I think is was very gracious of you to offer. Too bad he did not
take up the offer.
73 de Andy K3UK
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote:
> Why HamSpots dropped support for ROS.
>
>
> After several emails, it became clear that Mr ROS would not allow any
> interaction with
Lester,
Months of testing of all available modes on a 200 mile, weak signal,
path on 432 MHz support what you say. Contestia (or Olivia, but slower)
has surfaced as the most reliable mode we have found in the difficult
environment of signals marginally above the noise, fading (QSB) as deep
at
h each other and tolerate those who
are into different facets of this great hobby.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker, WØJAB"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL c
Sorry to both of you.
In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with
my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he
thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed.
And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes t
John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-(
Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for
Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500
Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO
and Emcomm
At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for
>live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question,
>but that one also never got answered.
Jim to answer that I really would have to say that
for keyboard
On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote:
> Rick Ellison writes:
> "recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III,
> that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes "
>
>
So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented???
Dave
K3DCW
Real radio b
is a renewed interest among military,
agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt." That may help explain
the ARRL's action, I guess.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker, WØJAB"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, Ma
d or recive any messages.I type about 65
wpm. Any advice or instruction as what I should do.I have run out of things to
try.Thanks Hugh kd4txp.73
From: KH6TY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 3:19:58 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does th
ohn Becker, WØJAB""
To:
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor
III support...
>I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end.
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
I don't know Skip.
Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone.
after thinking about that, don't tell us.
I really don't care what you are others think about pactor.
I like it and will operate it.
John, W0JAB
> ESP - There is a difference between typing and "touch" typing. Google it.
I did. "Touch typing is typing without using the sense of sight to find
the keys."
*"Typing* is the process of inputting text into a device, such as a
typewriter , cell phone , computer
, or a calculator , by pressin
At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>John,
>
>I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's,
>not Pactor-II or Pactor I.
Skip, just because you are anyone else "can't" copy
P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens !
most of my keyboard to keyb
John,
I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard
QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I.
> As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past.
How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation
without typing?
73 - Skip KH6TY
John Becker, WØJAB wrot
Often, very often. All pactor modes.
As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past.
At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>John,
>
>How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard?
>
>How fast do you touch type?
John,
How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard?
How fast do you touch type?
73 - Skip KH6TY
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it
when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls
from some lid. But I guess, I'll look
I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly
after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what
orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no
guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me
time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was
the last
>>>AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of "John Becker, WOJAB"
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:50 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL c
I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end.
John, W0JAB
What it means is that the channel will be dominated with "personal"
Winlink Pactor-III traffic, completely filling it up, with no sharing,
or any space left for truly narrowband modes like PSK31 - all in the
name of emergency communications. It has proven impossible for a
Pactor-III ARQ station
In a channelized setting, PIII will not exceed allowed bandwidth.
But, to answer your question about why the ARRL pushes PIII; relevance
in emergency communications for current sustainability of allotted
spectrum.
When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there
is a rene
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:53:16PM +0100, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote:
> From: Andy obrien
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41
>
> >and
> >2K80J2D (which is generally known as
> >PACTOR-III) ??? are popular narrowband data modes.
>
> Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode?
In comparison to
From: Andy obrien
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41
>and
>2K80J2D (which is generally known as
>PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.
Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode?
--
73
Ian, G3NRW
When did Pactor-III (up to 2200 Hz wide, I think), suddenly become a
"narrowband" data mode?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
It seems odd to me too Rick.
However, i do note...
means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be
used by amateur stations because
of i
It seems odd to me too Rick.
However, i do note...
means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by
amateur stations because
of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states
that the other requested emission
designators – 60H0J2B (which is gener
I think of this like playing around with hardware circuits to see what you
can do. Jose had an idea, wrote some software and we have something to
experiment with. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Randy
K7AGE
Good question Alan. It does seem quite robust but does not seem to add
anything that Olivia or some levels of Thor. Too early to say for sure.
Andy K3UK
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Alan Beagley wrote:
>
>
> Why this new mode? Advantages?
>
> 73
>
> Alan NV8A
>
>
>
by too many people.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brabham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 13:02 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John:
Do the rules specify that there is no baudrate limit upon FDM modes?
The
ge -
From: DANNY DOUGLAS
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing
on the band, normally sends a quick QRZ
October 29, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
A simple understanding of props: Station A listens, and hearing nothing on
the band, normally sends a quick QRZ?, and if no one responds, figures he can
go ahead and transmit a signal/CQ or whatever. Station B hea
Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Charles,
I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]
I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never
heard any other qso's during that operational period
-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:51 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Rud:
Note that I didn't make an arguement, I asked a question.
