| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.09.99 23:38l 214 Lines 7287 Bytes #-9773 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_236G
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/236G
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<
PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 990920/1821Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:460 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_236G
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA19366 ; Mon, 20 Sep 99 17:51:28 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00015736 ; Mon, 20 Sep 99 18:19:48 MET
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 99 18:11:30 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_236G>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/236G
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> radio. If via the microphone jack is the only way, do I need an
>> interface? Any information would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jim
>> WA5VPW
>
>Exactly the same request I was going to make about the same equipent!
>For anyone with a reply, please post in the conference -- I'm anxious to
>get started with this new mode, too.
>
>Fred K8VDU
>
>
Hi,
I don't know the IC706 but on my IC-746 there is an accessory socket
that carries PTT, AF in & out. This is a much better place to connect
the PSK tones as it is easy to overload the mic input when taking output
from the soundcard. The only "interfacing" you might find useful is a
600/600 Ohm line isolation transformer between both the line in and line
out sockets on the card and the radio, however I haven't found these to
be necessary. The G3PLX program has full details on connecting the radio
and the pitfalls of over-driving. I use the 'PLX program, IZ8BLY's
Hellschreiber program and now Logger with the soundcard without
problems.
Make sure your microphone is unplugged if using the accessory socket and
if anyone is using an IC-746 make sure the "Monitor" switch is turned
off, this gives some strange effects when switched on!
Hope this helps,
Roger Basford
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:51:16 -0400
From: Jim Finney <jpfin@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: PSK31 and IC-706
Hello,
I am interested in using the psk31 mode with my IC-706II. What is the
best way to connect the output of my soundcard to the input of the
radio. If via the microphone jack is the only way, do I need an
interface? Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
WA5VPW
--
Jim Finney
==============================
jpfin@worldnet.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:31:46 -0700
From: Fred Hatfield <hatfield@bellsouth.net>
Subject: PSK31 and IC-706
Jim Finney wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am interested in using the psk31 mode with my IC-706II. What is the
> best way to connect the output of my soundcard to the input of the
> radio. If via the microphone jack is the only way, do I need an
> interface? Any information would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
> WA5VPW
Exactly the same request I was going to make about the same equipent!
For anyone with a reply, please post in the conference -- I'm anxious to
get started with this new mode, too.
Fred K8VDU
>.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Sep 1999 22:49:37 GMT
From: pmarkham@newsguy.com (pmarkham)
Subject: Rf network = pipedream
n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in
<7rtlgi$lqo@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>
>pmarkham <pmarkham@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:8E4413EFApmarkhamnewsguycom@208.134.253.154...
>> n5pvl@texoma.net (Charles Brabham) wrote in
>> <7rs4b0$1opl@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >That's what the Europeans did to get their fancy high-speed, large
>> >-scale network. They respected, maintained, developed and improved
>> >the same old 1.2kb network we also had ten years ago. We spit on ours
>> >and abandoned it,so now we have nothing.
>>
>> I read some of the arguments and name calling here, and as an ex X1J
>> node operator/TCPIP/AX25 weenie I can appreciate much of the
>> arguments, regardless of whether I agree or not. The reference to the
>> European model makes me wonder if there are other incentives to
>> motivate European hams to expand and upgrade their network.
>
>Yes, there were several things the Europeans had going for them that we
>didn't:
>
>The A types never became very influential in Europe, and laws over there
>protected the digital ham radio net from damage by persons attempting to
>move ham radio traffic via non-ham means of communication. It never
>became fashionable there to disparage the network and try to convince
>people that it couldn't be done or simply was not worth doing. - So they
>did it. People are funny, that way.
>
>Here, the A types did gain influence and there were no legal protection
>against "LandLine Lids". - So our network was undercut, disparaged and
>LandLine-Lidded out of existence while the European packet net went
>right on developing and growing.
>
>You could say the Europeans were advantaged, or that we were
>handicapped... The end results are the same.
Your argument is for an rf network protected by regulation from the
"destructive" effects of the evolution of technology and the choices
available to me, and others. Obviously, the "majority" choose to do other
things or this discussion would not exist. To protect your minority
interest in the network do you propose that the fed use force or other
means of "persuasion" to resurrect interest and support? Your "sour
grapes" argument moves me not, and judging by your reasoning, precious
few others.
>
>> I do not see operators with similar
>> disposable incomes opting for a "slow" radio data network when thay
>> have the same internet options as we do, at similar prices. I am of
>> the opinion that human nature is universal; given the same resources
>> and options, we do the same things, in general.
>
>If we had done the same here as the Europeans did, you and I would be
>very likely to be having this discussion via amateur radio instead of
>the Internet.
>
>It would at least have been an option.
>
>You can look at this any way you want to, but that won't change the
>facts: The A types have pretty well called the shots here in the US for
>the last decade. The B types got their way in Europe.
>
>Want to take a wild guess at which group has accomplished more, and has
>something to be proud to show?
>
>Want to guess which group had everything go to hell on their watch,
>having managed to turn the most extensive and advanced packet net around
>into a laughingstock in less than ten short years, and almost destroy
>the very manufacturers who made their equipment by decimating the
>national market with their policies, attitudes and goals??
If "we" was central government regulation, it is possible that the
amateur radio rf data network may be alive and healthy because "our"
options would have been determined by "we". "We" regulatory and legislated
cohersion is prevelent in much of our society but not to the extent you state
and admire the European model of amateur radio operator options.
>
>> If I have other things to do with my life that I consider of greater
>> value to me, why should I choose "slow" data radio, of any flavor,
>> after my experience with packet wars and the bs politics of majority
>> mediocrity?
>
>Well if Ham Radio is not good enough for you, buddy, why don't you do
>the proper thing and take a hike?
>
>This discussion is for people interested in communicating by Ham Radio.
>There are other newsgroups for people who are still fascinated by the
>Internet.
>
After this post I will take a hike. It is quite obvious that my reason and
To be continued in digest: hd_99_236H
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
