s are changed. The FCC then confirmed that through the ARRL.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Is the random or pseudo-random manner of generating the tones or
carriers an essential element of spread-spectrum? If so, and if the
aim of using such a method is not to obfuscate the message but onl
legal also.
Still not a good situation!
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
Skip.
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation. I understand why ROS is
illegal under your rules.
The point of my question was, if FHSS is illegal, why not simply
modify the mode (which after all is experimental and
y to say S/N, I would
not be able to see the tones, yet I can, and not only on the ROS
waterfall, but on the DigiPan waterfall as well.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Jose A. Amador wrote:
El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió:
> What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the
s
e that any other way
can be successful.
I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move
on to another topic.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify
ROS. But when we are dealing with definit
works on this side of the pond, and we have
no choice but to abide by the system or petition for change.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
--- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
> Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS,
> t
decision of the FCC, as originally related by the customer
service agent, simply reaffirms the original finding. The official word
from the FCC, through one of their spokesmen, is that ROS is spread
spectrum and that will stand until modified by the petition process.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor
Alan, please carry on the debate with someone else. I have spent a huge
amount of time on this issue, trying to help in whatever way I can,
although I do not have all the answers, obviously. I need to do
something other than sit in front of this computer all day!
Have fun,
73 - Skip KH6TY
So, it looks like Olivia is
currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for
normal (not EME) digital QSO's.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Regarding Spread Spectrum Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1
<http
Andy,
As I read it, the NPRM did not disturb the current FCC ruling that
spread spectrum is only allowed above 222 Mhz, so that is still in
force. What it did was modify the power and power monitoring requirements.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
I read the proposed rule making and
F, and mostly only
when there is propagation enhancement.
73 - Skip KH6TY
I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on
this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like
Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF,
or HF for normal (not
d see the links in yellow - really fascinating reading!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Jon Maguire wrote:
Skip,
Just a thought, but "raspy" signals on VHF/UHF are usually associated
with aurora. Can you correlate that?
73... Jon W1MNK
PS Great discussion!!
KH6TY wrote:
Hi Jose,
We will b
typical conditions
found on UHF.
73 - Skip KH6TY
prestigious award!
73, Skip KH6TY
it is now, we are unable to successfully use ROS
on UHF, for whatever the reason, and it is illegal to use it on HF under
FCC jurisdiction.
That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibili
nt in time. Maybe FHSS alone is just not the way to
go, considering all the adverse conditions we have to work under, which
includes the need for a reasonable typing speed.
It's too bad the code is being kept a secret, or others may be able to
contribute to improving the performance.
Perhaps Tony, K2MO, can make some pathsim comparisons of ROS 8 baud with
Olivia 32-1000.
73 - Skip KH6TY
g4ilo wrote:
http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers
<http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers>
Julian, G4ILO
But if the path S/N is so poor that you cannot get the message across at
all, isn't the spectrum efficiency zero? ;-)
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rein Couperus wrote:
Spectrum efficiency must be measured in time necessary to get the info
across,
length of info transferred, and band
e and comment AGAINST the KQ6XA proposal to take over 15% of the
ham bands with automatic robot stations that never listen for a clear
frequency before transmitting.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: *expeditionradio*
Date: Tue, Apr 6, 20
epare recommended ARRL
positions for the Region 2 Conference later this year.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Wright wrote:
The ARRL deadline for comments/suggestions was April 5th. I wonder
why Bonnie waited until the very last minute to submit her suggestion
to the ARRL? Could it be that she antici
wish for that space back!
73, Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
> This is little more than a "frequency grab" by Bonnie that would
benefit the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most.
OK, so I have to ask how would it benefit HFLink
- HFLink already has well established centers of
tions. For that reason, it
should be vigorously opposed.
BTW, I asked my invisible companion if I had made a huge leap of
paranoia, as you inferred, and he assured me that I am definitely not
paranoid, and that he would have to leave me if I were! ;-)
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
K
rators who have no interest at all in
messaging, high-speed or otherwise, oh the HF bands.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Alan Barrow wrote:
KH6TY wrote:
> It would give ALE ops more frequencies
This is a huge leap of paranoia.. ALE operation by definition does
not "want" or even can utilize
other way around
as suggested by HFlink.
73 - Skip KH6TY
raffic passing!
Clean up the automatic station network's act BEFORE even talking about
additional space being needed!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing
view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea,
way most of us are, but mariners using ham radio as if it
were on channelized frequencies, and not listening first.
73 - Skip KH6TY
on. This way, I do not take up a frequency calling for you when you are
unavailable because you are busy elsewhere.
Does this make sense?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
I am scanning 3583 ,7073, 10143, 14073,18103, 21073, 24923, 28123,
today. Anyone looking for a digital mode QSO is
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
Well , using ALE principles, I should have my scan passes timed so
that anyone that calls me, I can hear. i.e. , a call time is of
sufficient duration that a complete scan can be achieved .
