Hi Andy,
I have not tried it (even on VHF); but curious as to why it is not
legal. Is it speed and/or bandwidth?
Thanks in advance,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just a reminder to the USA based hams , this mode is not consider
Well, was on the "internet" very early...mostly only .edu and .mil
domains back thenhence I listened and tuned around alot on the
radio :)
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What did Ham Radio do before the Internet E-Mail?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snipped...shows I had a bad day at work when I cannot type my call
correctly and then fail to proof-read]
> 73
>
> Bill M9DSJ
Actually my ticket reads "n9dsj"
Hi,
Not sure I see that anyone is trying to keep the "50 or so hams"
from "getting a message back to home". I really thought the number to
be much, much larger given it is the argument used for alot of
Winlink2000.
Is this the real crux of the discussion? If so, that is alot of RF
bandwidth
Well,
You are all correct... as usual "it depends"; in this case it depends on
mode, band and operating style.
If I were, for example, using the "panoramic" type operation to look for
a snap-shot of what was going on in cw, rtty or psk modes using
Multipsk, I would opt for a fairly wide open fil
Hi Andy,
Well many cringe on hearing me, regardless of mode...at least ARQ FAE
is more narrow than the umpteen ssb signals that abound. Is
interesting conceptually.
Saw you on 80 also but condx between us seemed less than optimum...am
sure another night will bode better.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
-
Hi Andy,
Assume you mean DSP "noise reduction"...have never seen any real
effect
of note either way on digital modes...even on HELL. The noise blanker
degrades some WSJT modes but otherwise have seen little impact on
received digital decodes.
On Hell, at least Feld Hell, the AGC seems to mat
I agree for just BPSK31 that Multipsk can be intimidating..but even I
sorted it out after abit of floundering about. As for "ALE", it is
more a system than a modeARQ FAE is actually fairly simple
compared to PC-ALE and its counterparts. ARQ FAE might best be viewed
as a connected mode indep
Hi John,
Heard you, Andy, and VE3FWF but more like working WSJT modes due to
conditions which are horrid herelinked to W6JVE using ARQ FAE
later...worked ok but need to balance the mode with the conditions as
Jim in Arkansas is usually very strong here. Also I am worn out from a
2 hour com
Hi Dan,
Here is a link to the MIL-STD-188-141A/ALE channels. The root webpage
gives alot of information as to what MIL-STD-188-141A/ALE is and does..
http://www.hflink.com/channels/
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n0ziz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is 141a? What f
You, EA2AFR and KQ6XA were very solid here on all modes - also CO2JA
abit later...ice did a number on my antenna so was in monitor mode
only. Antenna is back up so will try 80 meters later...
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> EA2
Steve,
I noticed the same behaviour here using test versions 24_02_20 and
25_02_20; reverted back to 19_02_20.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Bad news as soon as MultiPSK 25-02 receives an ARQ FAE linking ca
Hi Leigh,
No protocol/technical reason...not sure there is a need as MFSK already
does thatif there is an upside to Olivia sending pics versus MFSK
it could be implimented.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Is there a
Hi Andy,
It is still a viable mode often used. Some other modes have other
upsides...mfsk is robust yet fast and narrow and also has pic xfer
capabilities. DominoEx does very well with or without FEC on
160/80/40 and is also a narrow bandwidth mode at that speed.
RTTYM/Contestia are less robu
Hello Patrick,
Downloaded and installed it...connected to VE5MU dispite alot of QRN
and QRM...worked well then I got alot of Windows errorsreverted
to the previous version and so far no errors but will try get more
informationmust be a "contest" on now (like every weekend
anymore) so t
Hi,
I *have* to use HP-UX at work so I avoid it and anything that reminds
me of it at home; but think your only real choice would be Fldigi
See http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html
Others that use Unix/Linux might offer other options...
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd
Also copied alot of data frames from you tonight on 3.587 +1500 HZ
AF, USBnice signal Jose.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I found him on 14109.5 kHz dial QRG + 1500 Hz AF, USB.
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
Was fun...despite decades of reading raw packets on ax.25 and NOS,
setting "display of messages only" under options made it alot easier
later on. In spite my meger 15 watts and Pactor qrm it worked
surprisingly well; obviously a mode worthy of more experimentation.
Thanks John and Patrick
Hi John,
It worked really well despite me being a moron! Sorry to cut it short
due to work looming soon. Copied you and VE5TLW fine once I sorted
things outARQ FAE is most interesting!
thanks again,
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Hi Rick,
That pretty much echos my experience too...DominoEX at 11 baud seems
to be the best compromise for 80/160.
