| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.03.00 01:16l 212 Lines 7000 Bytes #-9544 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_74D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE2XUM<OE5XBR<OE3XBS<S50BOX<9A0BBS<9A0YDA<HA1KZH<
HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000317/2042Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:57744 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31557 ; Fri, 17 Mar 00 16:17:44 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018402 ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:11:39 MET
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:07:34 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_74D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/74D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> 97.3, and thus is subject to the phone band segment regulations, not
> the data band segment regulations.
The distinction between phone and data in digital phone is completely
arbitrary however. You could be passing voice on that data channel, or
just as easily could be passing (say) control information, or even
transferring
data messages. It matters not at all to the modem. The occupied bandwidth,
power
etc... are all identical in both cases. It seems nonsensical to make any
distinction in legality in this case.
What does this have to say about the legality of MT63, a wide (1khz or 2khz)
data
mode? It uses the phone band for data communications, at a fairly wide swath
of spectrum
space. Just curious...
Mark
>
> Gary
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
> 534 Shannon Way | We break it |
> Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <markv@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:46:22 GMT
From: kelly@dvol.com (Brian Kelly)
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
On 13 Mar 2000 14:26:28 GMT, Brian Mullaney <mullaneb@tecoma.mccc.edu>
wrote:
>In rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc Brian Kelly <kelly@dvol.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian 'ole bean I got into ham radio to work dx and later I discovered
>> HF contesting. You don't do those above 30Mhz except for a bit of
>> dxing on 6m. That's the way it was all those years ago and ham radio
>
>Can't do DX above 30mhz? I guess you have never heard of EME.
>
Since rrap is actually about semantics games yeah I guess EME is
"dxing". Like working a UA zero on 70cm thru a satellite is "dxing".
>
>Brian
>
Brian
>
DXCC mixed, 300 countries confirmed
DXCC phone
5BDXCC #142
WAZzzzzz . .
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:19:16 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: May QEX digital voice article
"Brian Kelly" wrote
> When I see some of these upcoming 5wpm digigeek
> Generals beep anybody I'll have more respect for what they actually
> know about HF ham radio.
You're missing the point shithead. The new Generals won't beep anybody
because they took the 5 WPM test and promptly moved on. CW is not
what is attracting new Hams. No matter how important a measuring stick
it is in your childish brain, CW means nothing to them. You can't shame them
into working CW. They will look at you like the idiot you are.
The only way they will ever work CW, is if you respect them, and welcome
them to your interest. If you act like CW is the end-all, then who can blame
you for not having any new Ham friends.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:27:45 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Newbie attempts sono-net?
Mark Ginsberg <m-ginsberg@cecer.army.mil> wrote:
>I'd like to try building a multi-pc net via sound-cards, speakers, and
>microphones alone. I'm aware that the bit rate will have to be slow.
> Ideally, I'd like to find a bit of software that controls the
>sound-card, but I'd like to build some pretty strange protocols on top of
>this for myself.
> Can someone give me a push in the right direction? Are there low level
>routines around that implement this?
You have landed in the right group. The people here have this running for
over 15 years, and still aren't bored...
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:26:52 GMT
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: Packet Cluster on the linux os
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Joel wrote:
> I seem to remember some time ago, a group in Europe had a version of
> Packet Cluster compatible software that ran on Linux.
>
> Does anyone have contact information on this?
I remember doing a search for "Linux" and "AX.25" and turning up a few sites
that had it. I think it's called "CLX".
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:24:30 -0500
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: Pk-232 and Hamcom?
I think you are referring to the Hamcomm 3.1 software. Hamcomm will NOT
work with ANY TNC. Hamcomm 3.1 only works with a simple Hamcomm hardware
interface using an OP amp(or a piece of hardware that simulates a HAMCOMM
hardware interface).
The PK-232 does NOT simulate a Hamcomm hardware interface.
I suggest you try one of the many other pieces of software designed
specifically for the PK-232. Some are freeware. Some are shareware. A
good shareware program for the PK-232 is XPWARE for windows at
www.xpware.com
73's
Rob
<wingryder@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8aabr1$15u$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am trying to run rtty with a old old pk-232 with Hamcom software. I
> have the tnc working with procomm modem software but cant seem to make
> the
> Hamcom talk to the tnc Any suggestions would be appreciated. Just
> looking to run rtty on the IBM laptop. 73 don
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 10:05:42 -0800
From: Larry Anderson <w6lar@cybertime.net>
Subject: PKGold dos version in win98
Jim, I have PKGold and KAGold and have supported Interflex since the
beginning.
But they fail to admit that their software is not with the times. They ALWAYS
blame something else, a driver, your computer, your TNC, or anything other
than
the fact, their software will not perform under window properly all the time
every time. I just upgraded to Win98 and my PKgold went dead. Won't see any
com
ports no matter what I do. Their answer is to pay more money and get a "better
behaved and newer version" of Gold. Guess what? Not anymore. I have since
started using XPwin. Give it a try and your will be convinced. There are
others
out there too and many like XPware is supported by the author. The boys at
Interflex are draging a dead horse and getting you to buy it.
Good luck, Larry W6LAR
James McLaughlin wrote:
> Any ideas how I can get m PKGold version 9, to run under windows 98 second
> edition. Interflex responded to me and said that it was a windows driver
> problem, due to the way Hewlett-Packard loads the software during
> production. HP says its a windows problem and not a HP problem. Microsoft
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_74E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
