Date   

Re: testing

John Bradley <jbradley@...>
 

 

From an outsiders point of view, I think the FCC made a big mistake squishing CW and digital between 3500 and 3600.

 

There is very little SSB activity between 3600 and 3700, and there is no reason why the digital portion could not have been extended to at least 3650. Plan B would have been to move the Pactor stations between 3600 and 3620, leaving the rest below 3600. Not that I think the pactor stations deserve any special consideration…… winlink appears to be fading fast , with the falling numbers of PMBO’s, so maybe it’s time to encourage RFSM and other higher speed modes? ( what’s the saying? it will  when pigs fly?)

 

I think you are on the right track when it comes to NBEMS, and would be cool to see automatic forwarding of emails to the internet, both ways.  Unfortunately for us who depend on HF rather than VHF for emergency comms, PSk is a non-starter since it is not dependable. MFSK is better, you  teaming up with Patrick and building in FAE400 ARQ would be a dream come true.

 

Insisting that VHF is the answer to most emergency communications is a disservice to many of the hams who like me live in lightly populated areas of the country. ND,SD,MT,WY,ID and others have the same problem , where we simply don’t have the hams or the stations that can be reached consistently with an easy VHF hop.  I know that is possible to reach out several hundred miles on VHF SSB, but can you do it every day, AND, can you do it from a vehicle command post at the site of the emergency?

 

Coincidentally a number of emergency service agencies, both provincial and federal, are having a fresh look at HF communications links, and these are data links rather than voice links. Satellite telephones work, but they can only work at 1200bps for data because of the restricted bandwidth, and bandwidth is a very expensive commodity. Cellular coverage exists along major highways, but once off these roads, coverage is spotty, and in an emergency cellular phones become very congested and almost unusable.

 

The FCC has to remove the “speed limit” for text communications to encourage higher speed, narrower width modes for data transfer. It doesn’t make any sense at all why high speed image transfers are allowed but text is limited to 300 baud or so.  

 

another 2 cents worth

 

John

VE5MU

 

Rick,

I think from the FCC viewpoint, there is just so much "pie" on HF to be
divided up.

Phone operators are squeezed because there is not enough room and, with the
exception of possible acceptance of FDMDV quality, it is not yet possible to
fit more phone signals in the space available. On the other hand, it is
possible for digital operators to develop more narrow modes so that more
digital signals can fit into a more narrow space.

. that VHF and UHF communications were limited to very local communications
unless repeaters were used, but by combining digital modes with better
antenna designs and high power, it is now possible to achieve reliable VHF
and UHF communications over distances of 100 to 200 miles. Stations with
moderate EME-sized antennas can communicate with each other over 400 miles
even on SSB phone on a daily basis, and that is done already on 2m using
antennas with 16 dBi of gain on both ends.



Re: testing

Walter DANZIERI <ewe127joy021@...>
 



----- Original Message ----
From: Bill McLaughlin
To: NBEMSham@...
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2008 7:18:39 PM
Subject: [NBEMSham] Re: testing

Hello Rick,

Yes, they may very well not know their signal spills outside the
sub-band limits.

73,

Bill

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroup s.com, Rick wrote:
>
> So they may not realize that they extend outside the sub band when it
> switches into Pactor 3?
>
> Right now, the IARU Band Plan is VERY contentious with a huge number of
> hams. I got quite an earful when I was testing RFSM recently on 3630
USB
> and an LSB station came on frequency, but claimed he did not hear
> anything on his sideband.
>
> Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the
> phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU
> plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they
call
> them. The apparently distinguish between DV and other digital. After
> some rather great detail explaining the bandplan (just for 75 and 80
> meters) he said he could not understand what I was saying. Of
course, he
> did not want to understand it because he is very upset that the
bandplan
> dares to suggest that wide bandwidth AM should be in discrete areas. He
> believes that AM phone must have its own sub band, but then not allow
> any other modes to enter than sub band. Needless to say, he can not
> accept the reality of what the FCC plans to do.
>
> Because the FCC took away so much of the RTTY/Data bands to all U.S.
> hams and moved them to phone/image for Advance and Extra, the IARU Plan
> does not come close to the FCC rules for automatic stations. Right now
> the specified bandwidth limits in the RTTY/Data continue to be no wider
> than a communications quality phone transmission. If the FCC would only
> reinstate 3600-3625 for all hams and for automatic and wide bandwidth
> and phone and image (actually I would prefer 3600-3650), then we would
> have what I consider a much better and fairer solution and we could see
> how well this works (or not) before allowing more mixed modes and mixed
> bandwidths. But it is just too late now and it will not happen, so we
> have to make do as best we can.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
> > the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
> > when using Pactor I/II.
> >
> > What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
> > and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
> > wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
> > a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
> > choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill N9DSJ
> > (snip)
> >
> >
>



Re: testing

"kh6ty" <hteller@...>
 

Rick,

I think from the FCC viewpoint, there is just so much "pie" on HF to be divided up.

