| |
EB2DVY > PSK31 20.07.99 08:24l 627 Lines 22325 Bytes #-9961 (0) @ WW.SYD.NSW
BID : 217-EB2DVY
Read: OE1RRB GUEST
Subj: PSK31 Digest V1 #108
Path: OE1XAB<OE3XPR<OE3XBS<DB0WGS<DB0PV<DB0AAB<DB0KFB<F8KOX<F6KNP<F8KLY<
F6BIG<F1BBI<F5KPO<F5KAT<EA3D<EA3B<EA2URV
Sent: 990714/1831Z @:EA2URV.EABI.ESP.EU #:62432 [URV-ABRA Bilbao] $:217-EB2DVY
From: EB2DVY@EA2URV.EABI.ESP.EU
To : PSK31@WW.SYD.NSW.AUS.OC
De: Psk31 Digest <owner-psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
Para: <psk31-digest@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
Asunto: Psk31 Digest V1 #108
Fecha: martes 13 de julio de 1999 3:21
Psk31 Digest Tuesday, July 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 108
In this issue:
[psk31] acoustic psk31 using laptops
Re: [psk31] 7MHz PSK31 frequency
Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
[psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)- MORE!!!!
[psk31] Unsubscribe
[none]
[psk31] emission type
[psk31] 40 meter freq.
Re: [psk31] 40 meter freq.
[psk31] Waterfall vs Integration curve
[psk31] DXCC input form
Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Re: [psk31] Calling Bob Furzer
Re: [psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)
RE: [psk31] emission type
[psk31] Kachina connections..
[psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
Re: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Fwd: Re: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
Fwd: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
[psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)
[psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
See the end of the digest for information about psk31-digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:09:12 -0400
From: Francis Flynn <fflynn@together.net>
Subject: [psk31] acoustic psk31 using laptops
In reply to Jim N2EA,
I tried an experiment using 2 laptop computers, each containing a
small speaker and condenser mic, using psksbw31 software. I'll admit
that I think this software performs so well and is so free of any noticable
bugs that I have not been interested in trying anything else other than this for
psk31.
While I have not tried this at a club meeting in a conversation filled room.
I did try such an experiment at home and it did work well. I found that room
echos have an effect. To simulate multipath and backscatter,
I faced two laptops away from one another so as to bounce the sound
from the walls. In this case, errors are noticable, but if the computers
are facing, I did get nearly perfect copy. Further experiment
would be required to determine if this is an appropriate simulation
of real conditions of backscatter or multipath.
An acoustic connection between two laptops might be a good demonstration
of psk31 to other other hams. It would avoid the problem of antennas
perhaps not working or one of the many other potential problems.
Perhaps I should demonstrate this at one of the upcoming Udder club
meetings here in Vermont.
ff
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:50:15 -0700
From: "Richard L. Mock" <mock@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] 7MHz PSK31 frequency
Peter,
>The 7035.15 frequency for 40m got to be the PSK31 frequency because
>it's 150Hz above the bottom edge of the IARU digital sub-band IN
>REGION 1, where PSK31 activity first started 3 years ago.
My first question is: In region 1 can you still actually find psk31
activity at 7035.15?? Even in Region 1, that's CW domain. It's sacred!
We shouldn't be there ;-)
As far as I can determine, the lower edge of the 40 meter digital
subband in any region is 7.0 MHz. A "voluntary" band plan published in
the ARRL Handbook declares that Packet and RTTY should stay within
7.080 - 7.100 unless you are working DX. Then if you are RTTY you may
use 7.040. For Packet (intercontinental forwarding) use 7.0383. Nothing
is said about any other digital mode. (From the 1993 ARRL Handbook for
Radio Amateurs... I can't afford one every year... my bookshelf would
break.)
