n the legal framework of our country's
rules. Hopefully this will be true for other radio amateurs from their
respective countries.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
>> "is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan,
>> when FCC regulations allow them
14094, 18104, 21094, seem
to be good choices?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Chuck,
Enough of your nonsense! Those of us who want integrity in the amateur
bands are doing our best. You clearly have guilt in what you are doing
and you fear that it will be an illegal activity. Your activities may be
interpreted as perfectly legal ... but they may not. You will just have
lients
that "no one really knows." It is not possible to just "know" the
interpretation of every rule as written in a regulation. You simply must
contact those who do the interpretation when you are in doubt.
Do you have a better understanding of why this is done in this manner?
odes to request an interpretation and if the finding was not to
their satisfaction, to petition the FCC for a rule change. They did not
do this and now some of us have had to take action and do it in their
place.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Yes, I received a private em
nd succeed with new users.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Alan Barrow wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
>> There is minimal ALE activity here in North America.
>>
> Ahh, the personal dispute with ALE again. OK, I'll bite.
>
> You could also say there is a minimal of pskmail, nbems,
emergency messaging, but also for day to day
chat use and maybe even a BBS storage and retrieval. (Just thinking out
loud here:)
Perhaps it will add new modes or even the 8FSK50 FAE 400 mode which
works so well under fairly difficult conditions but still has modest
throughput.
73,
Rick, KV9U
then, other modes are so much better now, particularly the ALE400
mode or better yet the 8FSK50 FAE 400 ARQ mode.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
> Rick,
> Well, its just another mode, to add to the
> pile! You get RPR with the SCS DSP
> Tracker, APRS is also using it and t
ially the Pactor 2 mode which is of a similar bandwidth and throughput?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I found the item (below) on the SCS web site. Anyone use this "new
> class" of packet ?
>
>
> Robust Packet-Radio (RPR)
>
> Up to now Packet-
no help. Probably because no one knows the answer. On the other
hand, there have been many times that I have asked a question and
received help.
What specific digital information were you looking for that you can not
find elsewhere?
73,
Rick, KV9U
n4ijs wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am ne
supporters the next time make
absurd claims that someone "really, really, dislike ALE, " when you know
that is not remotely accurate. Particularly when you know I have
strongly supported ALE 400/FAE 400 and have probably sung the praises of
FAE 400 more than any other poster to this fo
ency support, also
has a fabulous location and long term emergency back up power.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Good posting. I don't know how many times to say it, I'm not against
> volunteering and using ham radio for emergency communications.
> Howev
e, is that just because you don't totally
agree with each other is no reason to claim that this forum is
"anti-emcomm." Many of us have this as one of our primary interests and
some cases may have been involved in this activity with CAP, MARS, and
ham radio, for many decades.
73
s and attack those who do, you
ought not be wondering why you do not get the support you are looking for.
73,
Rick, KV9U
>> Andy wrote:
>>
>> Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is
>> underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appe
port because they are so much
in demand by local government due to their expertise.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> FYI, my hospital OWNS the ham equipment deployed at the facility.
> ARES/RACES provides operators but we retain ownership of anything we
> paid for out of
So you think we have problems with PacTor 3 in the Ham bands.watch this
video before it's removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
de Rick W3BI
- Original Message
From: jgorman01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, Januar
s to compare it to resonant dipoles on the bands
of choice and see if it can compete. Would be helpful if you could get
back to us with your experiences:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I don't have any antenna modeling software and probably would not know
> how to achi
one else tried these things? Comments, pro or con?
73,
Rick, KV9U
e or
who it is supposed to go to?
73,
Rick, KV9U
wished they had installed time bombs in the software so
it would have become inoperative. Needless to say, some of us do not
support that kind of viewpoint.
73,
Rick, KV9U
David wrote:
> .i believe these PMBO's use Pactor 3 which is a commercial program
> of SCS in Germany.i a
,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
> Andy,
>
> It is an honest attempt to work together to resolve a continuing problem.
> WG3G has been off the air for months, I believe, so the question is why is
> his transmitter automatically trying to connect with WG3G. I'll bet he
> doesn'
.
Otherwise, if the station is over 500 Hz, or if the station is operated
machine to machine, such as the old Winlink network, current NTS/D
network, packet networks, etc., (even if they were 500 Hz and under,
they must operate inside limited frequency segments on the HF bands.
