A couple of comments. The FCC must consider more than just how fast
data can be sent. It must also consider how to maximize the numbers
of users that can access a finite spectrum without waiting.
Your point assumes there is queuing system of some sort for that 3 kHz
of spectrum and that
Pactor 3 has disadvantages, not the least being that it will make a
connection in 500 Hz, which may be clear, but then abruptly expands to
2.5 kHz regardless of whether adjacent frequencies are occupied or
not. And worse, it does this when signals are good. Normally, hams
are supposed to use the
In a sense, the FCC has hoist digital users on their own petard. With
PSK-31 being so popular, the need for lots of space is questionable.
Likewise, the competition for space is not as great with the most
narrow modes, i.e. less qrm. In order to show the FCC more space is
needed, digital folks
I think Ed made my argument much more succintly than I did. The only
thing he forgot was how any whitespace/holes in frequency or time
would be synchronized at both ends of a conversation.
It does no good to sync your transmissions to these whitespace/holes
in your end when the person on the
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain. As I said in a
previous post, it is an indicator of the reduction in gain
to make people want it, not bemoan the fact that
you built it but they won't come!
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert McGwier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF
, 105 MHz
A/D converters, and generates output signals with two 16-bit, 500 MHz
D/A converters. See it at
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3911104852.html
It only retails for $85,000!
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
I
The general manager of that organization was not wrong! This
discussion is mixing apples and oranges as to what BPL interferes
with. Digital techniques can not eliminate the interference at RF
that BPL introduces. As I have mentioned before, don't forget the
RADIO side of things when advocating
Bonnie,
Your remarks about this person, and I don't know who it is, are not
very convincing. Your award winning design apparently had to do with
co-channel interference. This is not the same as on-channel
interference that increases the total noise level, which is what BPL
interference is.
I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive. In other words,
the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
signal do not add together. You can only discern the strongest
signal. An example is, that
Your basically talking about signals you can hear well, i.e. well
beyond the minimum signal to noise ratio's. Also with analog SSB
voice the crest factor is very large. That is, one person is just
speaking a hard consonant while anothers voice is just fading to
nothing. Therefore the power
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
Bonnie,
Your remarks about this person, and I don't know who it is, are not
very convincing. Your award winning design apparently had to do with
co-channel interference
. When I switch the
generator on, the S-meter moves not a bit. You would expect it to
jump considerably if the RF signals were being added together.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
I may be wrong but I beleive your
this into account.
If one of the objectives is wide acceptance, then one must take into
account the capabilities of a wide number of amateur radios.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Op amps may very
While they may be sinusoids, they are not steady state. The tones
are switched and their phase may change depending on the modulation.
An example would be the first cycle of a sinusoid applied to
capacitor or an inductor. You will get some distortion. How much
is the question. Phase
Don't jump to conclusions. It may not be your filter. It maybe
your audio stages. Typically, amp bandwidth is specified at the -3
dB points. If you have a preamp and one audio stage, then tones at
the extremes, say 300 and 3000 would be 3 dB down from one at the
center of the passband in
Your comments are excellent. The only nitpick I would have is that
I (and I emphasize the word I) don't know that the average ham
tranceiver can even meet the constraints imposed by the ionsphere.
This means less than optimum operation regardless of conditions.
I know from experience
The point is that 3 kHz bandwidths may not be appropriate to achieve
the best performance. As pointed out in other messages, the phase
delays are worst at the edges of the bandwidth. This means with a
typical amateur radio, you may only want to use 1.8 or 2.0 kHz to
achieve the best group
The problem is that the smearing is additive. The transmitter
adds some, the ionsphere adds more, then the receiver even more. In
order to maximize the phase coherence, the ionsphere should be the
only contributor. I recognize that economic costs may impact this.
But again, I just wanted
Just a quick example. In order to achieve a flat passband of 3 kHz
you may really need an amplifier whose bandwidth is 10 or even 20
kHz. To achieve this, you probably can't use just one single stage
of audio amplification with a simple emitter bypass electrolytic
capacitor, you'll need
,
power supply requirements, i.e., +12/-12 volts to get good common
mode rejection was also needed.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
Just a quick example. In order to achieve a flat passband of 3
kHz
I've been reading all the posts over the last several weeks about
single tone/multi-tone, baud/bps, narrow/wide, etc. digital
modes/modems. The one thing I see missing is any discussion of the
actual RADIO's being used in these systems. Kind of funny in a
digital RADIO forum populated by
Even a QRP rig for digital use only will have these same problems
that have to be examined and subsystems properly designed and built.
