| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 10.11.99 11:24l 263 Lines 7678 Bytes #-9689 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_286A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/286A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0ZKA<DB0ABH<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0IZ<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<
PI8VNW
Sent: 991110/0737Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:14878 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_28
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA22896 ; Wed, 10 Nov 99 06:18:09 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016781 ; Wed, 10 Nov 99 07:01:30 MET
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 99 07:00:13 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_286A>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/286A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Tue, 9 Nov 99 Volume 99 : Issue 286
Today's Topics:
Creative Services Software-Pacterm
Digital Modes, What a mess (2 msgs)
FAX and RTTY frequencies
German packet radio (6 msgs)
Help with RFC (2 msgs)
Jnos (Autoexec.Nos)
unreal deal
WTD PTC-II Pactor Controller (3 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Ham-Digital-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Ham-Digital:99/286
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 14:38:22 GMT
From: jdouglas@timewave.com (John Douglas)
Subject: Creative Services Software-Pacterm
In article <801f72$h2n$1@news.ametro.net>, "Lionel" <lbooth@ametro.net> wrote:
>Their web page seems to be down, but is it gone? Has something happened to
>the business? Looking to update Pacterm..
>
>
The CSS server is down. They have been having problems with their high speed
connection. It should beback on the air soon.
73
John Doughlas
N0ISL
Timewave Technology
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:25:25 -0500
From: Jake Brodsky <frussle@erols.com>
Subject: Digital Modes, What a mess
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:36:53 -0600, "Gilbert Baron"
<xzs1947@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>That is not at all true. FCC will mandate a single standard and then all
>will follow it, no choice, and I think it is already done so you won't see
>all these modes for long.
They sure will, just like they did with AM Stereo. Remember that
flop?
Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:frussle@erols.com
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 21:23:47 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: Digital Modes, What a mess
Dale Gillilan wrote:
> I'm just getting started in digital communications. Where do you find these
> software only approaches?
Try http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:53:24 GMT
From: jdouglas@timewave.com (John Douglas)
Subject: FAX and RTTY frequencies
In article <LA_U3.631$jc5.1950@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Harry Göransson"
<harry@mbox304.swipnet.se> wrote:
>> Is there anyone who can give me a few frequencies of amateur or
>> commercial FAX- or RTTY stations on shortwave 4 to 50 MHz?
>> SM4KAJ
>> Harry
>> --
>e-mail: harry.g@swipnet.se or harry@sverige.nu
>
>
>hello Harry,
>
>
http://user.icx.net/~fgperey/weather_fax.html
or
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/HFFAX
>
>Both provide some interesting traffic
73
John N0ISL
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 06:04:36 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: German packet radio
This stuff is FSK. This is about the same logic as putting a weed-eater
motor
and a propeller on a baseball bat. It can be done, it even flies, but the
engineering
is low-level.
I would be more impressed if that 100 kHz was spread out over 4 MHz in
either
a FHSS mode, or a DSSS mode. Legal on 70cm's.
Alas, we can't do that, because Charles says it might raise the "noise
floor!"
As if an FSK 100 kHz bandwidth foghorn wasn't going to raise the "noise
floor"
as much.
Steve
Heidemann wrote:
>I find it strage that Rob is calling these things academical obviously
>without having researched the topic. On www.liebeck.de (links from BayCom
>Group, Germany and from Technical University Darmstadt, Germany) you will
>find construction details, kits,... of real working 76K equipment for 70
cm,
>6 cm and 3 cm ham bands. So in the future please...
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:28:19 -0800
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: German packet radio
Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in message
news:m3k8ns7phs.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
> "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> writes:
>
> > This stuff is FSK. This is about the same logic as putting a weed-eater
> > motor and a propeller on a baseball bat. It can be done, it even flies,
but the
> > engineering is low-level.
> >
> > I would be more impressed if that 100 kHz was spread out over 4 MHz in
> > either a FHSS mode, or a DSSS mode. Legal on 70cm's.
>
> so would I. But we (as hams) can't even do the simple stuff let alone
the
> more complicated spread spectrum stuff. I want to build networks.
I'm
> willing to put in the energy to plan paths and to grow the
network
> organically as new hams get interest. What I can't do is design
radio
> equipment.
>
> I would rather see stone stupid FSK 76k digital radios in many ham
shacks now
> than the very elegant, 1mb spread spectrum radios RSN!
>
> > Alas, we can't do that, because Charles says it might raise the "noise
> > floor!" As if an FSK 100 kHz bandwidth foghorn wasn't going to raise
the "noise
> > floor" as much.
>
> hells bells steve, then pull your thumb out and design a low cost (<200$),
70
> cm, FH spread spectrum radio that hops in between repeaters. Sure, it
will
> raise the noise floor but who gives a f*** if it's between repeaters,
nobody
> will notice. Since repeaters are idle most of the time, we should
have
> little or no collision problems.
>
> I'll even pull together a design team to design the network side.
>
> this is so dammed frustrating. We could use a competitive network
to
> attract new people into the hobby and provide emergency communications.
We
> have the knowledge in the computer and networking side and the tools
are
> almost off the shelf but we can't get any RF people to help with the radio
side.
I've watched this from the start, back when TAPR "promised" 9k6 gear
to be available in 1985. Although a few of the RF engineering types seem
to have done a good job designing some interesting gear, there has been
essentially total failure making anything available commercially.
I know a bit about RF design, although I've never done it for
a living. Enough to understand that the problems are probably
in the sales and marketing side and not the engineering side.
> Is it any wonder that radio networks are dying of old age?
Yup. The lack of gear, and the ease of using the internet.
> If we would stop pissing on each other, maybe we can get
something
> constructive done!
No organization exists that could coordinate anything.
Hardware, software, network infrastructure: nothing there.
> --- eric
>
> --
> Eric S. Johansson ka1eec esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us
> This message was composed almost entirely using NaturallySpeaking
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
To be continued in digest: hd_99_286B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