Phone operators are squeezed because there is not enough room and, with the exception of possible acceptance of FDMDV quality, it is not yet possible to fit more phone signals in the space available. On the other hand, it is possible for digital operators to develop more narrow modes so that more digital signals can fit into a more narrow space.

Ham radio communication on HF has overwhelmingly always been about simply communicating with another station, even if that communication is no more than an exchange of call signs and signal reports, or required contest exchange, that can result in a QSL card. As you point out, image communication "has little value for practical messaging", but faster image communication, which interests only a small minority of hams, needs a disproportionately large piece of the "pie" compared to other digital communications, which have been developed mainly to improve the robustness of that simple communication at the sacrifice of attaining high speed data transfers.

While it is true that high speed data and image transfers can have great usefulness for emcomm, that is only essential during true emergencies. The rest of the image communications can, and always have, take place on VHF or UHF where there is more room. I.e. the "pie" there is bigger. It used to be that VHF and UHF communications were limited to very local communications unless repeaters were used, but by combining digital modes with better antenna designs and high power, it is now possible to achieve reliable VHF and UHF communications over distances of 100 to 200 miles. Stations with moderate EME-sized antennas can communicate with each other over 400 miles even on SSB phone on a daily basis, and that is done already on 2m using antennas with 16 dBi of gain on both ends.

The solution for digital operators is to develop new, more narrow, digital modes for data communication in less space, and just accept a longer time to transfer images via HF, because phone operators have limited opportunites to use more narrow modes for phone, and phone communication is the easiest and most natural to use, requiring less training than using digital modes.

So, even as an operator primarily interested in digital communications, I personally think the FCC's latest actions are warranted and the challenge for digital operators is to fit more communications in the piece of the "pie" that is left for them to use on HF, or migrate to VHF and UHF where there is plenty of space for wider, faster, modes for image transfer.

The recent NBEMS activity on HF shows that, even with a sensitive mode (such as MFSK16), when the band goes out, regardless of the mode, no communication at all is possible, but with the right equipment, even 200 miles on VHF is possible all the time without the band ever going out. Even NVIS on HF is not the complete answer for emcomm, because it requires moving from 40m to 80m as propagation changes. With 16 dBi of antenna gain at 40 feet on both ends, and enough power (150 watts), the NBEMS goal of dependable, always there, point-to-point communication over 100 miles can be extended to 200 miles (or even to 300 miles with bigger antennas). My VHF antenna is in my attic at 27 feet, and only has 13 elements, but if N4TUT, 300 miles away, with twice my gain, at 50 feet, is pointing in my direction, I can work him on SSB phone every morning. If more distance than that is needed to span a disaster zone, there is no choice but to fall back on NVIS propagation using 40m or 80m and make the necessary adjustments for propagation changes, or just transfer information slower than desired by using medium-width digital modes that are more resistant to QRN and QSB.

As an example of what digital operators can do to get by with less space, if everyone used PSK63 instead of RTTY for "RTTY" contesting, the current crowding during RTTY contests would just about disappear. The only difference is that PSK63 falls apart under atmospheric flutter on certain paths, and only a wider bandwidth mode will fix that. However, in most RTTY contests, that is not a problem.

Just my two cents worth...

73, Skip KH6TY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick" <mrfarm@...>
To: <NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NBEMSham] Re: testing


Jeff,

You truncated the part that discussed my views on this, not that they
are going to change things. As I point out, the FCC has taken away
enormous privileges from many hams, including Extras with the loss of
most of the 80 meter band and some of 40 meter RTTY/Data . The 80 meter
band is less than half of what it once was. The only beneficiaries are
the phone/image operators. Yes, Generals got some increased phone
privileges, but Advanced and Extras got huge amounts, but still lost the
majority of their RTTY/Data capability.


Re: testing

Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

Jeff,

You truncated the part that discussed my views on this, not that they are going to change things. As I point out, the FCC has taken away enormous privileges from many hams, including Extras with the loss of most of the 80 meter band and some of 40 meter RTTY/Data . The 80 meter band is less than half of what it once was. The only beneficiaries are the phone/image operators. Yes, Generals got some increased phone privileges, but Advanced and Extras got huge amounts, but still lost the majority of their RTTY/Data capability.

So, all of us digital operators are in the same situation where we can not operate RTTY/Data above 3600. When we were testing RFSM recently on 3630, we were only able to do image testing. It works quite well with reasonably good signals, but it has little value for practical messaging and was only done to get a feel for the software and proof of concept. If the server had moved up to 3800, Generals and up could use that portion of the band for high baud rate image transfers, unless the FCC says otherwise.