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:47 PM, KH6TY <mailto:kh...@com
is essential for weak signal UHF and VHF digital operation as
every dB of S/N we can get is important for weak signal work.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
All,
I'll be QRV for digital mode testing this evening after 2200z (April 15)
till 0500z (April 16).
QRG 14108 / 3588 (+ /
propagation changes
over the course of 24 hours, 6M propagation is always very spotty, and
often propagation, when there is no enhancement on 2M, is worse than on
70cm, so we are fortunate to find that Olivia and Contestia work well
enough on 70cm to do the job.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
r the next few weeks, we are now going to compare Contestia
variations with different bandwidths and latency to see how print
compares to the observed period of "chop" on SSB phone.
73 - Skip KH6TY
dings. No more tests possible this week.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Tony included below]
On 4/20/2010 3:32 AM, KH6TY wrote:
Hi Tony, When both stations are within the same ducting level, the
only audible Doppler effect is usually reflections fro
get any difference in print.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Tony included below]
On 4/21/2010 3:25 PM, KH6TY wrote:
This morning, SSB phone was very badly chopped up, but signals varied
from S1 to S4, so we had another opportunity to test digital modes
will make their minimum typing speed preferences known, as
well as how well the mode works.
73, Skip KH6TY
Jaak Hohensee wrote:
Hi everybody
* Contestia derived from Olivia.
* Contestia 250/4 is channelfree like psk or rtty. BW less than
rtty and same as psk125, 39wpm, snr
withstand
Doppler shift and spreading, whereas we find anything more narrow than
500 Hz simply does not survive.
It is good to have choices!
73, Skip KH6TY
Jaak Hohensee wrote:
Skip, I agree with you.
My considerations to prefer in HF Contestia 250/4 format is related to
the idea to
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
them.
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 its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also
states that the other requeste
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,
Hi Patrick,
Yahoo reports there is no RSID group. Where should I request additional
RSID codes?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Hello Skip,
About Contestia:
I think this mode is a better compromise between robustness and speed
than Olivia (too much robustness) and RTTYM
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 Becke
not for person-to-person communication, but
was done by the ARRL specifically for Winlink messaging, because NOBODY
needs a 300 wpm mode for keyboarding, do they!
So, 99% of the hams can now just kiss one of the 60m channels goodbye
for general use.
Thank you, ARRL! :-(
73 - Skip KH6TY
John
Patrick,
Thanks. I'll ask Dave to request the number. He is already going to add
Contestia 64/1000 and Contestia 64/2000 to Fldigi because those are
needed on UHF when SSB cannot get though due to poor propagation,
Doppler speading, and multipath.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Patrick Lindecker
of daily tests to find out that Contestia
64/1000 is the MOST dependable mode to use for digital QSO's on UHF
because of the extreme conditions there.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Skip,
It is an informal group composed by the Hams able to program RS ID in
thei
Why not just limit bandwidth of any emission to 500 Hz?
73 - Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My
objections are
PIII is a proprietary mode .
PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading
cause of QRM
et on the bands to do the same thing. The FCC does listen to the
comments, and considers every one.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Wright wrote:
I take that as a "no" to my question about whether Pactor III has ever
been publicly documented.
My understanding is that if it is not, then i
The F6FBB BBS protocol is used.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Hi Steinar,
I've never used WINLINK and know little about it but I'd imagine they
use a standard and freely available compression algorithms. Perhaps
someone else can comment.
73 Trevor M5AKA
--- On Tu
r QSO
and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for
Winlink mailboxes.
If you don't comment, you might wish you had!
73 - Skip KH6TY
John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
>Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was rea
oking).
73 - Skip KH6TY
Designer of DigiPan
Howard Z wrote:
MultiPSK = Yick Ugg, can't stand to even look at the user interface.
I don't care if his s/w can walk on water - I can't bring myself to
use it.
The author of MultiPSK needs to think about all the other softwa
s, many
written by professionals in the programming or computer field.
As you say, you can't get past the GUI to use the program. That is sad,
because you are missing out on all the fun using ALE400 and RSID, as
well as other programs in Multipsk that are not in any other ham program
reviations, etc. for
DigiTalk, but this is not my full-time job!
So, the code is already there for "listening" to PSK31, and a program
for "sending" PSK31 by voice. Naturally Speaking also can be trained to
recognize some unique commands, but I have not spent enough time with
With WRAP, you can compress the file and reduce the transmission time
significantly in many cases.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Tony wrote:
Andy,
I sent a Wrap file via ALE400 today. Is that just a waste of time
since ALE 400 already has error correction ?
It would seem redundant if the
I take up less than 50 Hz of spectrum. I think may others do that
also. If you can hear'em, you can work'em on PSK31, except over the
polar paths.
