Re: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website!

Dave AA6YQ wrote: > However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than > the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: I second the motion

Mark T Egan wrote: > Let's continue the experiment in the true spirit of HAM radio. > So far no one has tabled an actual piece of legal document stating the > legality of the mode. So continue to use the mode until otherwise told. > Mark (VK2KLJ) I'm with you Mark, Unfortunately I think that Jos

Re: [digitalradio] ROS update

KH6TY wrote: > Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally > described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams > below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moder

Re: [digitalradio] ROS operating frequencies on 20m

KH6TY wrote: > Julian, > > In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150. The current UK band plans can be found at http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/bandplans/ There's an online version and an Excel version that you can download. Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

Alan Barrow wrote: > And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the > net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children > at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of > amateur radio. And so it was in the UK over the endless deba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

pd4u_dares wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Toby Burnett" <..> But to > be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much > grief happening from this. >> Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than <..> >> It'd be nice to see

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

pd4u_dares wrote: > Though I have some doubts that there actually was a "debate". There have been > arguments as in all debates. But the figurative meaning of the "arguments" > was getting the overhand over the literal meaning of arguments in a > debate...HIHI Marc, on many occasions I have ha

Re: [digitalradio] Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

Toby Burnett wrote: > Wow, I hadn't been looking at these messages for a few days as they were > flooding my e-mail software faster than I could be bothered to read. >>From what I read here Andy, > that is really shocking, to actively place code into a software to disable > it from being used by

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

KH6TY wrote: > Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be "stupid". > Perhaps I misunderstood you. I misunderstood, when you were talking about VHF/UHF I read that as if you were suggesting that 1 baud was being given only a 20M frequency. Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

KH6TY wrote: > I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as > 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even > though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the > advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise

Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: > I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go > to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want > to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. > > What i cannot say is "The 20-meters band is only mine". That h

Re: [digitalradio] RS-ID & MSG-ID with SDR

sholtofish wrote: > I was wondering if anyone has used the MSG ID function in MultiPSK with an > SDR radio? I have a Perseus SDR and will update my copy of MultiPSK to have a go. Not having used MSG ID I may need a bit of help to set it up properly, if you have step by step instructions that wo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

sholtofish wrote: > With a 500Hz narrow filter certainly it would be far enough away but I > suspect that many of the monitoring stations might be using a wider > bandwidth, especially the automatic monitors. I know for a fact the FAROS > program requires a wider bandwidth than 500Hz and I reme

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

W2XJ wrote: > Skip > > An FCC staff member told an interested group at > Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have > the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for > themselves. That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the

Re: [digitalradio] NCDXF / ROS 14101QRM

Tony wrote: > Sholto, > > The silence is deafening... > > I'm sure there are some who may be unaware of the the NCDXF beacon network ( > www.ncdxf.org ) but there's no excuse for the deliberate QRM I've witnessed. > I'm very surprised... I, personally, don't use 14.101MHz and have been try

Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

KH6TY wrote: > Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it > does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC > will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be > used on HF and VHF. When they do, please let me know so that I

Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle

jose alberto nieto ros wrote: > KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? > > If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be > used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC > member, then we know what you are. Jose, I should give up on th

Re: [digitalradio] LPDA calculation software?

Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: > From: obrienaj > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 Time: 06:12:07 > >> Anyone have a link to the old LPDA DOS software? I found a couple of >> on-line calculators but they do not seem to allow for custom designs >> as much as the olf DOS application did. >> > > LPDA? I googled

Re: [digitalradio] New ROS Version 2.1.0 More Powerfull

I left my version 2.1.0 running last night and came back to find an error message "Runtime error '40006' - Wrong protocol or connection state for the requested transaction or request". The program had just decoded another station sending their email address. I took a screen grab before accepti

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John B. Stephensen wrote: > A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it > here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take > action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group > could led others into losing their lic

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

graham787 wrote: > Up to 1-9-1 but dont see sound card select ? is there a way yet ? No, not yet. You still have to set the sound card that you want to use as the Windows default sound card. Jose, the program owner and developer, has said that he intends to add the option to select the so

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John wrote: > So sorry Dave > > IN my country, it is still an expression of respect. Here we go with those > pesky language barriers again ... HiHi > > I will try to be more irreverent, condescending, or rude when addressing you > in the future . LOL > > John > KE5HAM Please do, I a

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

silversmj wrote: > I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and > interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little > much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. > > As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for > bureaucrats/authorit

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John wrote: > Hi HI Dave .. > > Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. > > As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either > way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law > against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case a

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John wrote: > This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show > good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John wrote: > Thanks Jose .. > > Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to > your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than > spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is > what is causing such an

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

John wrote: > Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is > spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Unfortunately John, you cannot so easily put the genie back into the bottle. This is why I think you now need your own Yahoo Group to debate these qu

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

KH6TY wrote: > Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and > therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC > itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will > not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is tha

Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?