Somehow, the FCC has to think this through better and come up with a fix to allow mixed modes. This is included in the questions that I have asked them and we continue to await a response. They will likely say that someone has to make a proposal to get some changes done, but how to satisfy everyone? The phone operators that I have talked to are not usually not interested in either messaging or public service and they make up the majority viewpoint and would oppose any mode mixing.

At this time, General Class operators can use phone and image from 3800 and up. As I recall, it was not that many years ago that only Advanced and Extra could even do image, which is why they have the image nets just out of reach of Generals. That does not prevent Generals from starting up nets higher up in their part of the band.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Jeff Moore wrote:

3600 to 3625 is great if you're an Extra, But I'm a general and can't go above 3600 until the phone band at 3800 -- What am I supposed to do?
Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY
Bend, Oregon
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Rick <mailto:mrfarm@...>
*Subject:* Re: [NBEMSham] Re: testing

[snip]

Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the
phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU
plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they call
them.

[snip]

- - - - -
complete previous post:

.
Right now, the IARU Band Plan is VERY contentious with a huge number of hams. I got quite an earful when I was testing RFSM recently on 3630 USB and an LSB station came on frequency, but claimed he did not hear anything on his sideband.

Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they call them. The apparently distinguish between DV and other digital. After some rather great detail explaining the bandplan (just for 75 and 80 meters) he said he could not understand what I was saying. Of course, he did not want to understand it because he is very upset that the bandplan dares to suggest that wide bandwidth AM should be in discrete areas. He believes that AM phone must have its own sub band, but then not allow any other modes to enter than sub band. Needless to say, he can not accept the reality of what the FCC plans to do.

Because the FCC took away so much of the RTTY/Data bands to all U.S. hams and moved them to phone/image for Advance and Extra, the IARU Plan does not come close to the FCC rules for automatic stations. Right now the specified bandwidth limits in the RTTY/Data continue to be no wider than a communications quality phone transmission. If the FCC would only reinstate 3600-3625 for all hams and for automatic and wide bandwidth and phone and image (actually I would prefer 3600-3650), then we would have what I consider a much better and fairer solution and we could see how well this works (or not) before allowing more mixed modes and mixed bandwidths. But it is just too late now and it will not happen, so we have to make do as best we can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1318 - Release Date: 3/7/2008 2:01 PM


Re: testing

"Bill McLaughlin" <bmc@...>
 

Hello Rick,

Yes, they may very well not know their signal spills outside the
sub-band limits.

73,

Bill

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com, Rick <mrfarm@...> wrote:

So they may not realize that they extend outside the sub band when it
switches into Pactor 3?

Right now, the IARU Band Plan is VERY contentious with a huge number of
hams. I got quite an earful when I was testing RFSM recently on 3630
USB
and an LSB station came on frequency, but claimed he did not hear
anything on his sideband.

Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the
phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU
plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they
call
them. The apparently distinguish between DV and other digital. After
some rather great detail explaining the bandplan (just for 75 and 80
meters) he said he could not understand what I was saying. Of
course, he
did not want to understand it because he is very upset that the
bandplan
dares to suggest that wide bandwidth AM should be in discrete areas. He
believes that AM phone must have its own sub band, but then not allow
any other modes to enter than sub band. Needless to say, he can not
accept the reality of what the FCC plans to do.

Because the FCC took away so much of the RTTY/Data bands to all U.S.
hams and moved them to phone/image for Advance and Extra, the IARU Plan
does not come close to the FCC rules for automatic stations. Right now
the specified bandwidth limits in the RTTY/Data continue to be no wider
than a communications quality phone transmission. If the FCC would only
reinstate 3600-3625 for all hams and for automatic and wide bandwidth
and phone and image (actually I would prefer 3600-3650), then we would
have what I consider a much better and fairer solution and we could see
how well this works (or not) before allowing more mixed modes and mixed
bandwidths. But it is just too late now and it will not happen, so we
have to make do as best we can.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Bill McLaughlin wrote:
Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ
(snip)


Re: testing

"Bill McLaughlin" <bmc@...>
 

Hello John,

First I made a typo (my trademark) on the call, you have it correctly
as VE2AFQ.
As per a page of Pactor III only stations and frequency's.

(http://users.iafrica.com/z/zs/zs5s/bulls/P3.TXT)

VE2AFQ 3562.0 7094.0 10137.9 14068.9 - 21109.4 - | -

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <jbradley@...> wrote:

fyi



As a cannuck , we can only run 1khz bandwidth on 30M, and 6khz
bandwidth on
the other HF bands. the intent was to keep

SSB off 30M .. we are regulated by bandwidth and not emissions.
While we do
not have sub-bands, we are "encouraged" to follow the Region 2 bandplan.



If VE2AFQ is running more than 1khz bandwidth with Pactor 3, then he is
breaking Canadian laws.



how wide is Pactor 1 thru 3?



