World of Ham Radio 1997/WOHR97_AmSoft_(1997-02-01).iso/usenets/1996_06/_digital.txt

Text File | 1997-02-01 | 311KB | 7,912 lines

The World of Ham Radio CD-ROM



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:20 1996
From: KD6FYK <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: CW Outdated.
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 23:19:06 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4najt8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4o1q2d$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <01bb4f23.c5e9bca0$[e-mail]>

Dwight Osen wrote:
>
> One of my theories about CW is, it  keeps the wantabees from buying a
> radio and just jumping on the bands that are crouded enough.


YES-YES-YES,thats it!go to head of class,dwight.73 blah-blah in cm88ll


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:21 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (charles copeland)
Subject: Re: CW Outdated.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4najt8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 21:34:57 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
Mike B  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>charles copeland ([e-mail]) wrote to me by E-mail so that
>nobody else on this group would observe his ISM (I, self and me) :))
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> CC> Nothing "spoiled" about earning something with hard labor.
>>
>> MB> Hard labor in a hobby, eh?  Gosh, how you've suffered..You poor soul.
>
>Your a jerk.

Your original post, and my e-mail reply had no business on newsgroups.
You are a jerk, and more that I can't/shouldn't state here.



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Postmaster)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: F6FBB LISTSERV
Date: Sat,  1 Jun 1996 04:59:01 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world


Attention F6FBB Sysops/Networkers!

Welcome!
     A Forum Is Available For F6FBB Sysops.  The Purpose Of This Server
To Provide Sysops and Networkers With Tricks/Tips/Help and New Software
Updates Concerning The F6FBB Bulletin Board System.

----
To Add Yourself To This List, Please Send Electronic Mail To:

                 [e-mail]

And Include The Command:

                 SUBSCRIBE

As The SUBJECT of Your Message.

----
The F6FBB Server Has Been Established To Help Sysops and Networkers
Alike Providing Help and Information In A Timely Manner. Sharing of
Software Other Miscellaneous Information Via The Server Is Quite
Alright.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Illmayer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: New files on Winpack Page
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 05:01:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4otv2d$[e-mail]>

Hi ALL

I have uploaded 2 new files to the WInpack Page.

BPQv4.08 and wptext (how to write servers)

Keep that Web counter page ticking along !!!!!
http://www.healey.com.au/~vk2yx

Cheers..Pete..vk2yx



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:24 1996
From: jim <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: rs232 protocols
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:41:43 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

jim wrote:
>
> Greetings to all.
>
> Can anyone help me please?
>
> I am looking for a document that I can download which will give me the
> sequence of voltage changes (high to low and vice versa) on each of the
> lines used in a full RS232 interface


I now have the information regarding RS232 protocols that I need. It was
published in the February 1983 BYTE magazine.

My thanks go to those who responded to my request.

73

Many thanks.

Jim Parnell, ZL2APE

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Beckman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: rs232 protocols
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 18:00:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CSLE87-0406961800260001@145.39.1.10>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, jim <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am looking for a document that I can download which will give me the
> sequence of voltage changes (high to low and vice versa) on each of the
> lines used in a full RS232 interface (RTS, DSR, DTR, CD, DCD etc) from
> the time a request for a connection is made to when a connection is
> concluded. Also, whether the protocol depends on voltage levels or the
> timing of the level changes.
>
> There are plenty of references which will tell me what the pins on a D
> connector are used for, but I have not been able, from the resources
> available to me, been able to find out when the various lines are high or
> low during a data transfer session using the RS232 protocol.
>
> Can anyone guide me to a file containing the information I need that I
> can download?
>
> Jim Parnell, ZL2APE

RS 232 is an interface specification, not a data protocol.  It doesn't
even specify the D-connector, just any one with 25 pins.  Therefore the
fact that you are not finding any protocol information is proper.
Different proprietary data protocols (and there are SO many!) often use
the various interface leads in different or unique ways.  The BAYCOM
software is a classic example - it doesn't use TD and RD at all.
--
Karl Beckman, P.E.                <      If our English language is so   >
Motorola Private Data Systems     <   precise, why do you drive on the   >
Schaumburg, IL  /  Parma, OH      <   parkway and park on the driveway?  >
[phone] / [phone]
**  Opinions expressed here do NOT represent the views of Motorola Inc. **
--
Amateur radio WA8NVW                        NavyMARS NNN0VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Geoff Joy)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: SSTV/Soundblaster
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 04:39:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4om0do$[e-mail]> <4on43f$[e-mail]> <4os3co$[e-mail]> <4p1jln$[e-mail]>

On 4 Jun 1996 15:10:47 GMT, [e-mail] (Terry Fugate) wrote:

>In article <4os3co$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary L. Jo
hnson) says:
>>  http://ourworld.comuserve.com/homepages/sstv
>>>
>>
>>
>>        I tried this page,  but it comes back with unknown host.
>>Is the address correct?
>>
>>snip<<
>Yes, http;//outworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sstv , is a valid address.
>Are you sure that you did not type http://www....?  That stopped me once.
>Also, check out the same url with /hffax at the end.  They have some nice
>fax "stuff".
>Good luck

duh, look again guys.  The p was dropped in compuserve.com!


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Simon Quantrill)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Stuff...
Date: 3 Jun 96 02:14:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

FDK Problem. This is not digital, but I only subscribed to this list and
I suppose as the radio is for packet prehaps I might get way with it 8).
I have a FDK 750E Multibander on 144 Mhz, no this problem I have had before
and the guy who fixed it said it was easy, but I can no longer contact him.
So here it is:
When in transmit there is no output power there is also no indication on the
scale, the rx light goes out and the tx light turns on but thats it, it
recieves perfect no problems, but haveing a packet radio that only listens
is not to good!. I have looked myself, and think that this may be the tr27
but not having one to try I am not sure, so if you have had the same
problem with one of these radios what was it please ??