John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations > the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say > the rest is history. > > John, W0JAB I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)? He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage- mode ranking

Andy obrien wrote: > It seems unfair, especially because of all the hard work put in to > developing it, but I do not see it as any better than many other modes... > nothing that says "gee...this is way better ". It is GOOD, and a mode to > add to our bag of tricks, but not a killer app. The soft

Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?

sholtofish wrote: > Hi Andy, I have a real G-TOR modem here so will test with you. I remember a friend of mine, back in the mid-1980s I think, running AMTOR. He graduated from RTTY and ran something like an FT-101ZD with a dual beam scope showing when the two tone signals were correctly spaced.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

KH6TY wrote: > Jose, > > I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US > hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and > flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and > can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS m

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

Glenn L. Roeser wrote: > I would have to agree with Andy's observation that the 1 baud mode is as good > as using JT65a > With the advantage of being able to send more text in one transmission. It is > a very slow throughput though. > Very 73, Glenn (WB2LMV) You have to be the patient sort, mayb

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?

KH6TY wrote: > 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture > the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as > expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. > As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

Toby Burnett wrote: > Dave, > > > > I knew about the logbook but not the cwid or /m /p etc hmm. I am getting > out of touch. > > The only time I can see not using a log book though is when /m but that's > just me. I love looking back over the past 6 years at old qso's and seeing > if I

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

Toby Burnett wrote: > Now Dave, > > C'mon I have the narrow cw filter on my 706mk II > > The on / off button is a challenge. Loljust messing with you now. No > offence. > > > > On a serious note though, even with my limited cw surely it is possible to > answer a QRL back in cw, pr

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A

Steve wrote: > The same is not true for CW ops if they have narrow filters. On all the rigs I've owned the filters are selectable. Are there any radios that have only very narrow CW filters, or are the 'on/off' buttons difficult to operate? ;-) Taking tongue out of cheek, as I do enjoy CW

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A

Steve wrote: > > I keep returning to DM780 as my main digi mode program. It does NOT support > Olivia 32/500 or 64/500. I'm running v5.0 beta. I think one of the older > releases had an option to set the tones/baud parameters separately. Version 4.1 of DM780 does allow these Olivia modes to be

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]

John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Ok so what if it is... > This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) > that this has happen. > > My question is where do they all come from? > Why would someone take the time to write the > program if it can't be used? Probably because, in other countrie

Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies

John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: >> Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in >> "protecting" some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, >> PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of >> spectrum.

Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan

k...@arrl.net wrote: > > > I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be > found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or > 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? > I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful to

[digitalradio] 10M open at the moment

Just worked ZS6WAB using JT65A on 10M. Am calling CQ using ROS on 28.300MHz if anyone is interested in trying out the mode on that band? Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS "bug"

Andy obrien wrote: > It seems that an "invalid procedure" error occurs if the the two email > addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the > ending ">" of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. > This is happened > at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a

[digitalradio] Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Version 1.6.5 crashing

Dave Ackrill wrote: > My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message > "Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument" Sorry, that should, of course, be version 1.6.5! I'm getting my program versions mixed up... Dave (G0DJA)

[digitalradio] Version 1.0.6 crashing

My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message "Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument" Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS

Toby Burnett wrote: > Eaxctly the same thing happened to me yesterday David. > > I couldn't see a way other than closing the program. > > I'm sure Jose will update it soon. > I'm glad it wasn't just me Toby. :-) I see ROS as a great opportunity to have an input to develop another great

[digitalradio] ROS QRV now on 3600kHz

I'm leaving ROS monitoring 3600kHz for a while. I did receive this when I sent a CQ, but no callsigns RX: <17:17 UTC> <-7.8 Hz.> My name is: BOB My QTH is: Durham,England, Locator: nz33 Later I received a reception report email that said --

Re: [digitalradio] ROS QRV now on 14101

Dave Ackrill wrote: > Gerry Lawlor wrote: > > >> Any further suggestions for activity hot spots for this interesting new >> mode? > > On the subject of people transmitting on top of each other, you should > take a look at JT65a on 20M at times. HI. > > H