Unless the S/N ratio is pretty high, I have not had the best of
results with either CHIP or MT63when S/N levels are high these
modes work very well.
As for MIL-STD-188-141A/
All,
I did not realize the controversial nature of this topic; I seriously
was trying to have the question answered while trying to (seemingly
poorly) tip-toe around that known peripheral issues that seem to
always inspire ire. Lesson learned and I will comment no further on
this.
73,
Bill N
upload to eQSL but if you
> use that - also pls upload to LOTW
> or hard card.
>
> moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
(Stepping lightly) Why, with the recent changes, does ARRL/W1AW still
transmit without listening on 3.580? We all know far too well how
compressed for bandwidth the digital modes are on 80 meters due to
recent FCC changes. Yet W1AW persists to take a slice of this
compressed band-space to tran
Hello Rick,
As of today unattended Propnet operations on 160 meters (at least in
the US) has ceased.
73 and be well,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It turned out that the PSK31 station was a Propnet station:
>
> 4www.PropNET.org
> w2aaa>
Hello,
I was on psk31 on 1.806 (1500 Hz AF) but only three others heard
(see http://www.propnet.org/ for the paths). Switched to DominoEX at
11 baud with fec on 3.5855 (3.584 dial at 1500 Hz AF) for
now.will listen about.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'B
Hi,
Do not know about others but I operate Propnet on 160 often...I am
always "live" (or as live as I ever get) when not in "lurker mode"
(xmitting is disabled). As per normal, if the freq is in use, I
disable transmitting. The software does include a DCD routine, but
that will not get around
Well can only relate my impressions; hope others chime in
I think even though DominoEX halves the speed when FEC in engaged, it
is well worth the speed trade-off. 160/80 seems to vary night to
night in this regard; probably due to qrn and multipath. It also
depends on one's ability/willingn
Hi Rick,
Just FYI; you and Dave (K3GAU) were solid copy on DoiminoEX on 160
tonight despite me using my 80 meter antenna. Actually seemed best
using 22 baud with FEC...one or two static crash hits, but overall
impressive considering my antenna limitations on 160 meters.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In
Hi,
Probably does not answer your question but high speed CW is still
used alot for meteor scatter on vhf...moreso in Europe than in the US
and Canada as it has been overshadowed by the various WSJT modes...I
never used it but remember some extremely high speeds being
used...perhaps recorded i
Hi Rick,
Cannot comment on DominoEx performance on 6 meters as noone ever
answers me (marginal station here so no surprise). I find it to be a
very good performer on the lower bands...I am a horrid typist (as
many can attest) so I tend to stick to 11 baud. The use of FEC seems
to minimize hits
Hi Rick,
I think FNpsk uses QPSK125 and PSK31...but otherwise you are correct
as there is no speed difference that I am aware of between BPSK125
and QPSK125QPSK125 is alot more frequency sensitive then BPSK125
and I think that about -5 db S/N is probably more realistic than -8
db S/N.
73
than I do...
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This may be a dumb question, but is there any way to do real time
> communication with WSJT, in other words, have a keyboard to
keyboard
> conversation?
>
> 73,
>
Hi David,
Have only worked WSJT modes on vhf on usbno reason JT6M (for
example) would not work on 28 MHZas for JT65, think A mode would
be best for 6 meters and below but will need to ask Joe as he wrote
the software and I am not so smart). Usually people use mode A for 6
meters, mode
Hi Walt,
Guess I was less than precise in describing my position on this. In
an emergency... telephones, cell phones, any internet connectivity
and sat-phones and the like may well be disabled. I was saying our
internet link here is much more fragile than many in the USthe
point is we need
Hi Walt,
Thanks for your concise response. We do not even have (up north) DSL
or cable...just dialup via the phonelines...all it takes is one iced-
over phone line and connectivity to the internet is lost so any comm
means that relies on the internet is worthless in an emergency of any
sort. Th
not
> build my emergency communications system based on that and would
want to
> focus on what amateur radio has to offer and that is RF.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill McLaughlin wrote:
>
> >Snipping abit...
> >
> >That see
Snipping abit...
That seems to be the key to me...try Echolink, ax25 wormholes or newer
Winlink versions when there are no phone lines or T1 lines due to
whateverTechnology advances are great, when they work; but we
need/desire an alternative.
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.c
Hi all,
on 3.5935 - AF 1500 - beaconing in 110 baud packet mode...
73
Bill N9DSJ
Hi Rick,
I built one, was horrid! Worked fine on the bench but not so good on
the air...went back to the KSR-33 with a TU using passive torroid
filters...back when you could get a jolt from an open TTY loop...had
a Nuvistor preamp too... state of the art (then)...fun times.