John

VE5MU



From: NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
Of Bill McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:43 PM
To: NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NBEMSham] Re: testing



Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ
(snip)

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com <mailto:NBEMSham%40yahoogroups.com>
, Rick
<mrfarm@> wrote:

I would be very surprised if there were any Winlink 2000 stations
from
the U.S. that are operating automatic operation with Pactor 3 and
outside of the mandatory automatic sub bands. It may have been
someone
outside the U.S. (Canada?) or it could have been keyboard although I
feel that unless you have some kind of major data needs it is not
really
appropriate to use the wide modes. But I feel that way about MT-63 or
any other similar wide bandwidth mode.

The IARU Region 2 band plan is very new and has no teeth other than
other hams letting them know of our disapproval. Is Winlink 2000
agreeing to follow the new band plan? Some parts of it would make
automatic operation impossible for text data operation on 80 meters
since the plan calls for out of sub band use of automatic, above
3600.


Re: testing

"Bill McLaughlin" <bmc@...>
 

Hello Tom,

"Also approved by Waterman" was in reference for who, supposedly, runs
the Winlink network; are you implying that he allows PMBO's to operate
without coordination? Last I heard Steve was Network Administrator.

As for the rest of your post I have no idea what context to place it
in aside from tangential and specious; I do not remember mentioning
high/low priced stations, code/no-code, cbers or any such.

73,

Bill N9DSJ


--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com, Tom Horne <hornetd@...> wrote:

Bill
How can it be enough said when it is full of insider references and
obvious hostility to fully licensed maritime mobile amateur radio
operators who use radio to check their personal Email. What on
earth do
you mean by "Also approved by Waterman" Is it just pure envy because
the rest of us cannot afford to go sailing. Is there some sort of low
income litmus test to be a ham. There is a station in the northern
part
of my county that has four rotating towers, each one hundred and eighty
feet high, with multiple antenna phased arrays on them. Do all "true
hams" despise such operations as unfair, or is this still a free
country
were anyone can rise as far as their initiative, intelligence, and
ambition can take them. I'm an electrician by craft. A pretty good
one
I might add even if I do say so myself. I'll never be able to afford
even one tower of that height or a yacht that is big enough to have a
maritime mobile ham station on it. But I just don't see the need to
resent those who are more well off then I am. I've never had one of
those well off or even truly wealthy hams treat me as anything other
than a fellow amateur. Just like me they do radio for the love of it
which is the literal meaning of amateur. Their extreme stations and
DeXpeditions are making a real contribution to the radio art which is
one of the reasons for existence of the entire amateur radio service.
I'm getting awful tired of all the petty resentments and put downs that
have crept into amateur radio while I was inactive in the hobby. I
hear
people talk about those who can afford multi thousand dollar radios as
mere appliance operators. Those of us who became licensed or
relicensed
after February of last year are written off as "no code CBrs." The
fact
that I was pounding brass into a forth hand Viking Johnson transmitter
loaded into the coper flashing on the church building I was the
caretaker for when some of the complaint artists were still in diapers
doesn't count. I didn't have to pound brass until my hand bled so I'm
not a real ham. I'm just going to go ahead and say it some of you guys
need to get over yourselves and your prejudices against other hams,
digital modes that are not narrower then a Hammarlund HQ-180ACs cw
filter, and the rest of this divisive nonsense.
--
Tom Horne, W3TDH


3f.
Re: testing
Posted by: "Bill McLaughlin" bmc@... n9dsj
Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:42 pm (PST)
Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be
within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center
freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is
VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the
that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but
still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your
definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ


Re: testing

"Jeff Moore" <tnetcenter@...>
 

3600 to 3625 is great if you're an Extra,  But I'm a general and can't go above 3600 until the phone band at 3800  --  What am I supposed to do?
 
Jeff Moore  --  KE7ACY
Bend, Oregon
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
Subject: Re: [NBEMSham] Re: testing

[snip]

Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the
phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU
plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they call
them.

[snip]

73,

Rick, KV9U

Bill McLaughlin wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
> the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
> when using Pactor I/II.
>
> What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
> and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
> wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
> a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
> choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!
>
> 73,
>
> Bill N9DSJ
> (snip)
>

.


Re: testing

Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

Depending upon the depth you measure (-6, -40, -60 dB) here are some estimates:

Pactor is only a bit wider than RTTY, with FSK tones spaced at 200 Hz and running at 100 or 200 baud, so maybe a bit under 400 Hz?

Pactor II was designed to fit inside of a standard 500 Hz CW filter although group delay might affect throughput in some cases, but since it uses two PSK tones spaced 200 Hz and always at 100 baud, 500 Hz seems realistic for even the most complex of the modulation at 16 DPSK

Pactor III is about 2400 Hz by most accounts. When it operates in the widest 18 tone mode, it centers tones from 480 to 2520 which is an audio bandwidth of well over 2000 Hz. ARRL's site claims 2400 Hz at the -40 dB points.