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|  TCP/IP:   [e-mail]      :: Jnos1.10 Mailbox. |
|              sys2.pe1ray.ampr.org      :: The Netx1j Router.|
|              sys3.pe1ray.ampr.org      :: Linux Box.        |
|              sys4.pe1ray.ampr.org      ::                   |
|    AX25:   PE1RAY@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU   :: AX25 Host BBS.    |
|  E-Mail:   [e-mail]               :: Internet address. |
|                                                             |
|  73 De `Simon Quantrill'      Den Haag      The Netherlands |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:29 1996
From: Richard Saue <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: TPK on OS/2
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 17:04:46 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

John Poulsen wrote:
>
> Thanks for reading this. I have a freind who is running TPK Packet
> radio program on OS/2. It appears to work well except if you open
> another task and tehn task swap it causes the system to lock up forcing
> a system reboot. Is anyone out there running TPK and if so have you
> had simialer problems and is there a fix or better still is there a
> OS/2 packet program that has the same features as TPK

I have been using TPK on OS/2 Warp in a year now. Like many other DOS
programs polling the comport, TPK easily hogs the CPU. This can be
adjusted in the DOS settings within OS/2. I run TPK over BPQ for OS/2,
so mybe there are some differences here.

73 de Richard - LA4SGA


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:35:30 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: TPK on OS/2
Date: 3 Jun 1996 18:41:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4ovbk5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Poulsen) writes:
>Thanks for reading this. I have a freind who is running TPK Packet
>radio program on OS/2. It appears to work well except if you open
>another task and tehn task swap it causes the system to lock up forcing
>a system reboot. Is anyone out there running TPK and if so have you
>had simialer problems and is there a fix or better still is there a
>OS/2 packet program that has the same features as TPK
>
>73's John (ZL2TCA)

I had the same problem a couple of years ago and after receiveing the
following message, have been runing TPK in a DOS window ever since. I too
would like to find an OS/2 based FBBS program.

He is the response I received from WD8BTU and use:

The following are the DOS settings I found that made TPK 1.81 work very
well under OS/2 Warp 3.0 on my 486DX2-66 PC. If you're having trouble
running TPK under Warp, you might try changing the settings as outlined
below.

I had trouble with the computer slowing down to a crawl, especially while
running Windows programs at the same time, before I finally found the
correct DOS settings for TPK. Also, sometimes I couldn't print from TPK
until I rebooted the computer (!). Those problems are 99% cured by
changing the settings below. I've run these settings for some time with
very few problems. The computer stays on most of the time copying packet
(TPK copying the unproto message broadcasts from a BBS running F6FBB
5.15); no slow-downs, crashes, lock-ups or anything major happens.

I run TPK in a DOS window at 43 lines (default), 800x600 resolution, at a
font size of 14 x 8. Maximize the window and manually stretch the right
side to max, and you'll be able to view all but one line of text.

These are the changes; The rest of the settings are unchanged, for the
most part.

COM_DIRECT_ACCESS       OFF
COM_HOLD                ON
DOS_BACKGROUND_EXEC     ON
DOS_DEVICE              D:\OS2\MDOS\LPTDD.SYS
DOS_HIGH                ON
DOS_UMB                 ON
HW_ROM_TO_RAM           ON
HW_TIMER                ON
IDLE_SECONDS            0
IDLE_SENSITIVITY        5
INT_DURING_IO           ON
SESSION_PRIORITY        1
VIDEO_WINDOW_REFRESH    8


I realize that some of these are quite a departure from the recommended
settings in the OS/2 on-line info files for a communications program, but
this is what works with TPK here. We don't miss any characters, and we
only have 16450 UARTS (non-buffered). I'm using a KAM+ on COM2 @9600 baud,
hooked to both HF & VHF ports.

There is a bug in OS/2 that sometimes displays the last line double in a
DOS window at 43 lines, but it's no big deal; it's much more pleasing to
look at than a full DOS text screen on my SVGA monitor (ALT-HOME takes you
to full-screen). Back-scrolling is slow, but it is in Microsoft Windows,
too; I ALT-HOME it to a full screen sometimes for that reason.

I have the first release of Warp (a few bugs), but I love OS/2, bugs and
all.

If you have any suggestions or comments, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

73, Mike WD8BTU @KB8GNF.#NWOH.OH.USA.NA

Steve Crawford
PGP Fingerprint: 31 CD 7E DA 1B E3 8A 14 E2 9B 0D D8 C5 27 23 38
Finger: [e-mail] for PGP Public Key



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:25 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ! June 96 CD-ROM Available !
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 20:37:35 PDT
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.834118688.6173.amsoft@dx4_120>


AmSoft announces the June 1996 release of its CD-ROM "The World of
Ham Radio".  This CD-ROM contains the World's largest collection
of amateur radio, electronic, and engineering software, plus the
most recent FCC amateur radio license database available on CD-ROM.
The current FCC database includes calls issued up to 22 April 1996.
This software collection is the best available anywhere in the World
for electronics, engineering, and the hobby of Amateur Radio.  Over
20,000 files and programs for the hobbyist or professional.  Stop
by our WWW SITE: http://hamster.ivey.uwo.ca:80/~amsoft/  and see.

At $19.00 plus $4.00 Shipping anywhere in the World AmSoft has the
lowest price for any CD-ROM offering these services.

