| |
VE2HAR > MT63 10.03.05 18:48l 267 Lines 7803 Bytes #-7496 (0) @ WW
BID : 59294SENTTO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: [MT63] 20 kHz wide Digital Proposal (Was: ARRL MUST GET
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PCC<OM0PBC<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<VA2HAR<VE2HAR
Sent: 050310/1626z @:VE2HAR.#MTL.QC.CAN.NOAM Laval #:41099 $:59294sentto
Hi all,
I have been listening to these rantings and want to get my two shillings
worth in here. I have been a ham since 1960, and have watched what ham
radio "is" change over these past 45 years. Much of the changes are
good, some not so good. As an experimenter myself, I understand the
"need" to try new things in an actual working environment. I remember
the 80's well with the advent of packet radio and HF packet bulletin
boards. I even used some of these myself and had a great time.
I am in favor of experimenting, but not at the expense of someone elses
time and enjoyment of our precious resources! If 20KHz wide digital is
going to happen, then there are a few things that need to be protected.
1) these signals must NOT become unmanned! It must be done only with an
operator in control of the transmitter.
2) It must not be allowed to interfere with ongoing communications.
Therefore the control operator must not permit any transmission to occur
in occupied frequencies where within the bandwidth of the transmitting
bandwidth there exists another ongoing communication. This would mean
that full monitoring MUST accompany the operation on HF frequencies.
3) It must not be used to promote commercial endeavors. It must not be
allowed to become part of winlink or anything resembling that.
This is not to say that the same operations could become robotic on 6
meters and above.
Steve/WM5Z
Las Cruces, NM, USA
karl larsen wrote:
> Hi Walt, what your suggesting really is that 56baud telephone modem
> technology can be adapted to HF data transmission. This works fine on a
> VHF/UHF channel with little or no noise. Now HF is a different animal.
> The work in MT63 and Olivia has been put into getting the data through
> the HF noise and fades.
>
> There is nothing wrong with adapting the MT63 approach to a 20 KHz
> bandwidth, but it is not clear to me what it will do. At least it would
> be a Forward Error Correction device and not a Pactor Handshake cludge.
>
> The experiment has merit and it should go on. I suggest 20 meters.
>
> karl
>
>
> dubose@texas.net wrote:
>
> >Brian,
> >
> >Well yes and no. What the HSMM is suggesting is that you allow up to
> 20 KHz
> >signals. But we're taking about 56KBPs throughput that would allow
> one or
> >more voice channels actually multi-mode all on one signal.
> >
> >You might see 56KBPs data but it would only be on-the-air for a short
> time.
> >The "channel" would be shared.
> >
> >Right now we have MT63 at 200 WPM thoughput on a 2 KHz wide bandpass
> at a -5
> >dB SNR on a poor CCIR channel. But we really need to push 800-1200
> WPM at the
> >same signal level. I don't see doing that with less than a 6 KHz
> channel even
> >exploiting some of the new OFDM type modulation protocols being
> developed.
> >
> >How many CW QSOs running at 20 WPM will it take to produce 1200 WPM
> error free
> >copy at a signal level that MT63 can copy? These are signal levels
> that even
> >the best CW operator can't copy a signal at. So the answer is that
> NO number
> >of CW QSOs can produce the throughput of 1200 BPS, near error free,
> at a -5 dB
> >SNR on a poor CCIR channel.
> >
> >All this IS possible if we are willing to step out of the box.
> >
> >AND the new modes that will develop will be FAR SUPERIOR to Pactor III or
> >anything being done today on HF.
> >
> >We're also looking at doing much of this work using a computer sound
> card so
> >separate controller hardware is not needed.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >Walt DuBose/K5YFW
> >Asst Chairman
> >ARRL HSMM WG
> >
> >
> >Quoting Brian Carling <bcarling@cfl.rr.com>:
> >
> >
> >>On 8 Mar 2005 at 19:11, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't think the digital signals they want are 20 kHz wide!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Want to bet on that?
> >>
> >>There IS in fact a proposal out now for a digiotal mode that IS 20
> >>kHz wide for high speed data transefer on HF ham bands.
> >>(as if Cra... er, I mean Pactor is not jamming the HF bands enough
> >>already!)
> >>
> >>Here it is:
> >>
> >>On Janauary 19, 2005, John Champa, K8OCL,ARRL Chairman, High Speed
> >>Multimedia Networks Working Group, issued the Technology Task
> >>Force report to the ARRL Board of Directors, which includes the
> >>following:
> >>
> >>"At a minimum, 20 kHz wide emissions should be allowed in the
> >>following segments:
> >>
> >> 3.58 - 3.725 MHz
> >> 7.035 - 7.125 MHz
> >> 14.065 - 14.15 MHz
> >> 21.08 - 21.2 MHz
> >> 29 - 29.7 MHz"
> >>
> >>Obviously, a *single* HSMM transmission, 20 KHz wide, could
> >>totally wipe out all PSK31, MFSK16, RTTY, and many CW and DX
> >>operations on 80m, 40m, and 20m, where they are now used
> >>worldwide. Dozens of CW QSOS could be obliterated within
> >>one 20 kHz swath. NOT a good idea at all!
> >>
> >>We have never seen such a lack of concern and compassion for the
> >>majority of radio amateur activities as evidenced by the ARRL
> >>Committee on HSMM and ARRL support for Winlink's attempted
> >>domination of the HF frequencies, in both cases, to sacrifice the
> >>hobby on HF for everyone else in order to favor a
> >>very small special interest group.
> >>
> >>I can only hope that they really are coming to their senses at the
> >>top level of leadership, but this is cause for alarm.
> >>JIm Haynie says that they are going to have a new band plan by
> >>July.
> >>I hope it is a workable one that averyone can live with.
> >>The Winlink/Pactor mess will hopefully get reined in by this.
> >>
> >>OK back to some fun CW contacts now, and a little less grumbling!
> >>
> >>73 de AF4K
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >><< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
> >>
> >>- The MT63 Reflector -
> >> MT63@egroups.com
> >>
> >>(To unsubscribe. send email to
> >>MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
> >>
> >>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ><< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
> >
> >- The MT63 Reflector -
> > MT63@egroups.com
> >
> >(To unsubscribe. send email to
> >MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> << Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
>
> - The MT63 Reflector -
> MT63@egroups.com
>
> (To unsubscribe. send email to
> MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dhas5f/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705034690:HM/EXP=1110547949/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Over 1 billion served! The most music videos on the web.
Click to Watch now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xmKGzA/IARHAA/kkyPAA/CPMolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
<< Try MT63 on 80m - great fun!>>
- The MT63 Reflector -
MT63@egroups.com
(To unsubscribe. send email to
MT63-unsubscribe@onelist.com)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MT63/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MT63-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