73,
Rick, KV9U
e FCC does respond in a way that some feel is not a proper
interpretation, or they are opposed to the rule, they can then petition
the government for a change. That is the democratic process and it
should be strongly supported by hams who want to do the right thing.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Don wrote:
John,
The FCC Part 97 has no such reference. Could you please explain why you
are making such as statement?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> It is one thing to be " automatic " and " attended "
> and another to be " automatic " and "
and call it a
test transmission since only a few world wide coordinated beacons are
legal below 28 MHz here in the U.S. They obviously can never leave the
station unattended without a rules violation, unless we hear differently
from the FCC.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
>
Hz from
the center frequencies would overlap with a 250 baud rate.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rein Couperus wrote:
> Being so close to another net frequency is not going to work unless you
> provide a proper filter.
>
> Using flarq efficiently you need to
> * use a 500 Hz filter or b
? I wonder if the OO program has been involved with any of these
violations?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Russell Blair wrote:
> My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does
> it have to be unmaned to be a beacon.
> For me my beacon has not be on the air without being
> here at the P
card, for listening to MP3's, etc., but
it seemed the only practical solution for now. At least I can key up
the old rig with VOX, via rear panel connectors, which is something I
can not do with my ICOM 756 Pro 2.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I think it might mak
has said, I am the only person experiencing this problem
of no waterfall on receive and yet the transmit, including the waterfall
pattern during transmit, works fine.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
>> When you loaded your software, did you get a wa
: MSCOMCTL.OCX.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> It makes sense to me.
>
> If you have TWO soundcards set in your PC, you need to tell VBdigi the
> soundcard settings you want to use. I have the same setting as you, I
> have an internal motherboard based souncard and a Crea
OX to key the Kenwood TS-440 via the AFSK
RCA jacks after I re-discovered (have not used this for digital for
many, many years) that it can not be driven adequately via the Line out
from the sound card when using the 13 pin DIN plug.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
> Rick, do you receive PSK31
with Multipsk but oddly, when I run the
vbdigi program, I can key the rig via VOX operation and send out what
seems like a reasonably good signal, but I can not detect anything on
the waterfall. It just remains blank no matter what. I must be doing
something wrong. Suggestions?
73,
Rick, KV9U
ce in "They Shoot
Horses, Don't They?". Not a recommended movie for an uplifting time
however.
I like movies with reasonably happy endings. Maybe something like "The
Game."
73,
Rick, KV9U
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> 15 QSOs in about 2 hours of operating, just under half
ngs are a bit reversed, but as I mentioned
earlier, the programmers have mostly standardized on leaving the rig on
USB if using AFSK and they make the tones work correctly as if you were
actually transmitting FSK with mark high.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> For RTTY whoever use
is that the spacing of the tones (called the shift) is the same for
the equipment or program. That is normally 170 Hz for RTTY but differs
for those modes that have a shift. Some TU's (Terminal Unit hardware
boxes) may use 200 Hz which although close, is not optimum.
73,
Rick, KV9U
out quite accurately with their
timebase and this seems to enhance modes that require the best possible
timing.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
> At 12:35 AM 1/01/2008, Rick wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Jack,
>>
>> In the later part of the message I mentioned that with th
operators
except for the Winlink system which used both Clover II and Pactor.
73,
Rick, KV9U
F.R. Ashley wrote:
>
> I've often wondered the same thing. I got on Amtor back in the Commodore 64
> days and later into Pactor with my first PC. I got rid of my PK-232MBX but
> still
I think I have the most current version. It apparently does not work
like say PSK31 as it did not seem to remove the error, but from now one
I will backspace and just assumer that it is being "taken care of," HIHI
73,
Rick, KV9U
f6cte wrote:
> Rick,
>
> RR for all the e
into consideration
(sensitivity, ease of use, ability to work under difficult conditons, etc.).
73,
Rick, KV9U
Patricia (Elaine) Gibbons wrote:
> *//*
> */I prefer live chat via Pactor-I .. /*
> *//*
> */The problem is the decline in general usage by /*
> */most radio amateurs wh
need 1000 or even 2000+ Hz.
It would be very much appreciated to hear other comments of those who
are using FAE 400, both pro and con.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Jack Chomley wrote:
>
>
> Rick, have you ever used Domino Ex? Just wondering how FAE 400
> compares with it?
>
> 73s
>
> Jack VK4JRC
>
>
584
7038
10136
14094
18104
21094
73,
Rick, KV9U
suspect that it will be very,
very rare to work another station on these modes. As we increase the
number of modes, with about the same number of operators, there are
fewer and fewer on a given mode at a given time (with the majority still
staying on PSK31).