TELEPHONE: [phone]   FAX: [phone]
or send E-MAIL: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:26 1996
From: Andrew Lawlor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 16:56:21 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31b5a916.71201523@cronkite>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Brian Ellsworth wrote:
>
> Andrew Lawlor <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >What the hell am I supposed to do with all my 2M and 440 gear?
> >How many millions of dollars worth of equipment is going to become
> >unusable by HAM's nationwide?
>
> Oh, boo hoo.. :(  Poor guy. I happen to agree with Thor. Ham radio on
> the 148 and 440 has been technically stagnate (not everyone, i know, i
> know..) for so long that it isn't any wonder the resources are being
> reevaluated. Maybe if hams had managed the resources effectivly to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^

Where did you come up with "reevaluated?"  Tell me when it was announced
that 144 and 440 bands were being "reevaluated."  If a company requests access
to 20M does that constitute reevaluation or does it simply indicate a companys
interest in obtaining spectrum regardless of its current use?

> begin with maybe we'd have a better argument for keeping them. Take
> two meters for example. Here on the east coast there is NO WAY you can
> get a section of spectrum for any new technology or experiments. The
> whole band is sucked up by 'talking', roger-beep repeaters and 1200
> baud packet. If something isn't done, in 20 years, two meters would

I think you are exagerating greatly when you say this, don't you agree?
Where, specifically, "on the east coast" are you?  Have you submitted
a request for spectrum on which to do some experiments?

> probably be exactly the same as it is today. New technology developers
> are already forced to find other bands. From my point of view, 2m is
> dead already; we just forgot to bury it.
>
And what great technological wonders have been discovered/implemented on
any of the other bands?

> Losing a couple of key bands is hardly the end of amateur radio, but
> it might be the end of some antiquated obsolete technology. Oh dear,
> the two meter repeater owner ol' boys club will be forced to contend
> on a equal footing with the 'new' guys. How nice.

It may not be the end of HAM radio today, but why would I (or others) re-inves
t
money for new equipment to use on bands that ALSO have a chance of being
taken over to be used by "new technology" (( read: money makers)).
I don't think the issue has been the lack of new technology on the bands as mu
ch
as it has to do with profit & greed.  If 144 and 440 are taken down, it would
be a piece of cake to get the rest of the VHF/UHF bands as they are so under-
populated now that its almost a miracle that HAM's still have access to them.

>
> I don't like the idea of having to toss out my 440 or 148 gear any
> more than anyone else. BUT, before i toss it out, i'll have to see if
> i can even find it! :)
>
> -be

Yeah, right.  So, you're ONE guy that doesn't use equipment that you
bought (which seems pretty stupid on the surface but I'm sure there are
others out there that like to buy stuff to fill closets).  So, it follows that
because you personally don't care that a great many other HAM's will
suffer a significant financial loss when their equipment becomes virtually
useless than it really doesn't matter at all.  Right?

Good of you to look at this realistically.

Andy KC6NMD


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (J.D. Forinash)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: 6 Jun 1996 09:43:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4p6nav$[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p5413$[e-mail]>

Originally,. I'd figured the one big reason to keep (at least one of) the
2M and 440MHz bands was because of the ham's role in an emergency; sure,
some folks have cellular, etc, but at least when the hurricane tore apart
south Florida, there were just as many hams out there providing
communications. Then I read this:

In article <4p5413$[e-mail]>,
Ron Atkinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Just because we're considered 'amateurs' doesn't mean that we have to
>waste the bands away with old technology and operate so inefficiently.
>We are also experimenters and should be the ones pioneering technology.
>If ham radio were to freeze (it pretty much has the past decade or so)
>and no longer develop and progress, then the only reason to be in it
>would be to just chat with others and no longer experiment. There already
>is a band for that, it's called CB.

...and I realized there was another good reason to keep these bands: Okay,
so you're experimenting with something, say, an ultra-low bandwidth way to
send amateur TV or whatever. You're on one end of the county. Someone
else is on the other end with hsi videocamera and his transmitter. And
you're getting nothing.

Now, admittedly, you could just pick up the phone to troubleshoot. But
part of the idea of radio is you're not required to be where a cable can
get to you. Seems to me that having quick-and-dirty voice commo would be
a good thing...

-F
--
  .   J.D. Forinash:      geek, speed demon, sysadmin, Vogon poet, DNRC member
 /o\  You're not cleared for that.             <IMG SRC = "stardestroyer.asc">
'---` http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/foxtrot       [e-mail]
The more you learn, the better your luck gets.   Phoenix: GFW     O-       <*>


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:28 1996
From: "Mike B." <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 07:47:11 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]>

Thor Wiegman ([e-mail]) wrote:

------------------------------snip--------------------------------------

It's not about technology advancement or greater efficiency, it's all
about financial gain no matter what the consequencies will be to others.

The other long drawn out explanation wasn't really necessary. There's
no sentiment in faceless business. Dollars outweigh all other
considerations when push comes to shove!

Mike.







From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:30 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: RE: 144 and 444 about to find a better use
Date: 7 Jun 96 14:02:45 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


 Hi Tom,

 Holding a valid Ham License is no protoection from being suckered. Es-
pecially, when one does not do his homework.

 Hams have been transmitting data in backbones, and at the user access level
in the U.S. for many years. In 1989 we put on a 56 KB full duplex link here
in the Chicago area. We would have more of these, except for local politics.
It operates in the lower end of the 440 band. N6GN and a group of hams in
the San Fransisco area have a network of 230 Kbps links operating, using
custom designed, and made radios. In the Atlanta area, there is a network
of simplex 56 KB users, and nodes. These projects all started around the same
time frame. In Utah, there is an experimental link on 2.3 GHz, running around
1.5 MB/s.

 Yes, Commercial communications is much more reliable. It would not exist if
it was not. Ham Radio has the luxury of being un-reliable, tactically. But,
the purpose of Ham Radio is strategic, not tactical.