40 meter Pactor and Amtor seem to follow the 20 meter pattern as far as
I can tell. i.e. it seems to go from .065 to .080. This is probably
why psk31 might be found AROUND the area of 7.070. (That's where I made
my ONE 40 meter psk31 QSO.)
Now my life's ambition is to make a psk31 contact on 30 meters when I
find THE frequency. I'm only 66. I might make it!!!
Now if we could just get all the RTTY folks to go to psk31.... We could
open up a real goldmine of spectrum! Well, no. Let them have 1 KHz per
band for antiquity use. Hey guys, psk31 has BACKSPACE! and... and
you're never inverted (in BPSK). It does everything RTTY can do and
more!!!
Are we having fun?
(Hey, Peter! Why don't we have a shorter varicode for backspace? We use
it so very frequently and it's taking up space. ;-)
73,
Dick - W7DHS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:42:21 +0200
From: "Kjell W. Strom" <strom@lime.demon.nl>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Hi Bob,
It is always good to have a discussion where all the angles of the
matter are illuminated, more or less. Off course there is misuse of
Pactor, like all other modes. I prefer to think that most of it is
because the "offender" is not aware of the power of the system. One
example is the station who always has a big signal here and insists on
reading the messages in the BBS in the same town on 14 MHz even when the
band is wide open.
>>although I did fail to mention there appears to be Pactor startups
with no communications going on.
In many cases this waste of bandwidth x time is coming from gateways to
the VHF/UHF packet radio network. Most of the time the number of idle
packets by far beats the number of information packets.
The old rule "Just because it is technically possible, you don't need to
do it" should apply. But again, then nobody would ever climb Mount
Everest. And there would not have been any trail of toilet paper, tin
cans and used oxygen containers showing the way to the peak. And nothing
for the late comers to complain about...
DF7ML is publishing lists of HF mail boxes and gateways motnhly. You can
find them in any packet radio or Pactor BBS with the list command "L<
DF7ML".
In the meantime I guess that we are still enjoying amateur radio more
than it is causing irritation to us. We have all made our mistakes, but
that does not prevent us from seeking to improve things. Right now we
are so few PSK31 users that we have to be a bit smarter operators than
the others...
73
"Kel"
__________________________________________________
Kjell W. Strom, LIME Consulting, SM6CPI - PB3SM
P.O.Box 597, NL-2130 AN Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Fax & Phone: +31-252-412 736, GSM +31-653-870 195
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:27:01 -0400
From: "Robert Lay" <w9dmk@crosslink.net>
Subject: [psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)- MORE!!!!
Dear Fellow Warblers,
Regarding the test reports on the Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall
(MixW32)
and the comparisons with PSK31SBW - I have more testing in progress and will
soon have a report on the results. The new test conditions are similar to my
previous tests but with higher (more typical) ambient noise levels.
73 de Bob Lay, W9DMK, King George, VA
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/albania/784
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:17:14 -0400
From: "Russ Pillsbury" <k2txb@dxcc.com>
Subject: [psk31] emission type
Hello PSK31'ers. I am new to this list and have a question about PSK31.
What, if any, is the official FCC emission type for PSK31? I've perused all
of the info I can find from the PSK31 web site and cannot find this
information. I guess it might be G7D, but I'm not at all sure.
Thanks, 73 - Russ K2TXB
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
Subject: [psk31] 40 meter freq.
I have been wondering why not use the same freq. range
as RTTY. Sound like the logical thing to do. Also the
RTTY folks will hear this wierd UFO sound and start
investigating. AH HAH !!! a new RTTY like mode .....
maybe they'll try it. Alot of folks still dont know
abt. PSK31. I didnt until field day this year. Yes pse
we stiil need a spot for RTTY. Like you say for
antigues. I'mm refurbing an old model 19 to play with.