Sorry to hear that you are in Bonnie's "technology jail" even worse than here in the liberal U.S. when it comes to bandwidth :-)

I think most hams would agree that bandwidths much over 500 Hz are a bit much on 30 meters. Over 1000 Hz would be fairly hostile to other users in such a narrow band considering that you need to keep away from the lower CW area and some parts are not to be used due to other primary users.

73,

Rick, KV9U








John Bradley wrote:


fyi

As a cannuck , we can only run 1khz bandwidth on 30M, and 6khz bandwidth on the other HF bands. the intent was to keep

SSB off 30M �. we are regulated by bandwidth and not emissions. While we do not have sub-bands, we are �encouraged� to follow the Region 2 bandplan.

If VE2AFQ is running more than 1khz bandwidth with Pactor 3, then he is breaking Canadian laws.

how wide is Pactor 1 thru 3?

John

VE5MU


Re: testing

Tom Horne <hornetd@...>
 

Bill
How can it be enough said when it is full of insider references and obvious hostility to fully licensed maritime mobile amateur radio operators who use radio to check their personal Email. What on earth do you mean by "Also approved by Waterman" Is it just pure envy because the rest of us cannot afford to go sailing. Is there some sort of low income litmus test to be a ham. There is a station in the northern part of my county that has four rotating towers, each one hundred and eighty feet high, with multiple antenna phased arrays on them. Do all "true hams" despise such operations as unfair, or is this still a free country were anyone can rise as far as their initiative, intelligence, and ambition can take them. I'm an electrician by craft. A pretty good one I might add even if I do say so myself. I'll never be able to afford even one tower of that height or a yacht that is big enough to have a maritime mobile ham station on it. But I just don't see the need to resent those who are more well off then I am. I've never had one of those well off or even truly wealthy hams treat me as anything other than a fellow amateur. Just like me they do radio for the love of it which is the literal meaning of amateur. Their extreme stations and DeXpeditions are making a real contribution to the radio art which is one of the reasons for existence of the entire amateur radio service. I'm getting awful tired of all the petty resentments and put downs that have crept into amateur radio while I was inactive in the hobby. I hear people talk about those who can afford multi thousand dollar radios as mere appliance operators. Those of us who became licensed or relicensed after February of last year are written off as "no code CBrs." The fact that I was pounding brass into a forth hand Viking Johnson transmitter loaded into the coper flashing on the church building I was the caretaker for when some of the complaint artists were still in diapers doesn't count. I didn't have to pound brass until my hand bled so I'm not a real ham. I'm just going to go ahead and say it some of you guys need to get over yourselves and your prejudices against other hams, digital modes that are not narrower then a Hammarlund HQ-180ACs cw filter, and the rest of this divisive nonsense. --
Tom Horne, W3TDH

3f.
Re: testing
Posted by: "Bill McLaughlin" bmc@... n9dsj
Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:42 pm (PST)
Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ


Re: Some Success

roger g6ckr <radio@...>
 

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 16:51 -0500, Dave AFA1HV wrote:
I do not use Outlook or Outlook Express. When I tried to use express
for this, it wouldn't let me set up without an E-Mail address. Help?
Can I use Thunderbird?
Dave WB2HVF
It will probably not be bothered what address you set up. Try a dummy
address and settings.
I actually used a real address when I set up sylphead but it never sends
or receives so it does not matter
As long as you don't have auto send and receive on or mail box polling
you should be fine as it will never try and contact the real world.

I need to update my test windows version of NBEMS which I don't think
has ever had outlook express sent up. So if still stuck shout back and I
will give it a try.


73 Roger
G6CKR


Re: 80 Metere Tonite

Ed <autek@...>
 

Rick wrote:
Tried calling W3NR but then realized he was in contact with N4UM so backed off. Both stations fairly good copy here in SW WI in the north central U.S.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Next time join in the fun. I set my beacon intervals to 30 seconds, but that still doesn't seem to be a good setting. I'll see if a 45 second interval might be better. You always don't have a connect on the 1st beacon. I also need to remember to QRX and see who all is calling. I printed KE3Y and KH6TY, but their signals were marginal at best. The path between N4UM and myself was strictly one-way, he was +20 here, but he was having a difficult time with my signal.

I can't come out and play tonite, the kids are taking me to dinner for my birthday.

73

Ed W3NR

fldigi/flarq for Linux


Re: testing

Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

So they may not realize that they extend outside the sub band when it switches into Pactor 3?

Right now, the IARU Band Plan is VERY contentious with a huge number of hams. I got quite an earful when I was testing RFSM recently on 3630 USB and an LSB station came on frequency, but claimed he did not hear anything on his sideband.