Re: [digitalradio] ROS QRV now on 14101

Gerry Lawlor wrote: > Any further suggestions for activity hot spots for this interesting new > mode? On the subject of people transmitting on top of each other, you should take a look at JT65a on 20M at times. HI. How about using the WARC bands? Many are under used, even when they are 'op

Re: [digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio

Dave Ackrill wrote: > Beware! These is was recorded straight from ROS to Spectrum Labs using > VAC, so they are very loud. Sorry, I changed what I was going to write as I realised I had not ticked the 'notify people' button for the 16 bit file. What that should say is &qu

Re: [digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio

digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Hello, > > This email message is a notification to let you know that > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio > group. > > File: /ROS Audio/ROS 1baud.WAV > Uploaded by : g0dja > Description : ROS 1 Baud > Beware!

Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file

Dave Ackrill wrote: > W3NJ wrote: >> Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode. >> >> Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files >> section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good >> to know what I&#

Re: [digitalradio] Ros wav file

W3NJ wrote: > Seeing lots of interest on the new ROS mode. > > Would someone be willing to post a HF capture in a wav file in the files > section or point to one online? I'm tuning around 14.101 and would be good to > know what I'm listening for. Haven't heard anything "unique" at this point, >

[digitalradio] ROS crashed

I managed to crash the program today. During a contact the program swapped over from 16 baud to 1 baud and clicking the baud button would not change the mode back to 16 baud. Then I kept getting an error message saying "Tocando Limite Superior". When I clicked on 'OK' it just came back again.

Re: [digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS

I've thought of another feature to add to the list. A button that stops transmission during a transmission period. The reason is I just came back to the PC and my 16 Baud 'CQ' call was loaded ready to go. However, whilst I was away, someone must have transmitted in 1 baud mode and, because my

Re: [digitalradio] ROS "M"

DAVID wrote: > WHEN I USE THE CQ MACRO THE OUTPUT HAS THE LETTER "M" IN FRONT OF MY CALL > SIGN I CAN REMOVE IT BEFORE I TRANSMIT AND IT RUNS > WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE "M" That doesn't happen here. This is my CQ call TX <14:44 UTC> CQ CQ CQ de G0DJA G0DJA G0DJA pse k Are you su

Re: [digitalradio] ROS New Mode

If anyone receives the automated message from my reception of their signal and wonders about the fact that my CPU is reported as being 100%, it's because I have a program called Prime95 running in the background that is looking for mersenne primes and it uses any spare CPU resource that other p

Re: AW: [digitalradio] A new Mode !

Siegfried Jackstien wrote: > Okay guys in the group …. A new star is born :-D > > Now let´s make some on air tests … and … what about a simulation on a rf > path simulator??? The 1st part is starting to happen, I've not got the capability to do the second, but I'm sure there are people who can.

[digitalradio] Request for future development of ROS

One thing I would like is an automatic 'Stop' at the end of CQ and 'My email'. I just managed to keep transmitting for a while after my CQ ended as I got distracted by my partner, as she wanted to talk to me, and I didn't click on the 'Stop' button. Dave (G0DJA)

Re: R: [digitalradio] QRV 18105 ROS 1 and 16

iw1awh wrote: > Hi DAVE & group ! > > Nice to work you this morning with this mode. > I got your email too. > Unfortunately there is too much qrm on 20m due to many rtty stations. Thanks for the contact Rick, Yes, I struggled with the RTTY as well but the move to 14.101 may help a bit. I just

Re: [digitalradio] QRV 18105 ROS 1 and 16

Andy obrien wrote: > I will move to 17M and listen on 18105 OK Andy, will do the same. Just worked IW1AWH/2 and received confirmation email, so I hope he will receive mine as well. I presume 16 baud? 1 baud is, not surprisingly, quite slow and I have not got the hang of adding to/from callsig

Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16

Andy obrien wrote: > I missed their rumblings, but did not know anyone was using ROS near the > JT65A campsite, I will be tuned to 14080 until Man U and Everton match > starts. It's the usual doom and gloom and rumblings about the frequency chosen. Some people see any new thing as a potential t

Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16

Andy obrien wrote: > My station is listening for ROS signals on 14080 USB (dial). Seems to be too much RTTY about at the moment as well. One of the WARC bands might be quieter? Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16

Andy obrien wrote: > My station is listening for ROS signals on 14080 USB (dial). Oh, and I meant to ask if you were using 16 or 1 baud Andy? Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] QRV 14080 ROS 1 and 16