Hey maybe i can build a code converter to run it with
PSK :-)
- --- "Richard L. Mock" <mock@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> Now if we could just get all the RTTY folks to go to
> psk31.... We could
> open up a real goldmine of spectrum! Well, no. Let
> them have 1 KHz per
> band for antiquity use. Hey guys, psk31 has
> BACKSPACE! and... and
> you're never inverted (in BPSK). It does everything
> RTTY can do and
> more!!!
>
===
Daryl CLine WB4YEX <><
Harrisonburg, Va. 22801
<http://www.cfw.com/~jdc>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:45:42 -0300
From: py2pll@unetsul.com.br (Marcus Ramos (0946))
Subject: Re: [psk31] 40 meter freq.
Hi ...
>maybe they'll try it. Alot of folks still dont know
>abt. PSK31. I didnt until field day this year. Yes pse
Yes, I did some CW contacs on 10 / 20 meter with some guys that "aswered"
the CW ID at the end of a CQ :o) ... so I explained what's going on ... etc
etc
73
Marcus (PY3CRX/PY2PLL)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:31:10 -0500
From: John Chamberlain <chamber@cord.org>
Subject: [psk31] Waterfall vs Integration curve
I wonder how difficult it would be to incorporate both the waterfall and
the spectrum graph onto one screen (in PSK31SBW)? Maybe the graph could be
positioned right above the waterfall, or even superimposed on top of it.
73 de AC5CV
John Chamberlain (AC5CV@arrl.org)
Waco, TX EM11jm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:56:33 EDT
From: RS174461@aol.com
Subject: [psk31] DXCC input form
Hi everyone!
I've spent most of the day re-writing my web pages and I am pleased to report
that I have now added a PSK31 DXCC Scores submission page. I've checked that
it works and when you click submit, I do indeed receive a copy with the
details on it. On there you will also find a copy of the latest table. I
will only update 7 days after the end of each month.
You will also find a partial PSK31 users directory as a zip file. It's by no
means all the info I've received, but it's all I've had the chance to process
at present. I've added a form for that too so that you can send
additions/corrections etc.
There are still one or two things which don't quite work, but rest assured it
should all be up and running by the end of the week.....
Oh, BTW, the URL is http://www.swl.net/rs174461/open.htm
Vy 73 and I welcome your comments,
Karl - RS174461
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:05:10 -0400
From: "Gerard M.Foley" <gfoley@columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
If there is a digital mode that should be forbidden it is HF packet. The
principle of packet radio, to listen before transmitting, is absolutely
antithetical to the propagation characteristic of the HF bands. Ten years
or so ago I spent some time monitoring HF packet and came to the conclusion
that the throughput was a few words per minute, with almost all the time on
the air spent in repeating packets that were never received.
Just another old crank.
Gerry K8EF
http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8247
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263
http://members.xoom.com/gerryf
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:33:41 +0000
From: Peter Martinez <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Calling Bob Furzer
From Peter Martinez G3PLX
Many thanks to all the people who took the trouble to let me have Bob
Furzer's callsign and Email address.
73
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:31:17 +0000
From: Peter Martinez <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)
From Peter Martinez G3PLX.
Bob's detailed measurements of waterfall sensitivity show that if you
have a LOW LEVEL signal into PSK31SBW, you cannot see it in the
waterfall because it's too black. As the saying goes, this isn't a
bug, it's a feature! In the same way that the waterfall "overloads"
when the ADC in the soundcard overloads to show you when to turn the
audio down, I chose the waterfall scale so that it gets to black when
you are underdriving the soundcard. A black waterfall should not be
telling you that the program is struggling, it should be telling you
to turn up the audio input! The receive adjacent-channel performance
with low level signals is limited by the dynamic range of the ADC in
the soundcard, so I made the waterfall display clip to black before
the adjacent-channel rejection gets bad.
What WOULD be interesting to know about waterfalls is how well you
can see a WEAK signal buried in noise. With a white noise source
feeding the soundcard at a level which gives a noisy grey waterfall
(or a noisy gray waterfall if you are in USA), inject a small signal
into this noise and see if you can detect it by eye in the waterfall.