 Most average citizens of the U.S. have little awareness of Ham Radio. There
are places, companies, where Ham Radio an everyday thing, however. What kinda
companies are these? What forces are at work to concentrate an otherwise dis-
perse group?

 In my experience, there s one company that tipifies this. Its Motorola. A
drive around the Motorola parking lot in Schaumburg, IL, where the Corporate
HQ,and Commmunications divisions are located, shows how pervasive Ham Radio
is in that company. There are many ham plates, and lots and lots of 2 meter
and 440 antennas on vehicles.

 Why so many hams at Motorola? I think its because these guys can get the
job done. The JOB of making a JOB for YOU! This is where Cellular telephone
was developed, and tested. This is where paging started. This is where allot
of wireless applications, that keep u in money, were started. Ask most any
engineer who is a Ham, if Ham Radio was responsible for him/her being where
they are, and they will say yes. By technical education, motivation, com-
raderie, and experience, Ham Radio fills a gap that most technically in-
clined people find, when they are dispersed amoung the general population.

 Commercial interests may find better short term, quarterly profits oriented
usage for 2 meters and 70 cm. But, would this be anything less than a tech-
nological clear cutting? Would it take 100 years to resoil the forrest,
after the 10 years of profit taking errosion?

 I personally am disappointed that we Hams do not play together nicely in our
radio-technical sand box. For example, the lack of coordination for more
56 KB full duplex links in the Chicagoland area. But, is it time for sand-
box to be bull-dozed, just becuase the kids can t build a sand castle that
will survive a rain storm, and the older kids are bullies?

 Yes, we need as hams need a kick in the seat! Taking away 2 and 70 cm is not
it, tho. We can do pioneering if the rest of Ham Radio has these bands, and is
not demanding everyday usage comitmants of spectrum where developemental effor
ts
are in progress.


73, Don.

Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA
AMPRNet : [e-mail][44.72.98.19]
Internet: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Addressing international traffic on packet
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 17:08:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4p4ia3$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovkmm$[e-mail]> <4p1tbm$[e-mail]> <4p23o6$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Jim Cummings <[e-mail]> wrote:


>>      You can only send the traffic if the country it is destined to
>>is on the third party list.

>The ITU Radio Regulations do not say that.  The state that

>73 and live better digitally
>Jim, VE3XJ

Jim, All well and good with ITU regs. Trouble is, the ITU didn't
issue anyone in the U.S. a ham license, the FCC did. So we
have to play by thier rules.

73, Jim KH2D






From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Addressing international traffic on packet
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 00:49:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4p81m4$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovkmm$[e-mail]> <4p1tbm$[e-mail]> <4p23o6$[e-mail]> <4p4ia3$[e-mail]> <4p4uf4$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Todd Little) wrote:

>It still doesn't answer my question of how do I address traffic
>destined for a non-amateur in Australia.  I'm guessing I need to
>check into a traffic net or try an international BBS, although even
>then, it is unclear as to whom the traffic is addressed.

Yes, Todd, I'll agree you can beat the system by giving the traffic
to another country who the U.S. has 3rd party agreements with.
But what I was trying to point out in the first message is that it
has been my experience that once 3rd party traffic gets out of
the U.S., it is very improbable that it will ever get delivered.

As I said in the first message, depends on where it is going. Now I
know you are sending it to Australia. As far as I know, there is no
NTS system for international traffic in place in Australia. Remember,
the NTS system was 'made in the USA'.  The only other country
out here I have seen any NTS messages for was the P.I., and
with no zip codes, all that traffic had to be routed manually.

Again, check with the operator of the BBS you intend to originate
the traffic from - if he doesn't know how to route it then I can
assure you it won't go anywhere.

73, Jim KH2D




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Howard Goldstein)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: BAND THREAT: Sample Letter
Date: 5 Jun 1996 04:11:05 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p092b$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

followup set

On Tue, 04 Jun 1996 03:02:58 GMT, Arden Eby <[e-mail]> wrote:
 : I have composed the following letter to the appropriate individuals in
...
 : Warren G. Richards, Chair, IWG-2A, Department of State, CIP 2529,
...

Word has it that the chair, Mr Richards, is openly hostile towards the
amateur position.

I recommend writing to your senators, but in your own words.  We
amateurs are, after all, communicators (well, most of us)



--
Howard Goldstein   <[e-mail]>



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:35 1996
From: "Mike B." <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: CW Outdated.
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 07:34:12 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4najt8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

charles copeland ([e-mail]) wrote:

: They guy was a jerk, and more. I'll tell him so if he wants to continue
: e-mail.
:
: >Oh don't be squeamish, let it all hang out.
:
: Whatever you say *asshole.

Is that the best epithet you can manage?

As ever, in the fraternal spirit, do have another good HF, CW, jerk and
*asshole free day.  :))

73's....Mike.




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:38 1996
From: "Mike B." <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: CW Outdated.
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 07:19:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4najt8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

: > >charles copeland ([e-mail]) wrote to me by E-mail so that
: > >nobody else on this group would observe his ISM (I, self and me) :))
:
: > Your original post, and my e-mail reply had no business on newsgroups.

So now you're the self appointed arbiter of subjective material on
newsgroups.

As to the mail, well perhaps you'll think again before posting abusive
messages uninvited in a personal mailbox.

: > You are a jerk, and more that I can't/shouldn't state here.

My dictionary defines a 'jerk' as chiefly U.S. slang meaning 'a stupid or
ignorant person'......interesting.

: > and more than that I can't/shouldn't state here.

Oh don't be squeamish, let it all hang out. No doubt 'Joe Public' will
make up his own mind about your bizarre postings without any prompting
from me!

But as ever, in the fraternal spirit, do have a good HF, CW and 'jerk'
free day.