A 'simple' audio amp in a tranceiver may work fine for SSB voice,
but may have amplitude and phase variations over the designed
bandwidth that can
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading all the posts over the last
several weeks about
single tone/multi-tone, baud/bps, narrow/wide, etc.
digital
modes/modems
Until you have affordable DSP's that can output substantial RF power
at frequencies between 1.8 mHz and 30 mHz, analog devices will still
be needed to translate and amplify the SDR generated signals.
Consequently, you will still have the issues I have mentioned to
deal with.
Jim
WA0LYK
that I came across in my web searching was that
amateur
equipment generally has group delays that make it difficult to
even
employ some of the modems we have been discussing.
I wonder if any of the modem experts might comment on that.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01
I'm not sure you can simply use a frequency generator. Remember,
what we are talking about are in essence, pulses, that is tone
pulses throughout the audio passband.
Perhaps one could use a pulse generator with a one, or ten, or 100
millisecond pulse at every 100 Hz from 300 to 3000 Hz at
Howard,
I hate to burst your balloon, but you are totally misinterpreting the
FCC regulations. Part 97.1(a) says,
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing
I'm sorry but you need to do a little more historical research.
Amateur Radio was/is primarily authorized because of items 97.1
(b)(c)(d). Amateur Radio has been around, recognized, and authorized
by the US Government since the early 1900's. Early amateurs were
recognized for their
Rick,
But you can't change history. Amateur Radio was around long before
emcomms was considered an important item, and the rules and
regulations have been developed throughout the 20th century. Just
because you feel that at the current time, emcomms have become most
important doesn't change
__
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Website: www.ky6la.com
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911
- Original Message -
From: jgorman01
: www.ky6la.com
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911
- Original Message -
From: jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:53 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRLWeb: Army MARS Implementing
You might find an old PK232 on ebay that has already been upgraded for
that price.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cheapest foray in to Pactor?
IF I was to try to become QRV on Pactor (transmit capability), what
is the cheapest way
This is pretty much what I said in my comments. Unless both stations
can communicate to each other that a frequency is busy, not even busy
detection will work. You will have the polling station transmitting
when it sees a clear frequency and the automatic station transmitting
when it sees the
Amateur ARQ modes are 'session' oriented. That means one and only one
connection at a time can be made between stations. Each station
checking in would have to 'make' a connection with the net control
station and then send callsign, etc. A 'disconnect' would then have
to be done to allow the
As I mentioned above, if the HF bands were open so you could make a
connection between San Diego and Texas, I simply don't understand why
a 200 - 300 mile connection could not have been established on either
80m or 40m. I've been a ham for a long time, and understand
propagation on these two
Let me voice some cynicism here also. I note you said we were unable
to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land Line voice communications
between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial County EOC. I see no
mention of direct HF communications on 80m or 40m using a digital mode
or even voice. To have
The problem here is that if the FCC drops Morse Code, they won't be
able require CW be used for this purpose. You'll also have folks that
are adamant against having to learn Morse Code for this purpose.
Also, I usually don't listen to the frequency, the waterfall suffices
for that. Recognizing
Actually, busy detection, regardless of its efficacy has a problem. I
pointed this out in my comments to the FCC on RM-11306.
If the originating station 'hears' a station it won't transmit. But
what happens when the station turns it over to the other party that
the originating station can't
Yep, you just made a good RF choke. Using ferrite cores that just
slip over a cable doesn't give you much inductance. You need one that
like the rod, lets you put multiple windings on it. You would need
several 'beads' like 10 or 20 to get a similar effect.
FWIW, in my opinion, dipoles fed
I don't know what kind of dipole you are using, but you probably don't
have much RF standing on the outer shield of the feedline that can be
picked up by your computer. You probably have RF on the shield of the
coax feeding the vertical. This can be picked up by anything in your
shack. Do you
In many radios the SWR foldback circuitry doesn't care where the RF it
senses comes from. I know some of the older Icoms are like this.
Consequently, if you get RF into the radio from the shield of your
coax, the foldback circuitry will amplify it and raise the ALC.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In
Grounding is one of the most important things you can attend to,
however, you can have RF on the shield of your coax even with a good
RF ground. This RF is more dependent on the design and match of the
antenna and it can induce signals into other electronics.
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In
Howard,
If I read you right, since this is in paragraph (a), then paragraphs
(b) through (e) are subordinate to it. Your statements seem to say
that if emcomms require it, then the rest of the basis and purpose
paragraphs should take a back seat to emcomms.