By your arguement, Packet should be allowed to oper
http://www.hamradionet.org
- Original Message -
From: Rud Merriam
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Baud rate is baud rate, i.e. symbol change. There is nothing in the
regulations about how much the s
ursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Charles,
I'm going to disagree with your statement: [see below]
I just spent a day operating on all of the various pactor modes and we never
heard any other qso's during that operational period
nk 2000 automated stations initiate transmissions, they
only respond to requests.
Jeff Moore KE7ACY
DCARES - Deschutes County ARES
Bend, Oregon
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brabham
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John:
[snip]
For several years now, PACTOR III
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brabham [mailto:n5...@uspacket.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
John:
Do the rules specify that
riginal Message -
From: Charles Brabham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but
we do have a practical one, ba
bham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 13:20 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
From what I understand, we do not have an actual bandwidth limit on HF, but
we do have a practical one, based upon PART97 prohibitions against harmful
interfere
herwise - we are asking for trouble and will not like the result that follows.
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at
HamRadioNet.Org !
http://www.hamradionet.org
- Original Message -
From: Dave Sparks
To: digitalradi
ginal Message -
From: "Charles Brabham"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In
either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may
be
ve Sparks
AF6AS
- Original Message -
From: DANNY DOUGLAS
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
OH Wonderful! Some idiot would come up with something 50 or 100 kc wide, and
then be legal to wipe out dozens
ubject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
- Original Message -
> From: Andy obrien
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Charles, mo
- Original Message -
> From: Andy obrien
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole
> "wid
I agree with Charles, mostly. I have mixed feelings about the whole "wide"
versus "narrow" issue. While I tend to gravitate towards the narrow modes,
I have to admit to sympathizing with those on this list who express
frustration that they cannot experiment with some of the wider modes because
the network is? I would like to
learn more about it.
Howard K5HB
From: Charles Brabham
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 8:55:38 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question
Nice post and well worded, Charles!
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Charles Brabham wrote:
From: Charles Brabham
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why would anyone
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 8:55 AM
Hard to tell if
Hard to tell if you are trying to ask a question, or make a statement. In
either case though, your post indicates a lack of understanding that I may be
able to relieve.
Unattended operation has been codified into PART97 for close to thirty years
now, and was done in response to the emergence of
Don't leave your vox open,that's dumb
On 10/26/09, wb5aaa wrote:
> Why do we need anything running UNATTENDED
> on any ham band?
>
> just my 2cents
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
I must agree, but then Im not into email via ham bands, and really think that
if there is any other way, one should completely stop so called auto stations,
unless that station has the capability to first insure there are no other
signals on that freq, before transmitting. That should be the fo
It is pretty valid 2 cents worth. I have mixed feelings on the issue
myself . However, Packet BBS and PSKMAIL servers mean that some aspect of
the operations are automatic and the control operator could be sleeping.
Andy K3UK
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, wb5aaa wrote:
>
>
> Why do we n
#x27;Brien
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why so much interest in WINMOR?
I think, not sure, that a majority of WINMOR testers are NOT experienced
digital mode operators. By that I mean they may be RTTY or PSK31 ope
I think, not sure, that a majority of WINMOR testers are NOT experienced
digital mode operators. By that I mean they may be RTTY or PSK31 operators
but mostly come from the packet/pactor world. I am thus guessing that many
are not familiar with other ARQ modes. This is based, in part, on sever
- Original Message -
From: "jhaynesatalumni"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Why so much interest in WINMOR?
> Seems like people are falling all over one another to
> participate in WINMOR testing, yet we have other ARQ schemes
> that aren't gettin
Rod,
You have some misunderstandings in your comments below. While amateur
radio has been important in developing some new technologies, I would
not go so far as to say that it is the base for every type of
communication. Certainly not in the past 30 years or so.
ARES is absolutely not somethi
radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Flavio Padovani
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:38 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why Amateur EmComm?
Saludos Rud,
I can not see in your quote any mandate for EmComm by
the FCC. If I can read
PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why Amateur EmComm?
Saludos Rud,
I can not see in your quote any mandate for EmComm by
the FCC. If I can read right, the regulations just
recognize a "value" (usefulness ?) fo the service for
EmComm. I think that the EmComm argument i
Saludos Rud,
I can not see in your quote any mandate for EmComm by
the FCC. If I can read right, the regulations just
recognize a "value" (usefulness ?) fo the service for
EmComm. I think that the EmComm argument is new and is
being utilized to try to save the amateur service. In
the long run, we h
That may be ok for you in the US & for the FCC but don't expect other
amateurs to be very pleased when these un-attended automatic stations
open up on the frequency that they are using.
>As a license holder I can "inflict" almost anything I want on the
>entire
>amateur community within the scop
Good points Rick.
At this time 10 is doing well.
Take a look at this map.
http://propnet.findu.com/catch.cgi?last=1
W1AW should be able to locate a clear frequency in most cases by moving
a few hundred Hz away from an ongoing QSO. They are not generally hard
to find in my experience as they often have the strongest signal on the
band at least here, halfway across the country.
