| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 01.06.00 15:03l 218 Lines 7361 Bytes #-9461 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_152C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/152C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000531/2325Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:46283 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_152C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 00 00:21:15 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_152C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
The FT1000D is set in PKT/LSB mode with bandwidth set to 2.4 KHz.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:36:08 -0500
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: DSP settings for PSK31
Mont O'Leary wrote:
> Any suggestions for DSP settings for PSK31? I am using WinPSK and have a
> Timewave DSP-59Y ...
Does the Timewave have linear phase?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:45:20 +0200
From: "Kees" <kees0015@hotmail.com>
Subject: Encoding / Vocoding question
Jeremy,
We use a Nicam encoder (and decoder on the other end) as a subcarrier of a
ATV signal (f.e. on 24cm) with SPDIF in and SPDIF out. Hifi stereo over a
long distance !
regards,
Kees, PE1FOL
Jeremy D. Ward <sonus@adelphia.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
392C4D74.8DDF0222@adelphia.net...
> Does anybody know of any software that would allow an audio source (such
> as music or a voice) to be encoded to modem signals, sent through a
> soundcard into a 2M HAM, received and then decoded on the other end?
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Jeremy
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:08:28 -0500
From: "Rick Ruhl" <ricker@cssincorp.com>
Subject: Kam Plus and GPS Tracker special info from Kantronics.
Cheryl at Kantronics wanted me to pass this along.
HRO has both the Kam Plus and the GPS Tracker avaiable and in stock. Both of
these models from Kantronics are discontinued and the Kam Plus has been
replaced by the Kam '98. This is a clearance sale for HRO on these units.
HRO is offering the Kam Plus for $329.95 and the GPS Tracker for $349.95.
Both are great deals for both the DXer/Digital user and the APRS hobbiest.
Info on these deals is at http://www.hamradio.com
--
Rick Ruhl
President, Creative Services Software
http://www.cssincorp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:41:37 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!
The purpose of a BBS is to collect and distribute messages of
a public nature. The purpose of an electronic mail node, is to
collect and distribute both public and private messages.
I propose that you want to do that at the highest speed, thus
you want to compress the data on the transport frequency.
By allowing non-compressed users on the same frequency, you
defeat the whole purpose of achieving maximum through-put.
We have to trust fellow Hams to do the right thing. We trust
them every day to not commercialize the spectrum, using modes
that can't be monitored directly.
I think when Hams finally accept high speed data pipes as
carrying pure data, it will be the day they enter the 20th Century.
If you don't want people to send "data" over your data system,
then don't put up a node. If all you want is to be a limit on
what Hams can transport, you're in the wrong hobby.
"Markus Lenggenhager" wrote
> Hi all
>
> My personal opinion is that this WinLink2000-AirMail alliance is
> definitely going in the wrong direction. Ham BBSs should be accessible
> using any commonly available client software. Furthermore, all
> WinLink2000 BBSs are interconnected via Internet, which means it becomes
> obvious their main purpose is to act as a cheap e-mail replacement. The
> fact that all tfc is compressed (unreadable by thirds) makes it very
> difficult to check if this network is not misused by pirates of all
> kinds.
> It's a pity that PACTOR-II has been kind of devaluated and is being used
> almost entirely as a workhorse to carry binary BBS tfc. It's getting
> more and more difficult to find a live QSO partner amidst all these
> signals produced by unattended systems. No wonder PSK31 has become so
> popular: Behind every signal you monitor there's a human being!
>
> 73, Markus HB9BRJ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:43:57 -0400
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: N0ZO no longer supports Keyboard inputs!
Hi Jerry,
I always thought that the PK-232 could send and receive binary files in
PACTOR. The PK-900 can send and receive binary files in PACTOR using either
a terminal mode program or a host mode program.
Surely, the PK-232 can at least send and receive binary files using a host
mode program?? Is my understanding wrong?
Perhaps the problem is with AIRMAIL. It sounds like AIRMAIL does not
support the PK-232's hostmode.
I agree with others that I don't like the idea of FORCING Hams to use
particular client software to link up with a BBS. In my view, the WINLINK
BBS's should continue to accept simple commands using ANY TNC with ANY
client software. (I have no problems with HAM's who want to use AIRMAIL.
But it should be an option)
For portable use, I like using a small portable dumb terminal that runs on a
couple of AA batteries. These terminal are very inexpensive these days and
are VERY durable with NO moving parts like hard drives etc.
You also don't have to worry about damaging an expensive laptop when hiking,
camping etc. Unfortunately, I can't access some of the WINLINK BBS's with
this dumb terminal NO MATTER what TNC I am using.
I am not going to buy a second hand laptop for my hiking and camping trips
etc. They are simply not very durable.
I thought one of the purposes of WINLINK was to allow portable stations to
send and receive Internet EMAIL. I guess it was really designed for more
permanent portable stations (like Marine Mobile). What a PITY!
73's
Rob
Perhaps
"Jerry Flanders" <jflanders2@home.com> wrote in message
news:39333958.373843085@news...
> On April 23, k4cjx announced that WL2K will now work in the ASCII
> mode, which allows cheapie PACTOR-enabled PK-232 (or the MFJ ????
> model) controllers to work. See:
>
>
http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_message&list_id=winnnet&m
sg_num=741&start_num=758
>
> for his announcement posted to the WinLink/NetLink mailing list
>
> Binary transfers are apparently not a requirement. I had put my old
> PK-232 on the shelf and obtained a KAM+ in order to use WinLink, not
> realizing that PK-232 support was imminent. Wish I had waited a bit!
>
> Jerry W4UK
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 21:23:08 -0500, Seth Miller
> <sethmiller73@email.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >It was not SCS that made the decision to support only binary mode
transfers,
> >rather it was the WinLink 2000 authors.
> >
> >It is unfortunate that PacComm didn't implement a binary transfer mode
(which is
> >the problem in your case, and not Pactor I vs. Pactor II issue). Other
> >manufacturer's Pactor I TNC's (Kantronics, AEA, etc.) are supported by
> >AirMail/WinLink. This issue has no relationship to SCS and/or the PTC-II
series
> >- if you want to be bitter at least aim it at the right manufacturer.
> >
> >- Seth
> >
> >
> >
> >Mike Pupeza wrote:
> >
> >> Well Gang;
> >>
> >> I said it would happen! My favorite Pactor WinLink BBS N0ZO in Lady
Lake,
> >> Florida will no longer talk to me.
> >> Reason! I don't run the AirMail 2000 program!
> >> I want to, but CAN'T!
> >> My TNC - a PacComm PacTOR CONTROLLER, which is totally PTC-1
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_152D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
