These numbers seem very much what others have reported as well. A
difference of 3 or 4 dB lower is highly significant, even with AWGN tests.
When we were testing SCAMP, which used the RDFT protocol, there was
nothing so frustrating as to watch the mode time itself out even though
signals were
Dave,
You make several excellent points! OK...Chris isn't perfect ($%#@).
Plus, the recent alternative ARRL proposal causes
me some concern. For example, might we not want
some digital mode above 3 kHz someday? How about
one spot on just a few bands where up to 6 kHz is
permitted? Why take
Bruce,
Is all you know how to do is flame?
Turn down the heat and go back on your meds, OK?
Thanks from all of us,
John
K8OCL
Original Message Follows
From: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:
PS - All you guys concerned with such need to write to
your respective ARRL Director. Hamming it up on this reflector
will do little good in the endUNLESS you cc your director, too.
AND, I am not a spokesman for the League. I spend most of
my Ham radio on the 2.4 GHz band, so what do I
This was just posted:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Usually, I can follow this stuff pretty well, but for some reason, I am
missing just what is the change that ARRL made to their original proposal?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
This was just posted:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1
73,
Dave,
The ARRL deleted other changes below 30 MHz, but wants to change the
voice/image segment bandwidth from the existing communications quality voice
to 3 kHz.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: kv9u
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 19:50
http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg
This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal
that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group.
David
WB2HTO
Dave,
Oh, that's great Dave!. Thanks a lot, partner. (HI)
Not that it's not an excellent proposal, mind you, but the
HSMM modes cover BRUCE's personally owned AM Worldwide
6M Calling spot @ 50.4 MHz!
I am the destroyer of worlds! (The Hunt for Red October?)
So now Bruce will be on constant
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Champa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Dave's No. 1: Obviously, as he knows, Chris Imlay is a paid
employee. He puts in more time than his pay demands, but he is paid.
To lay this all on him is wrong, though. I know of 19 people
I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code
for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If
SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would
show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased,
it fuels
From my time in Ham Radio:
- Going from Class A to a structured licensing was the end of Ham
Radio.
- Giving Novices 10m voice was the end of Ham Radio.
- Giving Novices 220 was the end of Ham Radio.
- Dropping CW from structured classes to 5WPM was the end of Ham
Radio.
-
no the ARRL will pay with loss of 90% of its members
... they will see just how many unhappy hams are out
there come renewal time .
ENJOY YOUR BAND all 12 of you .
im done ..
Looks like RTTY to me. Can't quite tell but the shift maybe 200Hz.
Darrel
VE7CUS
On 24-Mar-07, at 3:12 PM, David Kruh wrote:
http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg
This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal
that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help,
Pactor 1 ARQ.
-Joe, N8FQ
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:12:33 -
David Kruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg
This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It is a pulsing signal
that I cannot identify. Thanks for your help, group.
David
WB2HTO
Hi all,
A new live cd for pskmail is now available!
This cd features the latest versions of client and server for pskmail (with all
the nice new features available there). Also there is xastir, tlf, wsjt, xdx,
gmfsk, fldigi and much more to explore on the cd. Also available is Firefox,
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the
main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection
rules,
It was my understanding that the ARRL compromised on 3.5 kHz for SSB
voice when they submitted the request to the FCC. I think that ESSB
accomodation was part of that reasoning? Can anyone else recall that
initially they were proposing 3.0 and then moved it to 3.5?
Or is it now that they want
If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a
mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I
really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people
working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is
impossible
Thank you.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Joe Veldhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pactor 1 ARQ.
-Joe, N8FQ
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:12:33 -
David Kruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.bambinomusical.com/screenshot1.jpg
This signal was on 7068 Saturday afternoon ET. It
I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working
on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of
the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented
frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden
transmitter
The initial proposal was 3.5 kHz bandwidth for any mode within certain HF band
segments.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: kv9u
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 00:56 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to
Well, then it's true. They don't care about the law.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 5:49 pm, kv9u wrote:
The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a
busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on
one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the
I am not privy to the PMBO code, but I would be extremely surprised
if Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations. All that
is required is for a PMBO in its idle state to not respond to an
incoming user request if the busy detector output was positive
anytime during the last X
24 matches
Mail list logo