The ARRL still has to follow th
if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW
ve3fxq
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on
3.580?
> >From: Bill McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: 2007/02/16 Fri PM 09:
>From: Bill McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/02/16 Fri PM 09:16:04 CST
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580?
>
>(Stepping lightly) Why, with the recent changes, does ARRL/W1AW still
>transmit with
You mean with all the spectrum space available to you, you picked their
time and frequency?...
Larry ve3fxq
- Original Message -
From: "Box SisteenHundred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW
W1AW has stepped on me many times over the last 26 years.
As bad as K1MAN sometimes.
73
Bill KA8VIT
>From: "Bill McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580
Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> (Stepping lightly) Why, with the recent changes, does ARRL/W1AW still
> transmit without listening on 3.580? We all know far too well how
> compressed for bandwidth the digital modes are on 80 meters due to
> recent FCC changes. Yet W1AW persists to take a slice of this
Bill, it is a question many have asked, none have been impressed by any
answer they might have gotten. Why do they set on 1.817 and blast away when
expeditions are using nearby freqs? Why do they open up on top of other
on-going conversations, all up and down the bands? Because they can, and
the
- Original Message -
From: Jose A. Amador
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why MSFK images can be noisy?
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Jose,
>
> MFSK pictures are analog SSTV not dig
radio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why MSFK images can be noisy?
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Jose,
>
> MFSK pictures are analog SSTV not digital SSTV.
>
> Here are the MFSK SSTV specifications (
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Jose,
>
> MFSK pictures are analog SSTV not digital SSTV.
>
> Here are the MFSK SSTV specifications (from the Multipsk help)
>
> 73 Patrick
>
> *SSTV in MFSK16*
>
> Created by : Nick Fedoseev (UT2UZ) and Denis Nechitailov (UU9JDR) in
> 2003
>
> _Descriptio
Hi Jose:
they really aren't MFSK ,, they are FAX and this is what makes them noisy..
Unless a fax photo (try receiving a fax picture on one of the fax freq's)
you'll see that they are noisy too. It takes a very strong and clear signal to
get a clear pic.. It is possible,, I have had several..(
Hello Jose,
MFSK pictures are analog SSTV not digital SSTV.
Here are the MFSK SSTV specifications (from the Multipsk help)
73
Patrick
SSTV in MFSK16
Created by : Nick Fedoseev (UT2UZ) and Denis Nechitailov (UU9JDR) in 2003
Description :
It is a SSTV mode without transmission of a synchroniza
I have found the same thing, and wonder why.
Amdy K3UK
On 1/24/07, Jose A. Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have already received some small images sent by MFSK. But they are
noisy,
like analog SSTV. Why? How is it done? Where can I read about it?
Jose, CO2JA
--
Andy K3UK
Skype Me
Den Sat, 17 Jun 2006 05:10:48 -, skrev du:
Hi Don.
>Just wondering why there is no PSK31 activity on 30 meters? Seems like
>a good band for PSK, yet I listen lots around 10.140 yet nothing much
>on the waterfall.
I have made 66 DXCC on 30 meters since december 2005, mostly PSK31 and
some RT
Den Sat, 17 Jun 2006 05:10:48 -, skrev du:
Hi Don.
>Just wondering why there is no PSK31 activity on 30 meters? Seems like
>a good band for PSK, yet I listen lots around 10.140 yet nothing much
>on the waterfall.
I have made 66 DXCC on 30 meters since december 2005, mostly PSK31 and
some RT
Don,
Good question and I agree that 30 mtrs is good band for psk31. I thinks
it's better than 40 mtrs which can have a lot of atmospheric noise. There is a
psk31 group that is trying to meet on 10.137 mhz in the evening. Give a CQ on
that frequency.
There is also a devoted 10 mtr g
> If Linux became more popular, it might be possible to see more PSKmail
> connections that use ARQ PSK63, but I don't see that happening any time
> soon. Even though very slow, it is dramatically narrower than the Pactor
> modes and would cause much less interference to other hams.
> 73, Ric
Hi John.
Thanks, Sir. I understand where you were coming from now. I'm
a bit sensitive about the WL2K EMCOMM project I guess. I have
seen one line of thought which held that if the system was a
little out of reach of the average ham, the system would not
be bogged down by over-population
While the Pactor 2 and 3 modes are preferred for use with Winlink 2000,
this is to reduce transmission time on the HF link. Since you are held
to a time limit of 30 minutes per 24 hour period, the use of the Pactor
1 mode may not be enough time for what you want to send. In fact, some
of the
Howard my point was that one need not spend $1K
to get on pactor unless they are looking to get on
II or III.
I have no activity with WL2K other then I do copy
some of the traffic.
At this time I have the PK-232 on a FT-840 parked on
7075.