And yes, the selec
Hi Roger,
That coincides with what I saw. Was able to work digital modes on 40
meters during the day but suspect that was only possible as all the
juicy points-producing propagation was on 20 and 15 meters during
that time-frame.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J
Hello Andrew,
This happens during most every "contest"I used to work contests
alot when I was younger and had more staminaunderstand the
frustrations of many as some contest ops seem to not care about
anything other than points. "Gentleman's" agreements seem to be
predicated on people
Or hopefully both
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Probably some of our new upgraded people who have no idea that
contesting is disallowed on the WARC bands. They will find out in one
of two ways: They will give a nice letter
Hi Andy,
I listened for about 90 minutes - problem for me was that copy was too
good (a rare compliant about that) - you and Craig we 100% print in all
modes tried, even BPSK31. Was alot of fun following you two around and
your use of the RS ID helped alot for when I was less than attentive to
Dave,
Thanks to you and all the others..even though I only use Linux/Unix
offline, I do appreciate the work you and the others do to make
various digital modes available to many...(and Joe has a new call -
N8FQ )
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w1hkj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello Rick,
I try to use "channelized" freqs for Olivia only on 20 meters and
when the band is Olivia-crowdedotherwise I tune to the freq of a
station calling and leave it at that. Often where Olivia goes so do
the other digi modes, freq-wise. Be it packet, rtty, mfsk, DominoEx,
Throb or t
I thought the convention was 30 days to effectivity after the
announcement? Although the "press release" is not the conventional
methodology the FCC usually uses to announce a R&O. Unless I am daft
(which may well be), isn't it ironic that the code requirement will be
dropped for Techs who will
Hello Patrick, hope all is well;
Am confused as in your MFSK16 help file it states "IMPORTANT: the
picture format is not fixed as in classical SSTV but can be anything.
The maximum dimensions of the transmitted picture are 1600x1200.
Multipsk proposes to use the standard "320x256" to take adv
ECTED]> wrote:
>
> 320x256 takes about 4 minutes on MFSK16. 160x128 is more reasonable.
>
> -Joe, N8FQ
>
> Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> > I believe "320x256" is the "standard" ... anything over 400x300
will
> > not make use of the slant and shift corr
I believe "320x256" is the "standard" ... anything over 400x300 will
not make use of the slant and shift corrections. Again I am not sure
but think it can go as large as 1600x1200 but not recommendedIt
also might well depend on the MFSK software one is using.
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digital
RM an already-in-progress QSO between a station in
> Houston and a station in Buenos Aires because I can't hear either
end
> of that QSO in Boston.
>
> Thus all automatic stations must be equipped with busy frequency
> detectors, even when their being initiated by a manned stati
You are correct, Andyit happens every "scheduled" night. Have
never-ever seen W1AW move or not transmit despite the frequency being
in use...Does it violate FCC statues; sure; is anyone going to do
anything about it? No, as ARRL/W1AW seems to be aloof and un-caring
unless it involves vested
Dave,
You cannot be suggesting actually listening before transmitting?
Would be a slap in the face of tradition.
Seriously, it will be interesting to see how it all sorts out...I
will move the PAX2 station into the dustbin on 80 as I am not about
to dump that wide a signal onto the new compre
Hi Andy,
I was just going to do what I normally do; psk31 on 3.580 and
olivia/dominoex/throb from 3.582 to 3.585 and Hell modes on
3.587...just will not run PAX2 on 3.610will see what happens,
should be entertaining to say the least.
Be well and 73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogr
Hello Rick,
There is some activity on the digital modes on vhf (aside from WSJT
MS and EME where I tend to spend most of my time). Activity centers
on 50.290 and 144.150; most use horizontal antennas (or elese those
are the only ones I can hear) but there is little sustained activity
aside fro
Brad,
Think of it as a challenge/opportunitywe will all survive and the
sun will still rise. It will, however, be "interesting times" in the
Chinese sense of that phrase...
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Gillis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> After reading umpte
And to respond to my own post before I see it, I should learn to use
my reading glassesclearly it states "less than 500 Hz"...my
error...
Getting old is little fun but better than the alternatives, I guess.
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hello Dave,
Well I often miss alot, but think that there is no FCC allocation
for "semi-automatic" (or automatic) operations on 80 meters after the
15th in the USwideband or not. See nothing in 97.221 that limits
this restriction to only 500 Hz and greater modes. As far as I know,
and I c
Andrew,
My most recent post took three minutes to show up here (from a dialup
ISP account), if that helps. Still interested in 80 meter APRS though
either using ax25 Packet or PAX/PAX2...
