You're right, Kevin, I should have said "many" instead of "most".
The point still stands: at any point in time, not everyone has the
equipment on hand to demodulate every mode.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Rorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Dave Bern
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.
>
> Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first
> introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus couldn't
> self-police?
>
> .
>
>
In those days most ham receivers had a BFO and by using that, ssb could
This seems like a slippery slope, Doc.
Should the FCC have disallowed SSB because when it was first
introduced, most hams didn't have SSB demodulators and thus couldn't
self-police?
Demodulators for soundcard-based digital modes aren't free; they
require a PC, a soundcard, and a receiver. Cons
> Secondly, you certainly do have the right to decode PactorIII if you
> wish, but there is no godgiven right for you to get a free modem.
> What makes you think you have the "right" to get something for nothing
> (albeit many hams have been acustomed to it with many soundcard digis)?
It is my vi
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 01:04 PM 6/22/2006, mulveyraa2 wrote:
>I suggest that you learn how "white noise" is defined. The
>examples I cited above are NOT white noise sources.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
You're nit-picking Rich. For amateur radio purposes, those are indeed
white noise
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 10:13 AM 6/22/2006, mulveyraa2 wrote:
>
> >So your "busy detector" would not allow transmissions on the HF
> >bands in the presence of static crashes, localized QRM from dimmers
> >switches, m
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 10:13 AM 6/22/2006, mulveyraa2 wrote:
>So your "busy detector" would not allow transmissions on the HF
>bands in the presence of static crashes, localized QRM from dimmers
>switches, motors, electric fence chargers, faulty power line
>insulators... does that seem like an effe
Yes, there are some forms of QRM that will confuse a busy frequency
detector. When that's the case, the frequency is often not usable
anyway, so the "false positive" is actually helpful. And when the
situation is uncertain, good amateur practice would lead one to QSY
than risk QRMing an ongoing
Nothing is 100%, including human ability to determine if the frequency
is busy. SCAMP's busy detector exceeds human ability (OK, at least my
ability) based upon my beta testing of the software. It can detect solid
carriers, even if very weak, therefore a timer might be used in case of
spurious
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 08:57 AM 6/22/2006, mulveyraa2 wrote:
>
> >The software would need to be able to determine whether any of
> >*dozens* of possible signals are present in the passband. In the case
> >of some of
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 08:57 AM 6/22/2006, mulveyraa2 wrote:
>The software would need to be able to determine whether any of
>*dozens* of possible signals are present in the passband. In the case
>of some of the more exotic ( and even less exotic modes ), it needs to
>try to decode multiple bandwid
You are mistaken. SCAMP's inability to work with weak signals
involved data transfer, not busy signal detection. Yes, SCAMP could
only detect a limited set of modes: SSB, CW, PSK, RTTY, PACTOR, and
several other digital modes -- we estimated about 80% of the modes
then in active use!
Assuming
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The simple rebuttal to this post is "its already been done". SCAMP
> demonstrated a highly-effective busy frequency detector running on a
> PC and soundcard more than a year ago.
>
>
OK, now you're verging
The simple rebuttal to this post is "its already been done". SCAMP
demonstrated a highly-effective busy frequency detector running on a
PC and soundcard more than a year ago.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "mulveyraa2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digita
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 01:41 AM 6/22/2006, expeditionradio wrote:
>
> >I can sit here and decode and participate in an Olivia 500/16
> >QSO on 20meters that I cannot hear by ear and I cannot see any signal
> >on the
Bonnie, the requirement for an effective busy frequency detector is
not "detection of any signal with 100% accuracy", but
rather "detection of any signal with accuracy at least as good as
that of a human operator". Both SCAMP and your own message below
demonstrate that busy frequency detectors
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 01:41 AM 6/22/2006, expeditionradio wrote:
>I can sit here and decode and participate in an Olivia 500/16
>QSO on 20meters that I cannot hear by ear and I cannot see any signal
>on the waterfall. Is that frequency "busy"?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
Of course it
><
> SCS gives away the modems at cost or for free? News to me.
> Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it,
> as I should be able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is
> not open to the public. Will West Mountain Radio, MFJ, or
> some other company start selling a more reasonab
18 matches
Mail list logo