The PTC is on the FT-847.
2nd FT-847 is used for sat
Hello John
I don't normally quote the whole message but it lost intelligence
when I tried quoting just you.
It was made clear to me and others in wl2kemcomm that the PTC III
unit is the preferred choice. Much discussion focuses on that
preference and, has been said more than once, if one
At 10:41 AM 5/26/2006, you wrote:
>If I am correct, WL2K HF system is dependent on PACTOR. PACTOR is a
>proprietary system that is extremely expensive , not something
>available easily to all hams. Reliable hardware for PACTOR II and III
>is more expensive than a new HF rig these days.
Not re
Although it is not in the same category in terms of the necessary speed,
this is something to point in the right direction.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Kevin O'Rorke wrote:
>PAX2 in Multipsk??
>
>VK5OA
>
>
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of int
KV9U wrote:
>Would love to hear of any on-going programming for HF ARQ sound card
>modes so if anyone does this or knows anything about it, please let us
>know.
>
>73,
>
>Rick, KV9U
>
>
>Andrew O'Brien wrote:
>
>
>
PAX2 in Multipsk??
VK5OA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet:
I may be able to shed some light on this. The original Aplink system
that many of us used, starting in the 1980's, migrated from Amtor to
Pactor and Clover II with the Winlink system. Amtor, even though an ARQ
mode, had errors sent when conditions were deteriorating. This would
send incorre
Hi Andy,
I don't know if Rick, KN6KB is on this forum or not to comment, but
yes, the WL2K PMBO's are running the SCS Pactor III modem. Thus they
accept incoming traffic via PACTOR I, II or III. It is only the PMBO
that requires the SCS modem. However the user can make use of any
PACTOR I
I can sum it up in one word.
GROUNDING !
It's a must to have very best RF grounding you can.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/gr
Mel, I have had a similiar problem when transmitting SSB with high power (500 watts). My transmissions were coming through our computer speakers in another part of the house. I ended up running the computer speaker wires through ferrite cores ... problem gone. I obtained the cores from Pa
I have a similar problem on 20M and it is RF
getting into the speakers. I put a couple of toroids on the speaker lines
and it became quiet.
I could actually make noise throough the computer
speakers, with the computer off, but the speakers powered up,
go figure
John
VE5MU
-
My .02 cents worth:
>From what I have seen MixW seems to be a very stable, very easy to use
program. Currently it covers 17 modes, most of which I don't use, but
almost all of which I have used at some point.
It has enough controls to allow me to lock the transmit frequency, while
shifting the R
It just does everything well.. it is very
inexpensive.. $50 has all the digital modes and always is adding new ones...
so far at no extra cost.. the user groups give great support...there are always
new Betas coming out with great new features.. and modes...
It has a great CAT interfa
Multipsk has more features and it's free. Great
software package and suggest you give it a try.
- Original Message -
From:
Mel
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:38
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Why is Mix W so
popular ?
D
First and formost it has more digital modes available than most any other
software. Secondly its quite easy to use, and has a package of the
operating screen for send/receive, along with a tune box for rtty, a world
map with an arrow showing direction and distance,the waterfall has small
boxes tha
ey
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 15:48 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why is Mix W so popular ?
It has all the digital modes in it plus CAT control for most radios
Joe
W4JSI
Age is mind over matter
If you don't mind, it does not matter
- Original Message -
It has all the digital modes in it plus CAT control
for most radios
JoeW4JSI
Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter
- Original Message -
From:
Mel
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:38
PM
Subject: [d
Hi John
It is very interesting question.
The following is my awkward idea.
Pse point out a mistake.
Remember once early RTTY with WIDE-SHIFT FSK.
There were mainly 3 SHIFT with 850,425,170Hz.
At AFSK, MARK is 2125 and SPASEs are 2295(170), 2550(425), 2975(850).
That is UP-SHIFT, SPACE is h
At 08:16 PM 10/23/05, you wrote:
>Is this causing you problems of some sort or other? de Roger W6VZV
No not at all. Just wondered why all the sound card stuff
was USB and the other digital modes are LSB.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Get fast acc
John Becker wrote:
>Can some one tell me why the sound card digital modes use USB
>and not LSB like the other digital modes?
>
>John, WØJAB
>Louisiana, Missouri
>EM48LK
>
>
>
Is this causing you problems of some sort or other? de Roger W6VZV
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---
Sure it does. Switch to USB and the st-6 to 'reverse'
and it will receive just fine. If the transmitt tones
are set to the reverse it will also transmit just fine
while in USB.
--- John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The same does not hold true for those of us still
> using 1970
> equipmen
Not true. I would only be upside down if my mark and space were
reversed. I use MixW. When I transmit using USB my mark is above my
space. When you receive me my mark is above my space. When the audio
comes out of your receiver into your ST-6 TU (because you are on LSB) my
mark is below my
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