Just mentioning that it was perfectly legal to run image modes on the phone/image portions of the bands did not set well with him. The IARU plan probably would suggest using 3600-3625 for "digimodes" as they call them. The apparently distinguish between DV and other digital. After some rather great detail explaining the bandplan (just for 75 and 80 meters) he said he could not understand what I was saying. Of course, he did not want to understand it because he is very upset that the bandplan dares to suggest that wide bandwidth AM should be in discrete areas. He believes that AM phone must have its own sub band, but then not allow any other modes to enter than sub band. Needless to say, he can not accept the reality of what the FCC plans to do.

Because the FCC took away so much of the RTTY/Data bands to all U.S. hams and moved them to phone/image for Advance and Extra, the IARU Plan does not come close to the FCC rules for automatic stations. Right now the specified bandwidth limits in the RTTY/Data continue to be no wider than a communications quality phone transmission. If the FCC would only reinstate 3600-3625 for all hams and for automatic and wide bandwidth and phone and image (actually I would prefer 3600-3650), then we would have what I consider a much better and fairer solution and we could see how well this works (or not) before allowing more mixed modes and mixed bandwidths. But it is just too late now and it will not happen, so we have to make do as best we can.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Bill McLaughlin wrote:

Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ
(snip)


Re: 80 Metere Tonite

Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

Tried calling W3NR but then realized he was in contact with N4UM so backed off. Both stations fairly good copy here in SW WI in the north central U.S.

73,

Rick, KV9U



Dave AFA1HV wrote:

Band was totally dead tonight. Only one other station on (aside from 2 CW nets on the high and low fringe of the audio passband) and I worked him. A regular PSK31 station near Syracuse, NY.

Dave WB2HVF


Ed wrote:

Dave AFA1HV wrote:

3675.5 ?????
That is the EXTRA PHONE section.

OOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I meant 3575.5

Thanks for catching the mistake.

Ed W3NR


Re: testing

John Bradley <jbradley@...>
 

fyi

 

As a cannuck , we can only run 1khz bandwidth on 30M, and 6khz bandwidth on the other HF bands. the intent was to keep

SSB off 30M …. we are regulated  by bandwidth and not emissions. While we do not have sub-bands, we are “encouraged” to follow the Region 2 bandplan.

 

If VE2AFQ is running more than 1khz bandwidth with Pactor 3, then he is breaking Canadian laws.

 

how wide is Pactor 1 thru 3?

 

John

VE5MU

 

From: NBEMSham@... [mailto:NBEMSham@...] On Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:43 PM
To: NBEMSham@...
Subject: [NBEMSham] Re: testing

 

Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ
(snip)

--- In NBEMSham@..., Rick wrote:
>
> I would be very surprised if there were any Winlink 2000 stations from
> the U.S. that are operating automatic operation with Pactor 3 and
> outside of the mandatory automatic sub bands. It may have been someone
> outside the U.S. (Canada?) or it could have been keyboard although I
> feel that unless you have some kind of major data needs it is not
really
> appropriate to use the wide modes. But I feel that way about MT-63 or
> any other similar wide bandwidth mode.
>
> The IARU Region 2 band plan is very new and has no teeth other than
> other hams letting them know of our disapproval. Is Winlink 2000
> agreeing to follow the new band plan? Some parts of it would make
> automatic operation impossible for text data operation on 80 meters
> since the plan calls for out of sub band use of automatic, above >3600.


Re: testing

John Bradley <jbradley@...>
 

also as an aside, does anyone use Propnet’s results? seems the 30m automatic spotting stations do a better job, and

without generating QRM

 

John

VE5MU

 

From: NBEMSham@... [mailto:NBEMSham@...] On Behalf Of Bill McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:04 PM
To: NBEMSham@...
Subject: [NBEMSham] Re: testing

 

Hi Skip,

As an aside, Propnet recently dropped to 10.139 due to a
complaint/whine that they were interfering with a rtty dx station. I
do think they try very hard to be good neighbors (although 10.139 is
the traditional JT65A freq). Is difficult as some countries do not
allow use below 10.140....which, of course, is the lower limit to the
US automatic sub-band.

Too many stations trying to operate in a confined space and a few very
wide modes taking a large piece of an already small pie willy-nilly.
It does not make for a good scenario.....

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In NBEMSham@..., hteller wrote:
(snipped)
>
> In addition, three times, a PropNet station regularly came on top of
our
> NBEMS QSO. It is unreasonable to believe he could not have copied
either
> me or N4UM, but it transmitted anyway, obviously under illegal
automatic
> operation (not listening first) outside of the beacon band. Such
> activities belong in the auto subbands or beacon bands so everyone else
> who does check for activity first, because there is a live operator to
> listen, can also operate in our SHARED bands.

