| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:02l 238 Lines 7632 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_71C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/71C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<
PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/0256Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55979 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31378 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 02:31:57 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018327 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:27:18 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:25:49 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_71C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/71C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:43:45 -0800
From: "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <38C98736.6EC70272@source.net>,
> "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net> wrote:
> > horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38C97567.84C2526B@source.net>,
> > > "Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Frankly, I think you're way off-base. Amateurs don't have some
> magic
> > > ticket
> > > > to mobile data communications, perhaps you've never seen a
> Motorola
> > > > PageWriter 2000X, or a RIM Blackberry, or an i-mode telephone?
> > >
> > > No, but I HAVE seen a Kenwood TH-D7A:
> > >
> > > http://www.kenwood.net/ama_page.cfm
> > >
> > > Now, if they would only drop the price to $249 - the GOLDEN AGE
> could
> > > begin!!!
> >
> > Pagewriter information:
> >
> http://commerce.motorola.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/CategoryDisplay?cgrfnbr
> =13&cgmenbr=126
> >
> > RIM Blackberry:
> > http://www.rim.net/products/overview/index.html#BlackBerry
> >
> > DoCoMo i-mode:
> > http://www.nttdocomo.com/ser2.htm
> >
> > There's a lot more out there than APRS in your hand.
>
> Come on now. A laptop going thru a 9.6kbps or 56kbps amateur network
> would be MUCH better and cheaper than these "services"(if we could
> reach critical mass - which wouldn't be that hard at all).
A notebook with a radio modem? You must be referring to Ricochet/Metricom.
What do you think a critical mass actually is?
--
Dana K6JQ DoD #j
Dana@Source.Net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 03:24:05 -0700
From: "Benjamin Packard" <BenPackard@email.msn.com>
Subject: IC-M710 audio/mic specs
I looking to buy a IC-M710, marine SSB HF radio and want to hoot it up to m
computer. Before I accidentally fry anything, I want to make sure the input
and out puts are compatible. I'm looking for the microphone impedance,
microphone sensitivity, headphone impedance, and headphone output voltage.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:12:44 -0500
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 16:49:40 -0600, W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Here's a heads up on a "digital voice over HF" article in the next QEX.
>Unfortunately, US rules do not (yet) permit the modulation scheme.
We are allowed to use voice modulation types A, J, and D on HF. So
anywhere voice modulation is permitted, we can use a digital voice
modulation (provided the emission meets the occupied bandwidth
limit for type A voice emission on HF, ie 6 kHz).
Unlike data emissions, digital voice isn't constrained as to baud on HF
(other than as to how baud affects occupied bandwidth, of course). Nor
are we limited to use of specified code alphabets (doesn't apply).
The scheme being presented actually fits in an ordinary 2700 Hz SSB
channel width (36 tones, each modulated 50 baud BPSK and spaced
62.5 Hz). So it should be perfectly legal for use in the voice band segments
of HF under current Part 97 regulations.
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:34:44 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Gary Coffman wrote:
> The scheme being presented actually fits in an ordinary 2700 Hz SSB
> channel width (36 tones, each modulated 50 baud BPSK and spaced
> 62.5 Hz). So it should be perfectly legal for use in the voice band segments
> of HF under current Part 97 regulations.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:02:24 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Brian Kelly wrote:
> Now there's a "heads up" if there ever was a heads up! Perhaps it
> sucks up a "tad more spectrum space" than AM does it? Hmmm?
But the question is not how much spectrum it occupies. The question
is how much throughput and voice recovery quality is accomplished
in that spectrum. Guess we'll see next month. It does mention
"1800-baud, multi-carrier" format. And after all, it's just a first
step. The land speed record didn't break the sound-barrier on the
first try.
Digital voice promises no apparent QRM, QRN, or QSB. That
characteristic should be worth a little spectrum. Of course, some
opposed to change of any kind will say it's not ham radio without
QRM, QRN, and QSB.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:53:03 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:17:30 -0600, "Steve Sampson"
<ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
>
>I bet you don't even know what the contents of 99.99% of the rest of
>Ham radio has to offer.
>
Well let's explore that a bit. I'm up and running on all nine HF bands
with ssb and cw including all the Extra setasides plus 2m FM plus I've
done plenty of 2m packet plus I've glomed "thingeys" like 300 or so
dxcc countries confirmed phone/cw plus WAZ plus a CP35 certificate
plus a very early 5BDXCC and and ummm . . actually who could possibly
give a rat's ass what you "think". As if.
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:48:11 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Laura Halliday wrote:
> When I listen to the garbage that is on HF and apparently
> tolerated by the Powers That Be I find it hard to believe that
> the Committee on State Security are really going to bash your
> door down and haul you and your radio away for making some
> unusual noises...
They object pretty firmly to unusal noises that they cannot
decode.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:17:30 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
Shit, I can tell already that you are one of those hams who camp out on
one frequency and bemoan everything introduced since 1954...
I bet you don't even know what the contents of 99.99% of the rest of
Ham radio has to offer.
We don't have to worry about space. You guys are all dropping dead
like fly's, and it's a great year to see all the one frequency hams get their
ARRL SK awards.
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> And don't even think about anybody giving up space just so that the
> few who are into hi-fi digital 20m phone can glom excessive bandwidth
> for their own amusement.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:51:17 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> I'm a degreed engineer with close to a half century in my technology.
> Which is not electronics or communications or matters digital. I'm a
> ham radio operator, not an experimenter so I don't do QEX. Is that OK
> or what?
You can be a pecker-puffer for all we care. If you don't give a crap
about QEX, then why does the group need to know that?
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_71D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