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
that you just have to have it:)
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> For PSKmail information you can check
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good
> idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are
> involved with it. Per PA0R
y one
German company, SCS Corp." Source: Wikipedia, which may not always be
definitive, can be relatively non-biased.
Here is hoping for a wonderful new year for all.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>> Well Roger,
>>
>> Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they
anyway.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>
> Happy New Year to all!
>
> Just before Christmas, Sholto and I were busy with ALE400 on 10136.0 ,
> with good results most days between the west coast and
>
> Central Canada, as well as into the US mid-west. Haven’t been
&g
d if someone did open
it up for cross platform use.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1
> definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol.
> There is no PACTOR without memor
, our chats would have been fine as
signals were clearly copyable by ear.
From all information, including from Bill Henry at HAL, SCS would not
license Pactor modes.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Of course they licensed PACTOR 1 and Kantronics, MFJ, AEA and others
> made a mes
s.
Your experience with PSKmail is similar to mine. Many, many, hours spent
trying to get it to work with no practical results. Even when I have a
Linux system that I can dual boot into for experimenting.
73,
Rick, KV9U
vk4jrc wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> I just hope this FCC thing does not ma
ows operators to handle traffic using PSK modes. We have
heard that an interoperable system will be designed for cross platform
use on MS Windows and will soon be in beta! I know that I am looking
foward to this.
73,
Rick, KV9U
vk4jrc wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have just signed
correction beacons. The surveyor was not
familiar with these and I am not clear how or when they are used with
GPS. Maybe some of you know about this?
Does anyone know about something newer that will impact GPS?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> Your GPS signal just got stronger
>
>
Hmmm. The silent majority methinks maybe.
- Original Message
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:31:19 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RM-11392
Hi Howard,
You may be right. I hope you are. But when you look at the
re in Region 2:
3589
7065
10136.5
10141.5 (this frequency seems to compete with Pactor in my area so maybe
10136.5 is better?)
14094 (this frequency is very close to an FBB packet activity but may be
far enough to be OK)
73,
Rick, KV9U
nd
plan recommendation of 2700 Hz with eSSB, but the rules do not exactly
specify a bandwidth and unless the FCC issues an interpretation on what
that really means, or accepts the band plan, there is some leeway since
DSB phone is considered acceptable in some areas of the bandplan.
73,
Ri
. Assuming that digital modes continue to
stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this
increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of
intentional interference.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
> Rick,
>
> RM-11392 is a most excellent e
for most modes and will likely
have the most isolation of anything available. There are a few other
interfaces, but they either have worse isolation (West Mountain Rig
Blasters) or cost more than I am willing to pay, (Navigator, etc.).
73,
Rick, KV9U
not adapt downward. By combining some of the
these modes, we could get some impressive results.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
>
> As I have stated before what is needed within the ARS is segregation
> of narrow vs. wide digital modes. The approach taken should be to
> sp
band below 3600. Same
below 7040, 14100, etc.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Steve Hajducek wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> You really need to view RM-11392 for what it is, the entire thrust of
> RM-11392 in my opinion is an effort at protectionism ( its an old
> story that dates back ages ) of obsolete
multimode,
multiband, etc.
So I am fairly optimistic that we will do fairly well with new HF hams
here in the U.S. In other parts of the world we may see increased
numbers as the standard of living improves in developing countries.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
> <<<
extreme minority.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Miller wrote:
> At 10:53 AM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>> I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would
>> many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is
>> a major issue with th
mething is new, does not always make it better than the existing
technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
>
> I agree; a little unnecessary drama. I think we can stay rational and
> have an educational discussion. I’ve learned from this debate and this
> is the m
done without hurting technological
advancements. Remember that the wide modes still operate in the
voice/fax/image portions of the bands and can be quite wide unless the
FCC forces us to move to to the 2700 Hz bandwidth band plan of IARU in
Region 2 and other parts of the world.
73,
Rick, KV9U
not
being truthful.
