Hi Jim,
You really must be making a tongue in check joking reply here, that
is the only way that I can take such a reply as the Amateur Radio
bands have been broken down into specific use for decades and ever
changing. I can NOT go down to 14.004Mhz and make a SSB contact as it
is dedicated
Let me point out that you are not talking about co-channel
interference to your signal. You are discussing interference to your
ability to use the spectrum. Two entirely different subjects.
Using your example, there is only one lane and that is all there will
ever be, just like the amateur
I was not claiming that SCAMP *did* violate; I just had no information.
Given that SCAMP didn't directly link to or modify any GPL code, the
following is slightly off-topic...
By the way, a very good resource for what the GPL *really* does and
does not mean is at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ .
My comments are interspersed.
On 9/18/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My comments interspersed with Mr. Thompsons
- - - - -
The complete SCAMP specification is available and will be released under
the GPL as a blueprint for client developers to insure compatibility
across different
To the best of my recollection, any signals within the passband would
prevent a transmission. Even fleeting ones like voice SSB, but it was
not as affected by wide band noise as much, even static crashes. I don't
know if it was more than what you ask, but I will say that most
reasonable hams
I'm glad to hear that. It sounds like it's implemented the obvious
way, and thus should be very easy to duplicate. I'll try to set up a
test harness and see whether I can duplicate its functionality.
If I do, I'll report success here.
On 9/19/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the best of my
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The issue is that if a human is involved, at worst everyone shrugs and
figures he's an impolite operator.
If a human is involved one can send the frequency is in use,
please QSY. Most of
Your prescription for doing away with spectrum sharing is totally in
conflict with the amateur radio paradigm of shared spectrum/no owns a
frequency. It will result in the balkanization of the spectrum as
competing modes/protocols/services all ask for their piece of the
spectrum. You will
On 9/17/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+++More AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/17/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two years ago, SCAMP demonstrated a multi-mode busy detector for
HF that
Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy
On 9/17/07, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
I have brought this up many times, but there are new people that may not
be aware of the SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Messaging Protocol) testing
I am slightly aware of this. However, I haven't seen any code or
large-scale busy-channel testing.
In conjunction with getting contributions and collaboration for my site (see
sig line) I exchanged a few message with Rick KN6KB. I asked him for the
details on the SCAMP busy detect. He added digging out the details to a long
to-do list. He did indicate that detecting narrow band protocols (PSK,
://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
If there was GPL code involved
Hi Jim,
You really must be making a tongue in check joking reply here, that
is the only way that I can take such a reply as the Amateur Radio
bands have been broken down into specific use for decades and ever
changing. I can NOT go down to 14.004Mhz and make a SSB contact as it
is dedicated
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two years ago, SCAMP demonstrated a multi-mode busy detector for
HF that proved highly effective, despite the fact that it was a
quickand dirty first attempt.
I would *love* to see either code
On 9/18/07, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In conjunction with getting contributions and collaboration for my site (see
sig line) I exchanged a few message with Rick KN6KB. I asked him for the
details on the SCAMP busy detect. He added digging out the details to a long
to-do list. He did
On 9/18/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
The problem is that a one-shot accuracy of 80% is trivially
achievable, but real use isn't one-shot. My probability-math reference
is at home out of reach at the moment, so I can't just quote you the
formula to determine
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, a bounded-backoff mechanism would almost certainly be necessary.
I would probably also choose to implement a detector that required the
channel to appear clear for several sequential tests
We seem to be on the same wavelength here...
Now, to break it own into small enough chunks that it fits into time
away from work an d such... I actually have been working on some code
for things like the busy detector and connection-logic state machines
in my spare time. I may even have
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:16 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
If *any* code they link to was GPL, their code is GPL or in violation of the
GPL. This is true of code they cut-and-paste, code they use
Thanks for your clarification of the GPL use in this case, Rud.