(unsnipped)


Re: testing

"Bill McLaughlin" <bmc@...>
 

Hi Skip,

As an aside, Propnet recently dropped to 10.139 due to a
complaint/whine that they were interfering with a rtty dx station. I
do think they try very hard to be good neighbors (although 10.139 is
the traditional JT65A freq). Is difficult as some countries do not
allow use below 10.140....which, of course, is the lower limit to the
US automatic sub-band.

Too many stations trying to operate in a confined space and a few very
wide modes taking a large piece of an already small pie willy-nilly.
It does not make for a good scenario.....

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com, hteller <hteller@...> wrote:
(snipped)

In addition, three times, a PropNet station regularly came on top of
our
NBEMS QSO. It is unreasonable to believe he could not have copied
either
me or N4UM, but it transmitted anyway, obviously under illegal
automatic
operation (not listening first) outside of the beacon band. Such
activities belong in the auto subbands or beacon bands so everyone else
who does check for activity first, because there is a live operator to
listen, can also operate in our SHARED bands.
(unsnipped)


Re: 80 Metere Tonite

Dave AFA1HV <afa1hv@...>
 

Band was totally dead tonight. Only one other station on (aside from 2 CW nets on the high and low fringe of the audio passband) and I worked him. A regular PSK31 station near Syracuse, NY.

Dave WB2HVF


Ed wrote:


Dave AFA1HV wrote:
3675.5 ?????
That is the EXTRA PHONE section.
OOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I meant 3575.5

Thanks for catching the mistake.

Ed W3NR


Re: testing

"Bill McLaughlin" <bmc@...>
 

Hi Rick,

There are a few, listen around 3.586....the station would be within
the auto sub-band until running pactor III at the same center freq as
when using Pactor I/II.

What is heard outside the automatic sub-band on 30 meters is VE2AFQ,
and callers, running Pactor III....have heard others using the that
wide mode there but less constant. Legal for Canadians, but still not
a good practice on a supposedly "narrow" (fill in your definition of
choice) signal only band. Also approved by Waterman; enough said!

73,

Bill N9DSJ
(snip)

--- In NBEMSham@yahoogroups.com, Rick <mrfarm@...> wrote:

I would be very surprised if there were any Winlink 2000 stations from
the U.S. that are operating automatic operation with Pactor 3 and
outside of the mandatory automatic sub bands. It may have been someone
outside the U.S. (Canada?) or it could have been keyboard although I
feel that unless you have some kind of major data needs it is not
really
appropriate to use the wide modes. But I feel that way about MT-63 or
any other similar wide bandwidth mode.

The IARU Region 2 band plan is very new and has no teeth other than
other hams letting them know of our disapproval. Is Winlink 2000
agreeing to follow the new band plan? Some parts of it would make
automatic operation impossible for text data operation on 80 meters
since the plan calls for out of sub band use of automatic, above >3600.


Re: testing

Rick <mrfarm@...>
 

I would be very surprised if there were any Winlink 2000 stations from the U.S. that are operating automatic operation with Pactor 3 and outside of the mandatory automatic sub bands. It may have been someone outside the U.S. (Canada?) or it could have been keyboard although I feel that unless you have some kind of major data needs it is not really appropriate to use the wide modes. But I feel that way about MT-63 or any other similar wide bandwidth mode.

The IARU Region 2 band plan is very new and has no teeth other than other hams letting them know of our disapproval. Is Winlink 2000 agreeing to follow the new band plan? Some parts of it would make automatic operation impossible for text data operation on 80 meters since the plan calls for out of sub band use of automatic, above 3600.

The PropNet stations are another one of those borderline legal operations because it really seems that at least some are running automatically which is not legal here in the U.S. At least they ID themselves so if you wanted to submit a complaint you can do so. I have not received any response yet from the FCC on my request for a number of answers to basic unresolved questions for the digital operations. But I think that they have received many, many comments and complaints.

Any modes that require infrastructure I feel are not wise to invest too many resources unless you find that you can afford the expertise to handle many different systems. I suspect that even though we have more choices right now, most of us have to concentrate on one or maybe two different solutions.

A good example might be VHF SSB voice if you can find another operator. It may need to be on vertical polarization since that is what 99% of hams have on 2 meters, some with significant gain, but many with minimal antennas.

We are discovering this very problem tonight as we have a very good repeater here in my area and it went down this week with no repair in sight. Don't even know what is wrong yet and it is planned to be replaced in a few months. But tonight is the club net and we are going to try using simplex on the output frequency. Good emergency practice session you could say. I know that a number of hams will not be able to communicate and my 4 element (now vertically polarized) beam's rotor is stuck again:( Always something. Best to keep is simpler and use omni antennas as much as possible for the base stations at least.