Does 'self-policing' and the freedom
at times? I don't think this is
some kind of image rejection problem with my Pro II.
73,
Rick, KV9U
jgorman01 wrote:
Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals
down around 3590 and 7040.
Besides that wasn't the point I attempted to make. My point
These are extremely appropriate examples. A big thing to pick up here
is that SSB was a standard and everyone could design to it. If they
had a better idea and cheaper manufacturing they could compete.
One of the things never addressed with digital is the standards
issue. We spent millions of
Let me echo that if you want to copy fast and conversationally, throw
away your pencil and paper.
On most traffic nets, folks only send about 25 wpm since that is all
you can reliably copy down on paper. I've found most slow down to
whatever speed you send at since it assumed that is also what
The real problem right now is not expanding our SSB segments, but
rather that expansion forcing other countries SSB even lower.
Canadian, Mexican, and Central American SSB stations are already far,
far down in the lower parts of 80m and 40m. So far in fact that
sometimes it is hard to have CW or
I can't tell where you are coming from by your comments.
Today's FCC regulations don't keep you from using a bandwidth wider
than 3 kHz on HF. The proposed ARRL petition will keep you from using
one wider than 3.5 kHz. Specifically, which regulations are you
worried about?
There ARE two
-
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on
HF
The real problem right now is not expanding our SSB segments, but
rather that expansion forcing
regulations, completely out of step with
the rest of the globe.
John
VE5MU
- Original Message -
From: jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on HF
K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote:
1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our
regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations.
Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF
modem that tries
- Original Message -
From: jgorman01
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:39 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate
limitations on HF
I am assuming your comments were meant to be applicable to the HF
bands since
Rick,
I thought maybe I was just talking to the moon. Thank you for your
very pertinent and rational reasoning.
I have already pointed out that there are too many cheerleaders that
don't have a clue. The danger is that if you keeping repeating a
falsehood people come to believe it.
Jim
At 2400 baud, how much RF bandwidth would be required Chip64?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Nino Porcino \(IZ8BLY\)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick KV9U wrote:
Although you could theoretically go to much higher baud rates, [...]
would it be practical to do so?
Is
You bet, if a sound card program that did a quality job was available
it would take off like gang busters! Minimal costs would allow
everyone access!
The real problem is the term quality. DV has to be compared to SSB
both in terms of Signal to Noise performance and bandwidth for a given
Ok, I never said that you called hams stupid. I said:
Your other comments make it appear that you believe the
majority of hams are simply stupid because they won't
throw away existing equipment to do the things you
advocate.
But don't imply the 'majority' is simply
You might let the folks know what the RF bandwidth is of that cell
phone channel that allows 20 conversations to share it. It will
probably be tough to get 20 phone conversations at once on 80/75
meters let alone the other bands.
The major problem with this on HF is that cell phones don't talk
What kind of RF bandwidth would the 3 Kbs require?
Jim
WA0LYK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Arthur J. Lekstutis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are voice encoding schemes that require much less. I've
experimented with this codec (for example), and found it quite good
even
at 3k bits
Kim,
I implore you and others who have the bought the ARRL's statement that
mode/emission type regulation has stifled experimentation hook, line,
and sinker to educate yourself about this issue!
Probably 90 - 99% of the digital modes today use J2- or J3- emissions.
The only thing I don't know
Brad,
You need to educate yourself about the FCC petitions here. One of the
current petitions will let hams operate SSB anywhere. If that is
approved, you can bet the 7-7.1 portions will become a favorite place
for US SSB stations. Do you and others want to compete with them?
Jim
WA0LYK
---
I just did a quick internet search and here is what I came up with.
commercial nbfm (old) occupied bndwth 40 kHz
commercial nbfm (current) occupied bndwth 15 kHz
commercial nbfm (new) occupied bndwth 12.5 kHz
FCC hoped for (planned) occupied bndwth 6.25 kHz
Perhaps your definition of chaos and mine are different. When the
members of Region 1 adopt official statements at their regional
meetings that bandplans are not being followed and that wideband users
(SSB) are moving into places reserved for narrowband users (CW and
digi), I read CHAOS. When I
Dave,
I will pick on your message, but what really triggered my comment is
my perception of the misunderstanding between semi-automtic
operation and control. Too many comments here seem to display an
acceptance of a relationship between these terms.
Semi-automatic operation may a good term to
101 - 164 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