73's.....Mike



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:39 1996
From: Paul Christenson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Digital Filters?
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:36:30 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4oqucq$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>   I'm looking for an IC or IC's  which I can control by an
> microprocessor  to tune in into a certian freq. and reject the others.

> A digital band-pass is what I'm looking for.  But I need to be able to
> tune in any freq by an address or code.

There may be some dedicated DSP chip to do what you are asking.

> I'm mainly looking for something in the 70-78MHz range.

Good luck.  A DSP running at that range would have to have a 200 MHz (or bette
r)
CPU, which is not cheap.  That's why practically all DSP is done at the IF or
audio
stages.  (455 kHz is "trivial" for DSP chips.)

You may be able to find an analog chip for that range.


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:40 1996
From: Paul Christenson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Hand held Radios
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:43:00 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Ian Russell wrote:
>
> I am to buy some small (key word here is small) radios that I can use in
> the desert.  They need to be able to have a range of at least five miles
> and be able to penetrate dunes or at least out of sight possibilities???

If you are looking for digital communications (after all, this IS the digital
newsgroup), then check out the MFJ 8621 data radio.  5 watts, and runs 1200-96
00 bps
"out of the box".

If you want voice, though, you're
"stuck" with the regular handhelds.  Be sure to get one that has a few watts;
the
1/4 watt class of micro handhelds just don't have enough power to get that far
reliably.

You may want to check out the commercial handhelds.  They cost more, but are m
ore
likely to hold up better in such harsh environments.


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:41 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Internet via packet radio
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 13:08:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4ouoer$[e-mail]>

        Can I connect to the internet via packet radio? how?



                                                        73 & 51
                                                        good DX



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott\, G.R. \,  Cundiff)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Let's Stay On Topic
Date: 7 Jun 96 21:48:15 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Folks, I have no problem with people wanting to debate the "band threat"
issue or the "cw" issue or what ever subject they want to argue about, but
why debate these topics in the Ham-Digital group?  At one point I subscribed
to some other groups in which such debates were welcomed.  I, for one, grew
weary of the endless flame, counter-flame nature of the groups and dropped
them.  It is dissappointing to download this group and find that half of the
messages have almost nothing to do with "Ham-Digital."

Aside from the distant connection that most packet takes place on 2M and
that cw is the origional form of digital communications these messages are
missing the whole point of this group.   They are not discussing various
aspects of digital communications at all, they are mainly centered on well
worn arguments.

If you want to debate, I recommend you check out these groups:
alt.ham-radio.nocode, alt.ham-radio.morse, and alt.ham-radio.flame.

If I am the only one who is weary of all this, I apologize to the rest of
the group.  I shall grin and bear it.  Otherwise, I would like to see those
who are really interested in ham-digital communications take our group back.

73, Scott

G.R. "Scott" Cundiff
Borger, Texas
email: [e-mail]
amateur radio: N5ASD@N5ASD.#WTX.TX.USA.NOAM



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:44 1996
From: Robin Gilks <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Looking for Windows AX.25 packet driver
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 09:31:26 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4$[e-mail]> <4of3vr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "Jason Flynn" writes:

> Andy ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : >Is there such a thing as a Crynwr/Clarkson-style packet driver which
> : >will talk AX.25/KISS, allowing Windows 3.1 apps (like FTP, telnet etc)
> : >to talk TCP/IP to a TNC?
> : Me Too!  Me Too!  Me Too!  Win 95 would be even better.
> : [e-mail]
>
> Yes, well, I think the problem with the packet driver solution is that the
> frames are going in UI frames. This leaves the timeout and retries to TCP
> meaning that they come thick and fast. If the packet driver were to support
> a connection oriented (I frames) then TCP would be told to hold on. BUT it
> might be a little difficult to pretend an ethercard has a connected mode !

I'm puzzled by how you expect to get TCP to hold back. If it has a timer
running and that timer expires then surely its gonna send something
whether you have a UI or VC connection underneath it. All I can see
happening is even MORE traffic on the channel as a VC connection will
require error recovery (via timeouts etc) that operate even faster than
the TCP timeouts that you are trying to avoid!!

I've never had a problem with Trumpet Winsock, which I assume has the
standard exponential backoff algorithms when using it via a packet
driver to a second machine which then encapsultes things into UI AX.25
frames. If its all done on a single machine using a packet driver
lookalike such as Ethrax25 then surely that will operate the same.

I think there may be problems with Ethrax25 and I put out a request a
few weeks ago to try and find the author of it - if the sources were
available then maybe it could be improved. I suppose I could try and
recreate it from Etherslip but as someones already done it I can't see
the point!!


>  SO, I am working on an NDIS 3.0 driver which shoud run on NT,95&WFW. This
> utilises the WAN service functions and poses to be an X.25 driver. With a bi
t
> more luck it'll be ready for Christmas ! No, seriously, time is a problem at
> the mo, so just keep patient and it'll be here soon. Mail me if you want to
> be an alpha tester, also if anyone else has tried this or knows anything abo
ut
> NDIS 3.0 the mail me cos it is quite heavy going.
>
> Jason Flynn
>
>

--
Robin Gilks           [e-mail]
Also known as         [e-mail]
     Developing the Internet on Radio on a shoestring [ yes it is painful;-) ]


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (pete brunelli)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: NOS via Windows IP?
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 18:45:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4p4krp$[e-mail]>


Forgive the question if it has been beaten to death, but I am looking
for information on using some of the common Windows-based TCP/IP
utilities like Trumpet Winsock to make connections to KA9Q NOS systems
via a KISSed packet modem.