73
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - Ori
Hi Bonnie,
Guess I am not that smart but you seem to be suggesting the "wide"
modes (mode being more than 500 Hz) will occupy from 3560 to
3600not sure why you think the existing digital mode frequencies
will get "pushed" down...for example; 3.587 is considered a Hell mode
calling freq by m
Hello Brett,
Not sure there is a "best" modeall are trade-offs to some degree
in terms of speed/bandwidth/sensitivity/robustness/other-stuff.
Suspect if there was one best mode we would all use itThe variety
of modes is part of the appeal; you want psk31 but also FEC? Use
psk31F (for e
Hello Rick,
I have played with DominoEX and DominoEX/FEC a fair amount. It is
difficult to do mode-to-mode comparisons at times but I find
DominoEX/FEC to be a very good mode for tuning/sensitivity/robustness
(if that is a word) and bandwidth. It seems do do quite well on 80
meters where I hav
continual use
of the phrase "more efficient" in speaking of band usage for their
explanations of the changes, especially in regard to 80 meters. I see
a big squish coming below 3.600 as people will have few options as to
where to operate...
Bill, N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,
Yes Andy, so far it is very very encouragingwith limited usage it
seems to address the "what mode it that" question...more trials are
needed though...
73 and be well,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Has anyone played around
Or lack of time by some like me (was out of the country)...I have
worked *alot* of DominoEX...mostly with FEC if the other party had
that capability. I mostly work 80 meters (qrn season now), 30 meters -
a good compromise choice, and 17 meters (when open). I agree with
John re horrid condx..
Hi Andy,
Have played alot with DominoEX/FEC on 80/40/30 metershave found it to be very robust, especially considering its bandwidth. Without the FEC it is marginal. Even at 22 baud with FEC enabled it does well (better than my typing)...I wish more would try it...I often switch from Olivia
In pax2 mode on 3.610, 1000 Hz AF, USB. Alot of line noise (even on uhf) so not very optimistic..
73, Bill - N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> No luck thjis afternoon.> > Andy K3UK> > On 4/20/06, John Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> >
Hi Rick,
As you know I live near the IL/WI line but well within VHF range to
Chicago and the surrounding area. On 2 meters I run 28 elements at 75
feet fed with 7/8" Heliax - hence a decent low-end VHF station. Aside
from some EME and high speed meteor-scatter modes, I hear very little
2 meter
Hi Andy,
The first tones sound fine; about what I am used to hearing on the
air or when monitoring my own transmissions...the second set seems
clipped or over-driven...is it merely a difference of drive levels
between Multipsk and MixW??
Am sure others more with more knowledge can comment with
Agree,
500/8 seems to have become the default Olivia mode on most bands.
Bill - N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Craig, the best Olivia frequency reference is at www.hflink.com just
go there and click on the Olivia frequency link.
Hi John,
Hope you are well. I suspect because it was a quiet freq and people
are supposed to listen before transmitting?
It was also a cw/rtty band portion long before it was a "pactor
portion", so the "long been used" argument does not apply. Think it
is problematic as alot of modes claim freq
Angle of Arrival seems to be April 1!
Bill - N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Just received this and thought I would pass it along, looks like a new one> to play around with! Software is available from my site (see below).
Need a D
Hello Jim,
Welcome to the group! I come from a similar backgrond and was alot of fun running a vhf/hf gateway. Also still have a KSR-33, despite complaints from my xyl.
I recently un-earthed the KAM but very little VHF/UHF activity beyond APRS here (which I was in on when Bob first introduced
Am on 3.610, AF freq of 1000 Hz in PAX2 mode, repeater on, 15 watts out
to a 280 foot loop.
Connected earlier to W6JVE (Jim) on 40 meters..mode seems ok with
decent signal to noise levels even in QRM. Guess time will tell on the
lower HF bands; seems to work as expected on the higher bands...
Hi all.
in PAX2 mode, responder on3.610 -- af freq of 1000hz (at least
until dinner is over...15 watts out to a 280 foot loop.
Starting at 1:30 UTC.
Bill, N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> -Thanks. Anyone beaconing tonight on bands
did not add confusion to this thread...
Be well,
Bill
N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bill McLaughlin" bmc@ wrote:> >> > > > I think (and that alone surprises
I think (and that alone surprises a few) that perhaps a "convention" rather than a "standard" is at question. I tend to use various combinations based on conditions in addition to those mentioned (often 4/500 and 8/250). I understand the difficulty of discerning what mode is in use, especially b
101 - 176 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
