starting to degrade. We may all feel badly about the rule changes,

[digitalradio] Poor Excuse for FCC Staff Re: Part of the problem

Whoever wrote the the recent "omnibus" rule changes at FCC should not be allowed to touch another official ruling until they get better micro-management supervision. Not only was the work sloppy, but it was self-contradictory. One wonders if they had ever read their own rules before they started

[digitalradio] Re: Comment from an ARRL staffer J2B/D

Will we eventually look back at this as the Digital Dark Ages of ham radio in USA? There is no joy in Mudville. The FCC just struck out. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > > I have been in touch with some staff at ARRL HQ about the >500Hz data matter. Their official position is that U.S. hams should be "con