Thanks in advance,
Pete, N1QDQ




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Richard Lutz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Okidata modem jumpers
Date: 7 Jun 1996 05:13:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4p8dq5$[e-mail]>

I have a 14.4internal modem made by Okidata, it was sold as a package deal wit
h
prodigy a few years ago.  problem:   it is set for com2 and I need it to be se
t
for com3, i have lost the instructions, there are 6 sets of jumpers with 2
closed and 4 open,  :|:|:: this is there config. any assistance would be
greatly appreciated.

KD4SEV



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:46 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pactor-II
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:22:46 -0400

I notice that the AEA DSP-232 uses a 12.3 mhz DSP chip while the SCS and
Paccomm PTC-II uses a 50 mhz DSP chip.  Will the DSP-232 handle a full
blown implementation of pactor-II or will they have to trade off
performance for a cheaper system?

This is what happened when a number of manufactures implemented pactor-I
without the digital-to-analog converter.  The trade-off is not
necessarily bad, but the manufacture's should make it clear that they
have not remained completely faithful to the original specifications.



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott\, G.R. \,  Cundiff)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: RE: Suggest TNC
Date: 8 Jun 96 14:14:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Rob Swider <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>I'm planning to buy my first TNC to give packet a try.  I'm considering three

>basic models and would like opinions about which is best.  They all price
>about the same ($120 + or -), so cost isn't an issue.  The TNCs are: KPC-3,
>PK-12 and MFJ-1270.  I'm not planning to use it mobile and don't consider
>battery operation something I absolutely need.

To which  [e-mail] (pete brunelli) replied:
>
>All else being equal I would suggest the KPC-3.  Having used Paccomm,
>MFJ, and Kantronics units, the KPC-3 is the one i stuck with.  Also,
>look for a used KAM if you think that HF modes are something that you
>might want to do.  You can often find non-KAM-plus units with pretty
>recent ROMs for about $150.  Basically, it's a KPC-3 and a great HF
>multimode in one box.

Rob, I believe Pete is giving you good advice on both counts.  The KPC-3 is
a nifty little unit.  It has the personal mailbox and node capability built
in.  However, if you ever think you might want to use some of the other
digital modes such as pactor, or think you might just want to work some HF
packet, the KAM is a great way to go.   For $50 to $75 more than a new KPC-3
you can have a used KAM.  Some guys buy a big tnc like the KAM, but never
read the manuals, and never figure out how to use the gear.  In a few years
they sell it with very little time having been put on the unit.

Which ever way you go, you will need some software.  Don't use the give away
software that comes with the Kantronics TNC's.  I recommend PaKet6, a good
shareware program.  If you want to spend almost as much on software as you
did on the tnc, KAGold is a fantastic program for the KAM -- but will cost
you $100 or so!

Good luck and have fun!

73, Scott


G.R. "Scott" Cundiff
Borger, Texas
email: [e-mail]
amateur radio: N5ASD@N5ASD.#WTX.TX.USA.NOAM



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Steven B. Bryant)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: TCP Use in SF Bay Area?
Date: 4 Jun 1996 23:56:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4p2iel$[e-mail]>

Hi,
I'm relatively new to packet radio; I've only been using AX.25 for BBS
access for about 2 months.  Anyway, I just put TCP on an old 286 I had
collecting dust and am wondering if anyone can help me find the
TCP activities in the San Francisco / Berkeley areas.

Any information you can provide (e.g. contacts, frequencies, servers,
etc.)
is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
& 73's

Steve Bryant, N6EQY


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:49 1996
Date:  7 Jun 96 15:00:50 GMT
Message-ID: <pschleck.834159650@gonix>
From: [e-mail] (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: TCP Use in SF Bay Area?
References: <4p2iel$[e-mail]>

In <4p2iel$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven B. Bryant) writes:

>Hi,
>I'm relatively new to packet radio; I've only been using AX.25 for BBS
>access for about 2 months.  Anyway, I just put TCP on an old 286 I had
>collecting dust and am wondering if anyone can help me find the
>TCP activities in the San Francisco / Berkeley areas.

>Any information you can provide (e.g. contacts, frequencies, servers,
>etc.)
>is appreciated.

>Thanks in advance.
>& 73's

>Steve Bryant, N6EQY

I'd be more than happy to list any SF Bay/Berkeley Packet and TCP/IP
Elmers (currently, I don't think I have any) in my Amateur Radio Elmers
Resource Directory:

http://www.gonix.com/pschleck/elmers/

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
[e-mail]

Maintainer, Amateur Radio Elmers Resource Directory


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:50 1996
From: "B.A. Merrill" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Wanted: Packet Logging Program
Date: 6 Jun 1996 20:27:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4p7f0c$[e-mail]>

Still searching for a shareware packet logging program to use for Field Day.
I need one to use on a 286 laptop running DOS (no WINDOWS prg pls).
So far, out of two evaluated they don't seem to be able to make contacts and l
og at
the same time.  Their purpose seems solely oriented to CW contacts.  We want t
o make
packet contacts and log at the same time.  If you know of anything or if you k
now
how to make N6TR or Eazyterm (for Windows) work in this mode, pls contact me.

TIA and good luck to all in both field day and the fight for 2M & 70cm bands!

BettyAnn, KC6ING

--
************
Computer Resource Specialist
Dept. of Plant Pathology
University of California
Riverside, CA  92521
VOICE: [phone]
FAX:     [phone]
E-MAIL:  [e-mail]




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roberto Munoz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: WINAX25 ? Where ??
Date: 6 Jun 96 10:03:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Hello !!