Repeat the experiment with different kinds of display. My guess is
that doing the test this way, there's probably very little to choose
between monochrome and colour displays (or color displays in USA!),
since in both cases it's the human brain that is doing the difficult
job of picking out a coherent feature in a noisy field.
The differences between the abilities of PSK31SBW and MIX32W to
decode low-level audio signals should also be treated with care.
Again, it would be more useful to see how they compare with weak
signals in normal-level noise, and I would guess that any difference
would then be very difficult to find. There's a lot more variability
in noise than there is in well-written software!
73
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:20:45 -0400
From: "Russ Pillsbury" <k2txb@dxcc.com>
Subject: RE: [psk31] emission type
George Flammer, cto@g3m.com wrote:
> Subject: RE: [psk31] emission type
>
>
> G1B
> -George w6mt
George, thanks for answering my question. I had already decided that the
'7' part of my G7D guess was wrong, and should probably be '1'. I was
thinking of the two separate phases as being two separate channels, and that
is obviously wrong. But I need more information about the 'B' part. If
PSK31 sends B type information, that implies that it is telegraphy, or morse
code. But I have been told that PSK31 uses some other type code, called
"vericode". The exact message I received is:
"using a digital (vericode it is called) code. Binary encoding."
So, Is this telegraphy? It doesn't sound like it.
Any enlightenment will be appreciated.
Russ K2TXB
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:25:45 -0500
From: Gilbert Gibbs <gilgibbs@centuryinter.net>
Subject: [psk31] Kachina connections..
I'm "in the process" of getting a Kachina system (could you really
define that transceiver as a "radio"?) going, and have a Pentium-S -
based CPU PC, 133 MHz, equipped with a SoundBlaster AWE64 soundcard, and
am searching for some solid answers to how to connect the control head
or access port to the soundcard so I can participate with the rest of
you in "warbling".
I get the general idea, but since I've had some experience with
"blowing up" one soundcard already, I will appreciate some advice. This
is shaping up to be a very enjoyable mode, but I'm of an older school of
less delicate equipment!
Thanks to any and all, hope to be on the RF with you soon.
73's
Gil, WA5YKK
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:11:04 -0400
From: RICHARD W SOLOMON <w1ksz@juno.com>
Subject: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
Please guys, do not clutter up the RTTY sub-band with another source
of QRM. RTTY by nature is very sensitive to QRM and many a rare DX QSO
has been trashed by some "achtor" or similar signal.
While I do not subscribe to stifling progress, the facts of life are that
the
vast majority of Digital DX uses RTTY and will for the near future.
If PSK is so great, "market" forces will drive its proliferation.
Until then, leave us "OF's" in peace.
Tnx es 73, Dick, W1KSZ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:32:56 -0500
From: "Grins" <Grins@interconnect.net>
Subject: Re: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
Atta boy, Richard.. spoken like a man, frozen in time... does your
automobile have electric start?
Geeze...
Mike Kelly K5AWI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:18:56 +0200
From: "Kjell W. Strom" <strom@lime.demon.nl>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Daryl,
>If so these pactor stations (BBS's tec) that work
>automattically without operator control are operating
>illegally. Is this correct ??
The fact is that the regulating authorities in many countries allow
unmanned automatic operation, or at least tolerate it. Sometims a
special license is required. Such stations have been in the sub-band
14070-14080 kHz for some 20 years now and they are very useful for
example for keeping in touch with somebody who is either at work or
sleeping when you have propagation to a BBS. You leave your mail there
and the other party picks it up when he is at his station and has
propagation to the BBS. The Pactor network is also forwarding messages
world-wide.
During these 20 years a practice has developed for smooth operation of
the BBS network. Frequencies and beam headings have been coordinated to
minimize co-interference. With few exceptions everything is working
fine.