Andy obrien wrote: > My station is listening for ROS signals on 14080 USB (dial). I am > interested in how ROS does across the Atlantic around 10-1300 UTC when > 20M is usually marginal. Hopefully I will receive some European or > African signals. I'll swap back to 20M Andy, been on 18MHz and 24

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

Dave wrote: > Jose (and all), > > My two-cents worth: > > Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS > is not. > > It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread > Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

KH6TY wrote: > Jose, > > We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, > but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are > valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out. I hate to say this, as I'm sure I'll be called all

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

Claudio wrote: > HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply. > > claudio-LU2VC Sorry Claudio, things seemed to be getting quiet and I went to 30M using JT65a. Dave (G0DJA) Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/s

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

KH6TY wrote: > All, > > If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier > suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed > carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping > is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

Dave Ackrill wrote: > I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect > as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of > the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia.

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

Andy obrien wrote: > Joe, > N8FQ... > > http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html > >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS New Mode

Gary wrote: > How do I select a specific sound card? Some of us are using external USB > sound card devices for digital operation. At present it uses the Windows default soundcard, although this may change in future releases. So, you will need to open Control Panel, then open Sounds and Audio

Re: [digitalradio] Go here to download ROS

Andy obrien wrote: > http://*rosmodem*.wordpress.com/ > That URL will only work if you take out the '*' of course, as in http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

Toby Burnett wrote: > Dave, your the only other G station I see testing this. What are your > thoughts on the 500hz digi mode band allocation and this type of signal, > certainly blasted by rtty but cant help think we are doing the same? Hi Toby, I have to say that, given the 'width' of the tra

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

Just got back in and found the following lines on the screen... RX: <13:41 UTC> <-46.9 Hz.> iQ CQ CQ de YO4Ctp³;O4CVV YO4CVV pse k RX: <13:50 UTC> <-7.8 Hz.> CQ CQ CQ de WB2LMV WB2LMV WB2LMV pse k So the RX side seems to be working. I'll see if I can put out a few CQs of my own later. It l

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

No callsign yet, but decoded the following... RX: <13:12 UTC> <0.0 Hz.> My name is: VICEÀhE . My QTH is: nort of Spain OK GLENN La Coruña, Locator: in52ps So whoever it was was in IN52ps. Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

nietorosdj wrote: > Hi, > > With the New Version 1.6.2 you can select from COM1 to COM6. > > For the future versions, i will make soundcard selectable, no problem. > > Thank you all for testing ROS. I hear your suggestions. Thank you for that update, will save me going through my junk box look

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

Giedrius, LY2CG wrote: > Some minutes before I had a QSO in ROS mode on 14080 with Dan, YO4CVV... > Giedrius, LY2CG I'm listening at the moment but there's a loud RTTY signal just above 14.080MHz. Until I find my old home made opto coupler/audio isolator, I wont be able to transmit as I cant se

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

nietorosdj wrote: > Hi, tomorrow i will change PTT from COM1 to COM6, but i dont know if it'll > run. Does any one know if it is possible to make the soundcard selectable and increase the options for the COM port? I use a US Interface Navigator, and computer control is on COM3 with PTT on COM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: A new Mode !

David Boniface wrote: > I have installed the program after using WinRAR to open the archive. However, > when trying to run the program I get this error message > > Run-time error '53': > File not found: > Switch(16638-29712).ocx I got the Runtime error until I extracted the files to their own fo

Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode !

Hurray! Got it working this morning. :-) Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

Andy obrien wrote: > The description says it uses spread-spectrun How wide is 'wide'? Not got to grips with this as yet, obviously. Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA?

Andy obrien wrote: > Anyone know if this mode is legal in the USA. ? Why would it not be Andy? If it is Audio Phase Shift Keying then it's no different to PSK31, if it is more like WSJT then as long as JT65A (and all the other WSJT modes) are legal, then what makes this one any different? I kn

Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode ! ROS QRV

Andy obrien wrote: > I'M QRV now with this software... will look for you Dave. I failed at the 1st Fence Andy. Downloaded something to be able to cope with RAR files and I'm getting a runtime error when I try to run the executable. So, I obviously need to sort out some problem with running the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Introduction and question

sholtofish wrote: > Following on from this thread and reading some of Peter's comments makes me > wonder what method is best for 300 baud HF packet with a TNC? FSK or AFSK? Or > won't it make any difference? Will FSK result in a wider bandwidth? The main advantage of FSK, so I am led to believe,

Re: [digitalradio] A new Mode !