73,

Rick, KV9U


hteller wrote:

The station was a Pactor-3 station. The frequency was 10.137. In the US, Pactor 3 operated automatically is only allowed on 30m from 10.150 to 10.140, so if a Winlink station, that Pactor 3 station was operating illegally. Although possible for keyboard to keyboard operation, and fast image transfer, it does not appear that there is any non-automatic Pactor-3 operations on the bands. Winlink PMBO, VE2AFQ, also operates Pactor-3 just below 14.070. He is Canadian, and not REQUIRED to adhere to FCC regulations, but Canada just signed on to the IARU Region 2 bandplan, which does not allow Pactor 3 outside the US autosubands. Why is he ignoring the IARU bandplan? Why is he allowed access to the Winlink CMS servers if he is not going to adhere to the IARU bandplan?

I have nothing against Pactor 3 stations, as long as they adhere to internationally agreed upon bandplans or FCC regulations and do not increase in bandwidth without first checking for adjacent signals (impossible, of course). Of course, nobody without an SCS modem can tell who the Pactor-3 station was.

In addition, three times, a PropNet station regularly came on top of our NBEMS QSO. It is unreasonable to believe he could not have copied either me or N4UM, but it transmitted anyway, obviously under illegal automatic operation (not listening first) outside of the beacon band. Such activities belong in the auto subbands or beacon bands so everyone else who does check for activity first, because there is a live operator to listen, can also operate in our SHARED bands.

Winlink's network obviously can be very useful for some kinds of emcomm traffic as well as for free email for sailors, but there is no reason for their members not to operate according to the rules everyone else must follow. Winlink could not get their job done with narrowband modes, so there is a place for wider modes that can handle deep QSB fades. NBEMS is still considering all modes, and for HF, will have to use some wider modes, such as MFSK16 or DominoEx, to be able to handle QRN that the faster PSK modes cannot, as we have now discovered.

NBEMS is not a mode, but a *system* of software, suggested bands and antennas, and operating practices, intended to provide "johnny on the spot" emcomm in a distributed way that existing systems cannot do. Using PSK63 as a base mode is best for that because all NBEMS stations will be found in one known place by any station that can help with forwarding. We intend to get the job accomplished by using narrowband modes whenever possible, but the job must get done, and if it takes wider modes to do that, we will have to incorporate them into the NBEMS system, but it is unlikely we will have to go wider than 500 Hz. Throughput is a tradeoff between bandwidth, file size, and robustness. What is not known with current systems, or even NBEMS yet, is the amount of time spent trying just to get a connection. We think our distributed system will eventually provide enough forwarding stations so connection times are very fast. The saving in time can much greater than systems which use wider bandwidth modes, but less forwarding stations (there is only so much space available - phone ops can verify that!). Even during the Winlink MARS test, the commander reported that local connectivity was not possible because of propagation, so it was necessary to connect with a station far away, in Utah. You know what that means - a lot of time was wasted trying to connect locally, which probably more than quadrupled the total time from attempted connection to final message delivery. Under those circumstances, if slower modes, but more available fordwarding stations, were used, the speed of transfer would not be so important compared to the time to get a connection. Once a long distance connection has to be made, it is more susceptible to QSB than a NVIS connection, for instance, again increasing the transfer time by an unreported amount.

NBEMS is in beta, and we are gathering experience to optimize the system. We have not ruled out any modes at this time, except voice-bandwidth digital modes, because we feel the job can be done without going to such extremes. We intend to push using 2m VHF SSB digital to the limit, which is reliably about 100 miles. Past that, propagation is too variable to be dependable. Linked DStar repeater systems can go over 100 miles, as long as the repeaters are up, and have very fast throughput, but when the repeaters are down, all the speed in the world is not going to get the message through as a slower system that still works.

73, Skip KH6TY


Rick wrote:

Skip,

I know you don't particularly care for Pactor 3 stations, but isn't it
completely legal to operate Pactor modes at any point in the band since
the whole band is RTTY/Data?



It is only when you are operating an automatic station here in the U.S.
that it would not be legal. If the Pactor station is outside the U.S.,
then they follow their countries rules, which may allow automatic
operation throughout the bands.

If we are striving to come up with solutions for emergency
communications, we should keep all options on the table including
automatic operation since we can never be sure of having operators
available 24/7/365 on a given mode and band. I agree that we should be
doing this with spectrum conserving modes, if possible, and that is why
PSKmail could even have potential in the U.S. if it was made available
on MS OS as well as Linux OS.

With the tests that I have done, I would have to say the best ARQ sound
card mode is FAE400 and this is confirmed by other digital operators
that I have compared notes with.

Also, having a BBS station that could act as a hub, without Pactor
(sound card modes of some kind) would be helpful. The RFSM software
system has this already, including I just found out, group chat without
ARQ. Here in the U.S. this can not be used below 6 meters and it can not
work into the noise like many of the sound card modes. But on quiet VHF
bands, this might do very well.

We are very fortunate to suddenly have a number of options that were not
available even a year ago.

73,

Rick, KV9U

k



Yahoo! Groups Links






16761 - 16780 of 16972