| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 06.07.00 02:05l 197 Lines 7044 Bytes #-9409 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_179A
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/179A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000705/2001Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:58931 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_179A
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 00 21:27:55 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_179A>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Ham-Digital Digest Tue, 4 Jul 2000 Volume 2000 : Issue 179
Today's Topics:
Anyone had good experience modifying Motorola UHF T-Band for 440 packet?
BEWARE - 'Radioraft' Software (author is a pain in the neck)
CW versus hi speed digital etc. (7 msgs)
how to use tnc's ptt (2 msgs)
psk31 on IC-730
Source for GE Delta head-connectors?
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:2000/179
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:00:47 -0700
From: pbarker <NOSPAMpbarker@mail.coos.or.us.NOSPAM>
Subject: Anyone had good experience modifying Motorola UHF T-Band for 440
packet?
Hello,
I have two older Motorola Micor UHF T-band mobiles that I would like
to modify for use with packet radio if it's possible.
Currently, they're crystalled for 488.xxxx.
Is it likely that it would be possible to use these for packet @9600
baud?
Thanks in advance!
73! de KB6NZV Phil Barker
To reply directly, please remove NOSPAM from my email address.
------------------------------
Date: 04 Jul 2000 02:00:27 GMT
From: mikehaack@aol.com (MIKEHAACK)
Subject: BEWARE - 'Radioraft' Software (author is a pain in the neck)
Tim,
Excuse Me, But let me see If I've got this right.
You purchase the program.
Next You send unsolicted and uninvited suggestions to the author of the
program.
You get a response from the Author.
Then unhappy that the author wasn't overjoyed and lauding over your
suggestions, You proceed to suggest to everyone within shot of this newsgroup
that they "stay away from this software" and the "nasty, cynical and Hard to
Deal with" author.
I would suggest to you, That You.
1) Put the program on your shelf if you don't Like it and just don't use it.
2) Be happy you EVEN recieved a response from the author.
3) And be EVEN HAPPIER it wasn't from his Legal Counsel.
The terms You used and the way you dealt this matter are far more unsavory
then any response you could possibly have recieved.
73,
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:54:25 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
Cecil:
Thanks for the example of the binary rendering of CW, very illuminating.
BTW... I am sure that you are aware that the manual use of CW encompases
multiple encoding stages. This simple fact seems to be lost on many who
post to this NG!
CW often begins with written plain language [Although when used with
encryption or FEC in-line at the source it is not necessarily plain
language, the ubiquitous five letter code groups of the military,
commercial, and intelligence communications communities will prove that.]
which consists of symbols drawn from a 26 + symbol "alphabet".
Then in the generation of CW the data stream is next encoded into a three
level or terneray code [dot, dash, space -or- alternatively A, B, C].
At the output of the basic 26+ level to three level coding operation, a
further bandwidth expanding FEC encoding is performed just before the symbol
stream is applied to the modulator [a.k.a. "key"].
This FEC encoding operation converts the data from a three symbol alphabet
to a two symbol or binary alphabet, in that last encoding process. As aptly
illustrated by your posting, The human receiving operator makes use of this
bandwidth expanding final encoding from ternerary to binary and makes use of
the additional added information to "correct" potential errors as he or she
copies the code in real time. [Contemporary coding theorists would call
this Forward Error Correcting or FEC coding.]
Very elegant and very efficient... but relatively un-appreciated by the
un-initiated!
Cecil, as I said up the thread a little ways, most of the "so-called"
digital experts who hang on this NG are completely without background or
expertise in digital communications, they cannot even analyze a digital
communications scheme as simple as CW!
What???
Peter ["I used to hate CW"] K1PO
"CAM" <W6RCA@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:395FE548.2B082135@mindspring.com...
> "Peter O. Brackett" wrote:
> > It is so advanced in it's design concepts that it is not even a simple
> > binary system, in fact it is a multi-level digital logic code.
>
> 111010101000101000111010001011100010111010001110101110111 :-)
> --
> http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:02:39 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: CW versus hi speed digital etc.
Hamish:
Hamish, one of the things that really annoys me in the incorrect comparisons
the very fuzzy thinking applied to digital mode comparisons!
There are "digital modes", i.e. AMTOR, CW, Clover, RTTY, etc... but each
mode often consists of several stages of source and channel encoding,
modulations, and the subsequent de-modulations and decoding.
Often the mode comparators, opportunistically take the "modes" apart in
their comparisons and compare a whole "mode" to a modulation. Say in this
case comparing OOK to PacTor. OOK is just a modulation, while PacTor is a
whole mode repleted with several stages of encoding, embedded modualtion and
channel coding, etc...
Let's always be professional, and make apples to apples comparisons and be
scientific in our comparisons shall we?.
Hamis, about Gary I am sorry, but Gary and I are old friends from another
amateur NG... I didn't mean to be rude.
But I do get emotional when folks trash CW without thinking.
Gary I love you and, I appologize, here's a :-) for ya!
Peter K1PO
"Hamish Moffatt VK3SB" <hamish@cloud.net.au> wrote in message
news:YNX75.557$I43.3288@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
> Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Also... from a channel coding and modulation viewpoint, CW can easily be
> > transmitted using a variety of modulations from FSK to PSK, to whatever.
It
> > just then makes direct copy of the sound "by ear" less familiar to
> > operators, a conversion device to convert back to a keyed tone would
suffice
> > for human readability.
>
> So Peter, when you say "CW" do you mean Morse code or OOK? One is
> an alphabet (like Varicode is) and one is a modulation (like BPSK
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_179B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