Andy obrien wrote: > http://rosmodem.wordpress.com is announcing a new mode, weak signal. > Web site is down currently ...anyone tried the new mode ? You know me Andy, always a sucker for something different to try. ;-) Just downloaded the file and instructions and wondering where to start tryi

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions

graham787 wrote: > Ok John ... EU 500 Khz allocation that is (appart from SM) most seem to > have a 100 Hz tx limit the Uk has 501>504 with no defined BW appart from > the expected 'dont interfear'and no talking .. SM allows ssb as well The idea of 'Don't interfere' is understand

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Performance of modes: weak signal and poor ionospheric conditions

graham787 wrote: > > .. but most of the EU stations are limited to 100 Hz b/w .. > Sorry, I may be missing something here, but which EU stations are limited to 100Hz bandwidth, and why? Dave (G0DJA)

Re: [digitalradio] Super narrow filter: PSK31 with HB9DRV SDR-RADIO

Andy obrien wrote: > So, tonight, I decided to see how that would > be addressed with my new SDR-IQ receiver and Simon Brown's preview > release of SDR-Radio . I was very happy to be easily able to dial in > narrow filters, til my heart's content. Have a go with Winrad or WinradHD as well Andy, y

Re: [digitalradio] off topic, 3819Khz

Steinar Aanesland wrote: > It turned out to be a real hate network. It vomit up extremely bad > things about the Obama administration. I am not going into the politics > here, but is this type of network allowed in US on the HAM band ??? There is a widely held misconception about what is, and is

Re: [digitalradio] Initial thoughts on SDR

Andy obrien wrote: > I have not had an SDR even 24 hours yet, but here are some random > initial thoughts. Hi Andy, Welcome to the wonderful, strange, and slightly surreal of radio reception that is 'SDR' radio. The basics are all the same, as in 'you canna change the laws of physics, Jim' bu

Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes with an SDR ?

Andy obrien wrote: > I assume there are many others with SDR transceivers or > receivers here in this group, and wonder how you are using it for > digital modes ? There's two main ways, Andy, The simplest is to take the audio output from the soundcard and feed it to another soundcard with an aud

Re: [digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms

Simon HB9DRV wrote: > I could measure it - but I'm sure it's < 20 watts. > > > > Simon Brown > > http://sdr-radio.com > > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of Per > > > > Indeed, that was one of the reasons I listed when getting an

Re: [digitalradio] Olivia Contacts on 40m ? ! ?

Simon HB9DRV wrote: > Pawel Jalocha's daughter. > > Simon Brown > http://sdr-radio.com > > >> -Original Message- >> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rotten Robbie >> >> Who is OLIVIA? And it's the middle name of my grand-daughter.

Re: [digitalradio] Which Digi Program ??

Andy obrien wrote: > I will jump in on this topic.. with the TS-440. Using the TS440, one can > use the RCA Phono jacks on the back of the TS440 labelled AFSK In and AFSK > out.Then use vox to key the rig via software like DM780 , Fldigi. or > Multipsk. Using this method with plain audio cabl

Re: [digitalradio] Clublogs... see standings versus others

Dave AA6YQ wrote: > There have been several reports on the DXLab reflector that Club Log ignores > the DXCC entity uploaded with each QSO, attempts to determine the DXCC > entity itself from its database, and sometimes gets it wrong. From what I can make out, a message on the Club Log forum will

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NEW : Digitalradio 2010 Challenge via Clublogs

John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > I guess I really need to take a good look at some of the newer > sound card modes. I just got so turned off by that "do nothing" > PSK 31. The various WSJT modes can be quite entertaining, especially if you are into VHF and UHF and JT65 is gaining support on HF as we

Re: [digitalradio] Re: NEW : Digitalradio 2010 Challenge via Clublogs

obrienaj wrote: > This shows I am ranked number 1 among digitalradio ! That is because I am > the only digitalradio member to participate. > You are still at the top of the league Andy... RankCallsign160 80 60 40 30 20 17 15 12 10

Re: [digitalradio] G3OBU's antenna with digital mode DX

obrienaj wrote: > John, > > I read with interest your web pages describing your vertical antenna. Please > keep us informed on how it does on digital mode DX. I had to look twice at > what I thought was a balun at first. I realise that we will probably be off topic, but a 9:1 UnUn is often

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Grid Locator

kr5tham wrote: > Thanks Dave, I am using HRD. From that I presume you mean DM780? HRD is the computer control program, DM780 handles the digital modes TX/RX side... If you go to Program Options and click on the QSO:Receive tab there is an option called "Display Distance and Bearing from my lo

  1   2   >