Now we are arriving, a small group with PSK31, and start talking about
QRM and discussing what is legal or illegal in a scheme that has proved
itself to function well! Come on, there is plenty of space there, in
between the existing stations, most of which have their Mark frequency
on a full or a half kHz and Space 170-200 Hz lower..
73
"Kel"
__________________________________________________
Kjell W. Strom, LIME Consulting, SM6CPI - PB3SM
P.O.Box 597, NL-2130 AN Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Fax & Phone: +31-252-412 736, GSM +31-653-870 195
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:34:14 +0200
From: "Kjell W. Strom" <strom@lime.demon.nl>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Gerard,
>If there is a digital mode that should be forbidden it is HF packet.
For sure, it is a very inefficient mode. I tried HF Packet about 15
years ago and found that it took 15 minutes to exchange name, QTH and
report. I gave it a second chance with the same result and found that it
was not for me. But for some of us HF Packet is The Hobby, so let us
leave a little bandwidth for them wheere they can enjoy themselves until
they discover more efficient ways of communication.
73
"Kel"
__________________________________________________
Kjell W. Strom, LIME Consulting, SM6CPI - PB3SM
P.O.Box 597, NL-2130 AN Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Fax & Phone: +31-252-412 736, GSM +31-653-870 195
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
- --- Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [psk31] PSK in RTTY Sub-Band; NOT !!
> To: RICHARD W SOLOMON <w1ksz@juno.com>
>
I disagree. I have been an avid RTTY op for many
years. There is more than enough room in the RTTY
subbands. Yes the Pactor causes problems there but I
am sure it is caused be the same type idiot who
operates them unattend/unmonitored where we are now.
PSK31 stations have live ops who I assume most
monitor before xmitting. And since PSK31 is
essentially a kin to RTTY I say what better place for
it. I personally am getting tired of the unattended
Pactor garbage around 070.150 and I am sure on 20
meters the CW folks are tired of us. I say we operate
in the most logical place, that being in my opinion
the RTTY sub-bands and the sooner we move the better.
I cant take anymore of those blasted crickets hihi.
===
Daryl CLine WB4YEX <><
Harrisonburg, Va. 22801
<http://www.cfw.com/~jdc>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
To: "Gerard M.Foley" <gfoley@columbus.rr.com>
Or the FCC should start pulling tickets of those who
let there stations operate unattended without some
means of monitoring the freq. for use and locking
out
the xmitter. I thought thats the way the rules read.
Any FCC Rules experts here ?
===
Daryl CLine WB4YEX <><
Harrisonburg, Va. 22801
<http://www.cfw.com/~jdc>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daryl <wb4yex@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Who then picked the freqs. that put PSK31 so close to
them if they were known about. Why aren't we in the
RTTY sub band ? There is tons of room there. You can
operate a whole lot of PSK31 stations in the bandwidth
of one RTTY station. Why not pick a freq in part of
the RTTY subband away from any pactor BBS's ?
===
Daryl CLine WB4YEX <><
Harrisonburg, Va. 22801
<http://www.cfw.com/~jdc>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:09:32 -0600
From: Loren E Page <w7bwi@juno.com>
Subject: [psk31] Dynamic Range of the Full Color Waterfall (MixW32)
For those of us who are partially color blind the "full color" waterfall
is very difficult to use, so I stay with the "black and white".
73, Loren W7BWI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:01:27 -0600
From: Loren E Page <w7bwi@juno.com>
Subject: [psk31] Taking another look at Pactor
Dear Gerry,
Not many months ago (not 10 years) I spent some time on HF packet and
found it, as you have, a very poor mode for HF. If a person doesn't have
high power, there isn't much chance of anything but slow transfer and
packet repeats.
Packet was once "pretty hot stuff" here in Phoenix on 2 meters, however,
things have changed with the advent of internet.
¡Viva PSK31!
73, Loren W7BWI
------------------------------
End of Psk31 Digest V1 #108
***************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