73, Skip KH6TY
Andy,
I rarely check my Facebook page (no teenagers here!) and only signed up
with Facebook, at your request, but I'll give it a try.
When I go to the page, I don't see where to write on the "Wall", or how
to become a fan. What am I missing?
73 - Skip KH6TY
wn risk, programmers!
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rein A wrote:
Hello John,
If your situation is not due to an installation problem
or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned,
programmed in, it might well have other consequences.
ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in
he narrow FSK modes might result in approval to use a separate
program that has no frequency-hopped modes. The remaining program would
only be allowed in the US above 222 Mhz.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Rein A wrote:
Hello All,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40
<http://www.youtube.c
T63 is NOT
frequency hopped, or spread spectrum, even though it can be as wide as
2000 Hz.
The spectrum of MT63 shows this very clearly. Compare that to the
spectrum of ROS 16 and 1 baud of 2250 Hz width.
73 - Skip KH6TY
so individuals do have to do that, but the responsibility is up
to the individual amateur to comply with the regulations.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
--- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
> The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral
ia
1000/64 was printing 100%.
Your point is well made, but there is a advantageous application for
ROS, and that is on UHF for EME. Up there, it is legal for US hams to
use also.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Sparks wrote:
More importantly (to me, at least) is Spread Spectrum the most
effective or
e
they usually only look at emissions on the air and determine
if the operator is out of compliance or not. Probably similar to the
enforcement vans that roam London looking for illegal TV and radio
emissions, as I am told they did in the past, if they still do that.
73, Skip KH6TY
T
Yes, Dave, it is 6-channel card, so maybe Jeremey can disable four of
the channels and any special effects.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote:
Could it be that the card is set up for 5.1 surround instead of
simple 2-channel stereo, or that you actually have the
There is a $19.95 interface kit described on Page 37 of the June QST.
73, Skip KH6TY
When it comes to transmitting and receiving, you will need to also
connect your transceiver to the computer so that the tones generated
by your software and sound card are sent over the air. Thus you have
On 6/18/2010 2:40 PM, charles standlee wrote:
And a good one it is... Good job on it Skip..
73, Chuck AC5PW
Thanks, Chuck, I tried to keep things basic and simple in order make it
affordable to most hams.
73, Skip KH6TY
retired and had time for ham radio. DigiPan was the first thing I did
after I retired.
Your support of the weather alert feature means a lot to me! Thanks!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 6/19/2010 4:37 AM, Patrick Lindecker wrote:
/Pour les francophones: la version française de ce message se trouve
sur
ector and beeper was probably already
patented, or probably too obvious to be patentable.
It was enough to kickstart the weather alert radio industry and
fortunate to retire at 43 as a result.
I definitely have been blessed by ham radio!
73, Skip KH6TY
//
John,
I have written up a short story of how the weather alert radio industry
began. You can read it at this link:
http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm
<http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehteller/WeatherAlertStory.htm>
73, Skip KH6TY
Sometime I would like to hear how
Andy,
It would be most helpful to know how much QRM gets through if you use a
500 Hz-wide IF filter and use a center frequency 250 Hz from the top of
a Pactor-III channel. Perhaps the problem is trying to use too wide an
IF filter.
73, Skip KH6TY
formation.
Thanks.
73, Skip KH6TY
._,___
interpreting them as they see fit.
ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is
probably really good for EME.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using
it...they feel it is not spread spe
of
a false FCC approval.
I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply
any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit
orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front
of this computer.
I hope you understand...
73, Skip KH6
er
among many frequency channels
, using a pseudorandom
sequence known to both transmitter
and receiver . "
Please post here what your own spectral analysis finds, and state if you
are willing to testify to the FCC whether or not ROS is really FHSS.
Thanks.
73, Skip KH6TY
(No BS at this
e discussion, but he
has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to
do so.
That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that
note and get on the air instead!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
Skip:
Spectral
ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more
damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the
regulations.
73, Skip KH6TY.
On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote:
Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially
damaging the hobby as a whole. If one
x27;s job to tell you what program you can use. It is the
ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case,
it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that
is FHSS.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
That would m
questions any more. I think I have honestly
said enough and certainly put more time in analyzing ROS for myself than
most of the people who disagree with what I have said.
No more comments about ROS from me!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 5:00 PM, Rein A wrote:
Dear Skip,
This is the second time
rk with someone else who will do
that for you, and end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and
others who follow the regulations and depend upon ARRL interpretations
of the FCC regulations for us all.
Signing off on ROS now -
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/13/2010 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.
If there are enough randomly dispersed chips, won't they eventually fill
the entire area with if there are enough of them?
I studied communications theory and auto-correlation functions, etc., 50
years ago in college, but unfortunately I don't remember much of it at all!
73, Skip K
in such
matters.