Where can I found the WINAX25.ZIP driver ? It is a driver for BayCom
modems and WINDOWS 3.1/3.11/95 ..

bye bye

-- Roberto
_____________________________________________________________________________
Email:[e-mail]  |  ampr: [e-mail]
fidonet: Roberto Munoz  2:341/64.10     |  ax25: [e-mail]
<A HREF="http://www.etsit.upm.es/~rclub">Paginas WEB del Radioclub EA4RCT</A>



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:52 1996
From: Per-Sverre Budahl <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: WinFBB under Win95?
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:33:34 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb4893.1d5ac160$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I have ben running WinFBB and BPQ 4.08a under Win95 here fore about 2 months n
ow
and it works OK. Experienced some problems with after maintenance with one of
the
computers, but the problem was solved with a new video card.


--

Per-Sverre Budahl         E-mail:     [e-mail]
J÷rnsgt. 32               AX.25       [e-mail]
N-9400 Harstad, NORWAY    Phone/Fax:  [phone]




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Illmayer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Winpack servers wanted
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 05:07:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4p0jpq$[e-mail]>

Hello all

I collecting all of the available Winpack software that is available.

I have
1) Reqqfil
2) Ack
3) Tele
4) Finger
5)PGP

Are there any more ????  Please e-mail them to me so I can put it up
on my web page

http://www.healey.com.au/~vk2yx

Cheers..Peter..vk2yx
[e-mail]





From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:03:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Richard H)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: WTB: Used Laptop
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 23:48:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p15ol$[e-mail]>

My XYL........gimme a price !


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dick Mock)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: RE: 144 & 444 about to find a better u
Date: 9 Jun 96 23:15:26 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 22:16:52 -0700
Subject: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use

"Thor Wiegman" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[.....]
>Ignorant?  Well, ok, I guess I must be because I can't think of any
major
>breakthrough in the last couple of decades that was pioneered by
amateurs
>on amateur frequencies.  Cellular.....nope.  SS....guess not.
Digital
>multiplex technology.....not that.  Surely SSB was!  Wrong again!
How
>about FM, the most common mode in use by hams today?  Shucks, it
wasn't
>either.  Ok, you've got me stumped....I must be ignorant about
>that....please enlighten me because it seems to me that the bulk of
the
>discoveries in radio have come from commercial or military interests.

>[.....]

Thor,

I read your comments and understand what you are saying.  I suppose it
is difficult to document specific contributions that hams have made
to commercial technological developments.  But isn't it difficult also
to give credit to specific commercial R&D programs for these
technologies?
(e.g. AM, FM,  SSB, SS, Digital communications)

My point is that much of what hams do along these lines provides a
subtle but strong basis for commercial development.  Many of those
engaged in commercial R&D are hams... and I mean M A N Y.
And those  who are not ARE influenced corporately in their R&D
projects, by work that hams are doing.

I think you will find that every major company that has been involved
in the development of the radio art (including digital processes)
have significant numbers of hams involved in their R&D.  I know this
is true.  I have worked for such companies and you have too.

It would be a terrible shame to take away such working platforms
as the 2 meter and 70 cm bands.  Even rag chewing activity is
important.  It provides a way of proving and learning in a routine
manner how the technologies we use hold up and perform under various
conditions.  Some of the most important communications
implementations are done on 2 meters and 70 cm.

And never forget, the "R" in "R & D".  The experience with existing,
and yes, even ancient technologies is extremely valuable. That's
the "R" part.  So don't demean our use of old and proven technology.
That is the step we stand on to reach the newer, higher developments.

I could go on an on in this vein, but that should be sufficient to
help turn some of our thinking around.

HAM RADIO CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL GOOD OF EVEN COMMERCIAL
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN WAYS THAT EVEN SOME HAMS ARE OVERLOOKING.

IT'S OK TO "BLOW OUR OWN HORN."  NOBODY ELSE SEEMS INCLINED TO.
BUT ABOVE ALL LET'S NOT SELL OURSELVES SHORT.

Thor, I am not overlooking your underlying pride in amateur radio.
But it's not just your comments I'm responding to.  I have seen
a few others in these groups that are almost willing to give up too
easily to the pressure.

My heartfelt 73!

Dick - W7DHS

[e-mail]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:03 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Dr Pepper)
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31b5a916.71201523@cronkite>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 18:53:32 GMT

[e-mail] (Brian Ellsworth) wrote:

>Andrew Lawlor <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>What the hell am I supposed to do with all my 2M and 440 gear?
>>How many millions of dollars worth of equipment is going to become
>>unusable by HAM's nationwide?

>Oh, boo hoo.. :(  Poor guy. I happen to agree with Thor. Ham radio on
>the 148 and 440 has been technically stagnate (not everyone, i know, i
>know..) for so long that it isn't any wonder the resources are being
>reevaluated. Maybe if hams had managed the resources effectivly to
>begin with maybe we'd have a better argument for keeping them. Take
>two meters for example. Here on the east coast there is NO WAY you can
>get a section of spectrum for any new technology or experiments. The
>whole band is sucked up by 'talking', roger-beep repeaters and 1200
>baud packet. If something isn't done, in 20 years, two meters would
>probably be exactly the same as it is today. New technology developers
>are already forced to find other bands. From my point of view, 2m is
>dead already; we just forgot to bury it.

>Losing a couple of key bands is hardly the end of amateur radio, but
>it might be the end of some antiquated obsolete technology. Oh dear,
>the two meter repeater owner ol' boys club will be forced to contend
>on a equal footing with the 'new' guys. How nice.

>I don't like the idea of having to toss out my 440 or 148 gear any
>more than anyone else. BUT, before i toss it out, i'll have to see if
>i can even find it! :)


>-be
Well that is an interesting position.  I agree, somewhat, BUT ! !
Have you taken a look at the twenty or forty meter bands lately ?  The
EXACT same thing has happened there as well.  As a matter of fact,
that's why I am a listener and not a talker.  I got my license in
1962,  for the express purpose of experimenting with antenas in the
VHF and UHF range.  I used to home brew stuff, and build kits.  Not so
much any more, though.