73,
Rick, KV9U
expeditionradio 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 resp
I wish that Mark, N5RFX, would put this on QRZ.com since there would
many hams who might comment pro or con and the FCC would realize this is
a major issue with the digital amateur community.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Joe Veldhuis wrote:
> I just filed a comment supporting it, confirmat
bly a more appropriate use and other
wide modes can also operate there for the purpose of sending image/fax.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Mark Miller wrote:
>
> RM11392 asks the FCC to re-establish the narrowband nature of the
> RTTY/Data subbands in the 80 through 10-meter bands. Emissions have
&g
most ham use, although if needed, I could switch to
Kubuntu.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Darrel Smith wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I am using Outpost Packet Manager <http://www.outpostpm.org/> with AGW
> for all my packet and winlink messaging. I don't know anything about
> windoze OS b
e for the
emergency communication program that is currently being used on Linux.
Are you personally involved in that project as you were with the Linux
version?
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
> Rick, I prefaced my comment with " It is my belief that if "voice" of the
> same band
constantly vary, the best regulations are the minimum necessary
to make more efficient use of the bands for the maximum number of shared
resource users.
73,
Rick, KV9U
kh6ty wrote:
> It is my belief that if "voice" of the same bandwidth were allowed everwhere
> "data" is
that there is a small patch in Alaska that is 1 MHz so you could
not use any of the HF or MF ham bands for NVIS right now. That is a
clear case for why VHF modes can be a great help.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Walt DuBose wrote:
> Andy,
>
> A couple of years ago a friend and I played around on 30M w
t has been mostly digital data
watering holes.
For daytime range, the 30 meter band goes farther than 40 meters, so
1000 mile contacts are quite reasonable.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I was reading the 30M Digital Group web page (
> http://www.30meterdigital.org/
, and 10 meter operation on FM and SSB as well as
horizontal vs vertical polarization, but did not come up with much. This
may be one of those things we will have to do revisit ourselves.
Recently, some anecdotal experiences were shared on another group that I
found helpful.
73,
Rick, KV9U
level of operations.
Having much lower powered computers, which we are seeing happen, may
help, although they may not run Windows OS, particularly Vista, which
requires too much computing power. That will be a challenge to solve.
73,
Rick, KV9U
HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency
e stations
using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with
extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area.
73,
Rick, KV9U
W2XJ wrote:
> I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is
> vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency
moderate range video transmissions,
with serious gain antennas on each end, but since video does require
quite a lot of speed to get much data through, it seems that this will
be limited to special applications.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John B. Stephensen wrote:
> You should be able to use Ethernet vi
used, ALE/FAE 400 seems the best mix of robustness and error free
copy with a one to one connection.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> 12/13 04:12 DominoEx is a very good mode - shame more do not use it
> 12/13 04:12 sure - listened for you on7.037 but nothing
> heard...eith
send, or when it needs to retry. I have always found it really neat
how fast the other station can automatically respond to a burst of data.
Very much the same thing as when we tested the high speed (~ 1000 wpm)
SCAMP mode a few years ago.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Wher
lmost exactly the way Clover II worked in the past except it is free!
And it seems to work better than Clover II.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Bradley wrote:
>
> I agree that we have all had a great time fooling with the mode, and
> VE5TLW and myself have been using
>
> ALE400, together
quency" is the same as the dial frequency.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> I think many people have had time to experiment with ALE 400 in ARQ
> mode and the feedback about the throughput has been very good. Most
> people have connected via arranged contacts and th
. Can anyone get on HF and
try this out? I am QRV on most bands between 160 to 6 meters with modest
antennas.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Pentium (~ 333 or so).
Linux has some software not available on the MS Windows OS that would be
much more valuable in my view, than MT-63 which other than used in MARS,
is almost never used anymore on typical ham contacts. Olivia does have
some value though.
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED
U Emission Classifications:
A1C = DSB AM digital FAX with no subcarrier
F1C = FM FAX digital modulation with no subcarrier (MFSK)
F2C = FM digital FAX with subcarrier
J2C = digital SSB FAX with subcarrier
J3C = analog SSB FAX
73,
Rick, KV9U
Sholto Fisher wrote:
> Hoping someone knows this:
>
if I should ever become
severely impaired with multiple sensory loss but still able to use morse
code, I might be able to communicate with a few people directly, and
with others through technology.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> In reviewing the background of some new members
t hams are on 2
meters. In other words, it is difficult to find other than a niche market.
One thing that might make VHF/UHF D-Star more useful would be to move to
a newer design that can use the full 4800 bps for voice when you want
voice, and also use this same speed for data, when you want d
r if this
type of mode has potential for ARQ?