By what authority do you claim to know that the FCC did not make any
analysis? That is in direct conflict with what I was told by a member of
the group that did the analysis.
Skip KH6TY
,___
faces.
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/13/2010 10:48 PM, Alan Barrow wrote:
KH6TY wrote:
>
>
> Alan,
>
> What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same
> time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone
> a
f all upper case are not a problem. If you do not like all
upper case, in fldigi we have added an option to use all lower case...
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/14/2010 3:51 AM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
Now let's cut to the chase:
* *
*THE USE OF SPREADSPECTRUM, THAT IS, THE USE OF BANDWIDTH
if you do not
decode a request in a different mode than you are using, you are unable
to share. It helps to use RSID or operate in a place where others are
using the same mode.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/14/2010 4:37 AM, g4ilo wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40ya
possible at 25 miles
using low verticals, MT63 may not work.
On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem
with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200
miles paths.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote:
Jon,
Here in WPA we&#x
be changed, make your case and let
the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what
should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit,
and only after giving everyone a chance to comment.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/19/2010 8:12 PM, bg...@comcast.net wrote:
ey are not understandable. This is true on probably 80%
of our morning schedules on 432 MHz over 200 mile paths when there is no
propagation enhancement.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/19/2010 8:35 PM, KB3FXI wrote:
Interesting suggestions, Skip.
We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertica
"guide lines" - they are LAW for the benefit of all.
Band plans are "guide lines", not regulations.
What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The
regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many
users to be treated as fairly as po
"In expressing views on this matter, please avoid personal attacks or
insulting language.
Andy K3UK
Owner."
If you do not like the regulations, then petition to change them. That
is your duty as an American...
Without laws, there is anarchy, and with anarchy, follows chaos.
73,
below 10 meters? Perhaps
it also should be, but until the regulations are changed to permit it,
it may not be done.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 4:19 AM, g4ilo wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY wrote:
>
> I think the
Once the "driver", i.e. transceiver is operated linearly for soundcard
RTTY, a non-linear class-C amp can follow and the result, and high
power, is the same as direct FSK, because the drive to the amp is a pure
RF signal - no competitive loss to the high power contester!
73, Skip K
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the
individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for
everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual?
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over
50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a
Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox...
Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote:
Who is to decide
The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) and says it is
SS, and we are obliged to accept their determination. To use it, someone
just must file a petition to change the regulations.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 11:03 AM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
They would say ... you know
face in
the July QST and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over.
I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now!
I hope you understand...
Thanks!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 1:19 PM, Trevor . wrote:
--- On Tue, 20/7/10, KH6TY <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast
Tony,
Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was
very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with
flutter tests like Jaak has done on
http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ?
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote:
All
h panoramic displays, you get a list of
callsigns to select from all presented to you, and can even highlight
zones or callsign areas you need for multipliers, etc..
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
- Original Message
From: g4ilo mailto:julian%40g4ilo.co
er" of all we are working
with today! I wish I knew more about his background.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/21/2010 12:15 AM, Tony wrote:
>
>
> On 7/20/2010 3:54 PM, KH6TY wrote:
>
> >Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum
> was very poor on U
outputs of the transceiver, whether
you should use a single feedline or two feedlines.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 8:58 PM, obrienaj wrote:
>
>
> I am planning another HF installation soon and may have a 33ft mast
> begging for some extra creative thing to hang off it . I do not do 7
all possible with this author! :-(
This wholesale abuse of ham radio traditions and spamming clusters, etc.
by this author, is just not acceptable, and to my knowledge has never
been done before.
73, Skip KH6TY
or a rotator, but I was
5000 miles away, so the pattern was very wide at that distance.
73, Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
See http://www.obriensweb.com/halfsquare.html for a brief article on
this antenna that I have found easy to build and has improved my
signals
Andy K3UK
y's WinPSK is an excellent program and
I even used his PSKCORE.DLL for my own QuickPSK program, which
introduced PSK63, but DigiPan is every bit as reliable and easy to use.
73, Skip KH6TY
Andy obrien wrote:
This claim from West Mountain seems dubious.
DIGIPAN PROBLEMS
If you are
no
tuned circuit is needed, and no RF ground.
73, Skip KH6TY
kf4hou wrote:
Hey Tom
Which is the better way of feeding the Half Square what is the plus
and minus of both? Voltage vs. Current Fed
Tom, with voltage feed, you only need an electrostatic ground. I used
about 10' x 10' of chicken wire for a ground sheet under mine in Hawaii.
73, Skip KH6TY
Thomas wrote:
What Andy and Skip said, plus a top corner feed causes a pattern
distortion in the broadside that narrow
u also need to be thankful for the
same reguations that have protected you also, as radio waves often obey
no international boundaries.
73, Skip KH6TY
301 - 400 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