The reason for expecting Rick to GPL the code is because he said that he
was going to GPL the code. Pretty clear cut.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Rud Merriam wrote:
The SCAMP testing only used the RDFT executables, not the original source
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Allowing designated
frequencies for just one purpose, in your case email, will open the
doors for requesting designated frequencies for all kinds of things,
not just mode restrictions. Some will want restricted frequencies for
qrp only, dx only,
Hi Jim,
A good analogy of sharing spectrum between peer-to-peer and
remote-to-automated is like a car or any size sharing a single road
lane with a tractor trailer, where both are competing to have the
lane, the outcome is clear in the long run, however what would be
better, especially for
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are down sides to busy-detection:
1. There is no way to know the relative interference temperature
threshold for distant co-channel users on HF. SNR at every station is
different. A
Pactor is not the problem. Unattended stations without busy detectors
are the problem -- whether they're operating in Pactor, PSK, RTTY, or
CW.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but Bonnie, a fundamental issue has
Busy detectors are the solution to the hidden transmitter problem for
unattended stations.
For those convinced that the world is out to get them (or their
favorite modes), I suggest meditation.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker,
I misread your posting as 'I suggest medication' - possibly more
appropriate.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
- Original Message -
From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For those convinced that the world is out to get them (or their
favorite modes), I suggest meditation.
Since you'd decoded N4CE's callsign, at least you had the option of
sending back a QRL message -- in either Hell or CW. That would not
be the case had you been QRM'd by an unattended station.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not really Dave.
I pulled the audio going to one of the other TNC's and
ran that into the laptop that has the hell software on it
to copy him. was an RX only setup.
At 11:03 AM 9/17/2007, you wrote:
Since you'd decoded N4CE's callsign, at least you had the option of
sending back a QRL message
Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:23 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
When an attended station attempts to activate an unattended automatic
station
Could you not switch to CW and send QRL pse QSY at 10 wpm?
N4CE's email address is available via QRZ.com.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not really Dave.
I pulled the audio going to one of the other TNC's and
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many times is a QSO busted because neither the attended or
unattended
stations could hear the QSO?
I suspect this happens more frequently than most like to consider. It is
easier to get aggravated.
Rud
] On
Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:23 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
When an attended station attempts to activate an unattended automatic
station on some frequency, an ongoing QSO on the same frequency could
be inaudible
Sure Dave.
I could have pulled the keyer from the other rig and plugged
in into this rig. But with a lot of no code hams on the HF bands
I pretty much gave up on that idea.
At 01:27 PM 9/17/2007, you wrote:
Could you not switch to CW and send QRL pse QSY at 10 wpm?
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:23 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Busy Detectors
When an attended station attempts to activate an unattended
In other words, you didn't even try.
If you choose to not inform a QRMing station that the frequency is in
use, then its on you, IMHO.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sure Dave.
I could have pulled the keyer from
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some like to argue on internet than get on the air!!!
Some try to avoid inconvenient facts by attacking the messenger.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Really Dave I had no way of doing it easy.
But since he is in Houston and the guy I was in QSO with
was in Dallas I can't help but to think he did hear one of us.
But you know how it is when you hear a pactor signal.
Who really cares it's just pactor.
I guess next time it will be 1.5 KW that
On 9/17/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two years ago, SCAMP demonstrated a multi-mode busy detector for HF
that proved highly effective, despite the fact that it was a quick
and dirty first attempt. Deploying this busy detector on WinLink
PMBOs would eliminate most of the
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cheer up man. At least some do not end up in name calling as you and
someone else did a few messages ago.
You accused me of preferring internet arguments to amateur radio
operations, Demetre. My
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY sv1uy@ wrote:
Some like to argue on internet than get on the air!!!
Some try to avoid inconvenient facts by attacking the messenger.
+++More AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Robert Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/17/07, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two years ago, SCAMP demonstrated a multi-mode busy detector for
HF that proved highly effective, despite the fact that it was a
That operator's email address is available via QRZ.com . If you let
him know that he QRM'd your QSO, perhaps there will be one less
operator in the world who thinks its okay to call over Pactor
transmissions (if that's what happened).
Try sending QRL pse QSY in 10 wpm CW the next time you're
Robert,
I have brought this up many times, but there are new people that may not
be aware of the SCAMP (Sound Card Amateur Messaging Protocol) testing
that we did several years ago. I spent many hours with this technology
and I can tell you that it is an outstanding program. I am not sure why
44 matches
Mail list logo