73,
Rick, KV9U
Simon Brown wrote:
> Has PSK63F / PSK125F shown advantages in real life? I am very tempted
> to code it up in my PSK engine (which is based on fldigi / gMFSK).
>
> Any comments really appreciated before I start pounding
is is one of the reasons that I believe that open source software is a
better fit for amateur radio since others could have gone on and
developed it further since it was such an awesum program that worked so
well with good signals and had other superior attributes for HF or VHF.
73,
Rick,
delivery. You would need to be very
careful that such messages were confirmed received if they were
emergency/priority time value traffic.
Do you know of emergency plans in place now that would actually
recommend putting messages on a server to be picked up that the
convenience of an IC?
73,
Rick
ease the number of digital operators?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> At 08:57 PM 11/29/2007, you wrote in part:
>
>> Personally, I'd love to have this happen and I'd also be happy to
>> assist in the technical details. I do have the skills.
>>
rmer packet switched networks that were taken down as they became unused.
73,
Rick, KV9U
keyesbob wrote:
> Wow...this is so very disheartening. Disgusting, even. It makes me
> want to crawl back into the corner and ignore packet, like so many
> other hams seem to have done. But I can&#
Nominations from KV9U for some of the entries:
Best "new" Digital Mode :
Without question ... Multipsk's FAE 400, the breakthrough ARQ soundcard mode
that is the first that can work deep into the noise, with the full ASCII
character set, and has asynchronous memory ARQ.
Best New Software:
is not possible to use for transmitting.
Receiving seems OK.
The other problem is not getting PTT to work via the CI-V port on my ICOM.
For now, I will go back to the Linuxham and Linuxhams groups and see if
anyone else is having similar experiences.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Roy G. Jackson wrote
many of
the hams that tend to volunteer for emergency communications, do not
work on HF, new digital VHF capabilities might be helpful in some
situations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
keyesbob wrote:
>
> I think that this really depends on the way VHF/UHF digital radio is
> envisioned. It's rea
d get them to work
OK. But this is such a non starter for most people.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Howard Brown wrote:
> Rick, this may have changed but my version of FLDIGI
> was very simple (1.37).
>
> I downloaded it to my preferred download directory
> which is /home/hb/downloads/fldi
find anyone to
communicate on a given mode, except for the most popular. And since they
can not intercommunicate, they tend to be in independent silos. I am not
saying that is all bad, but it does make it difficult to reach a
critical mass for any one mode, whether it be voice, text, or image.
digi in the
usr/bin folder either. I have downloaded the .tgz compressed binaries
several times from W1HKJ so it is not likely to be corrupted files.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Darrel Smith wrote:
> Rick
> I have downloaded and installed all those apps on my kubuntu 7.10 with
> little problem.
o?
I might mention that I was able to use Synaptic to retrieve the binaries
for gMFSK and XLog and they both installed OK and it put the apps in a
menu called "Other." Oddly, when I tried to do the same with the older
version of fldigi, v. 1.33 (new is 2.04) it did not work either.
. Believe it or not, we
did this without sounding and scanning for each other across the HF
spectrum with ALE and it only took a few seconds to connect.
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> It is now safe to turn you rig back on if your not a contester.
> The CW contest is now over.
the
first of the year?
73,
Rick, KV9U
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Roger your beating a very dead horse.
> In just 41 days all the wide robots will have to be in
> their own sub-band.
>
> I sure hope this anti-wide stuff will stop soon.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
>
&
fically designed for contesting? There does not seem to be much
momentum in their direction.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Barry Murrell wrote:
>
> I tried some PSK63 yesterday, and I am not impressed! I am an avid
> RTTY contester, and in my opinion PSK63 will NEVER replace RTTY!
>
> Bear
ropriate response you
would prefer to see.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rud Merriam wrote:
> How much skill is needed to recognize the few symbols transferred during a
> contest exchange? Does that translate to general transfer of information?
>
> Contesters specialize and tune their equip
in emergency communications tend
to be newer Technician class licensees with very limited experience. In
fact, this is so pronounced that leadership here in our Section tends to
focus on technologies that dovetail with those kinds of limitations.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rud Merriam wrote:
> This
This is likely a mode developed for moonbounce/meteor scatter that some
have been using on HF to see another hams callsigns and signal report
with weak signals. JT-65A perhaps?
73,
Rick, KV9U
grwescom wrote:
> OK, I give up. What is the slow MFSK I am seeing on 20 meters lately.
&
401 - 500 of 826 matches
Mail list logo