Don't blame the new techies, either. There are a LOT of oldtimers that
have just settled down and become appliance operators.  But SO WHAT?
What's wrong with that?  Who says that 100% of the spectrum has to be
used 100% of the time by experimentors?  And  who makes that
judgement?  Are YOU qualified?

73 :->
de
Ron, WB6GKI
Dr Pepper
10 - 2 - 4




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:04 1996
From: Dj Merrill <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: alinco dr590 960 packet?
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 14:06:13 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Anyone have a reference for mods to the Alinco DR-590 mobile
to allow 9600 baud packet?

Thanks,

-Dj - N1JOV


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:05 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Amsat/Ham news shows on satellite
Date: 13 Jun 1996 18:40:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4ppna5$[e-mail]>

W0KIE Satellite Radio Network    Producer Mike Reynolds W0KIE
 June/July 1996 Schedule           Satellite Engr. Bud Blust WA5QDZ
                                    From the "Holy Bingo Uplink"
                                      Tulsa Oklahoma, Creek Nation, USA
 SBS 6, transponder 13B
   co-located with G6
    @ 74 deg. West
D/L Freq. 12019+, Ku band
  6.2 wide band audio
Beam width - Continental U.S.A.
  (and part of Canada)
    9 p.m. Eastern
    8 p.m. Central
    7 p.m. Mountain
    6 p.m. Left Coast
----------------------
(schedule subject to change)

Monday -    Monday Night Jive
              Pirate radio tapes and music

Tuesday -   Houston Amsat Network
              Amateur Radio Satellite/NASA news and views

Wednesday - DB1 show
              America's number one TVRO talk show

Thursday -  Gary Bourgois pre-game show.
              Geek humor, music and commentary

Friday -    Friday Night Live
              News hour simulcast
               The latest in what's happening in the skys.

Saturday -  This Week in Amateur Radio
               Cutting edge amateur radio news.



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:06 1996
From: Dave Maciorowski <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: AX25 BBS Lists on the net
Date: 11 Jun 1996 14:22:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4pjvft$[e-mail]>
References: <4pj08r$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>  Can anyone advise where I might find a moderately current list of
>packet BBS' on the internet? Altavista and others can't seem to find
>them - no sign of a good list at TAPR or the League - the ARRL repeater
>directory has some, but is incomplete (probably poor response to requests
>for information).

A list of the Colorado, Western Nebraska, and Southeastern Wyoming
packet BBSs, nodes, gateways, digital repeaters, etc., is maintained at:

           http://spieg.interealm.com/p/n0rse/

-----
Dave Maciorowski, WA1JHK
Colorado Repeater Association, Inc.
  Serving Colorado with Voice and Data, 6-Meters to 1.2 Gig

Internet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
CRA:      http://www.rmsd.com/hamradio/cra/




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:07 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Dr Pepper)
Subject: Re: BayPac PP-1 TNC to Kenwood Help?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <4phh95$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:38:58 GMT

[e-mail] (Gearloos) wrote:

>Hi,
>I have a BayPac PP-1 And would like to wire it for a Kenwood TH205AT Handheld
.
>Anybody have any experience with this?
>I have no Paperwork for the TNC.
>Thanks in Advance,
>Kevin.......
>[e-mail]

Hi, Kevin. . . . .

May I assume that you are refering to the BayPac BP-1 Packet modem?
If so, the following is the hookup procedure for Kenwood:

        RED: Sleeve of mic connector
        YEL: Ring of mic connector
        GRN: Tip of speaker plug
        BLK: Body of speaker plug.
        Do NOT connect the shunt

If you don't understand the above, then send me an e-mail, and I'll
try to help out.

BTW the little Baypac is a real neat device. I have two, and I've used
it for several yearson my main system as well as portapackie.


Dr Pepper
10 - 2 - 4




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:08 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: Re: CW Outdated.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4najt8$[e-mail]> <01bb4f23.c5e9bca0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:06:50 GMT

R. Noordanus <[e-mail]> wrote:
>But how about the people who want to experiment with different antennas,
>homebrew transimtters etc.? They _must_ learn CW before they can do
>anything.
>Regards, Rob
>PE1OTP @ PI8SHB

No. In the US they can experiment to their hearts content on 6M and up.
Also, antenna experiments can be conducted on the HF citizens' band. And
the 1750M band (refered to as "The experimenters band") is great for
xmtr and ant projects. Actually, Part 15 gives the experimenters a
*wide* latitude of MF and HF frequencies to use license-free.

Jeff KH2PZ

P.S. Bob, I realize you're not in the US, but doesn't your country at
least have code-free VHF license?


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Leach)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: DSP 232 MULTIMODE
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:05:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4oft0o$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 29 May 1996 17:27:45 -0500, [e-mail] (David Kelly)
wrote:

>In article <4oft0o$[e-mail]>, luis velis <[e-mail]> wrot
e:
>
>> HI THERE
>>
>> Any comments about the new AEA DSP 232 multimode TNC....I would like to
>> hear from you....
>
>Basically I like mine and would recommend one to anyone looking for such.
>The unit is supposed to be shipping with the Windows version of PacRatt
>now. Mine came with a coupon. I sent it in today telling them I wanted the
>Macintosh version of whatever as there is not going to be a Windows PC in
>my shack.
>
>I called in a firmware bug or two. One they knew about the other they
>didn't. Turned up another last week thats far more serious as it leaves
>the radio keyed. Haven't investigated further into what caused it but it
>has something to do with use of hardware handshaking on the serial port.
>If my computer doesn't handshake then no problem. DSP-232 gets confused if
>hardware handshaking is enabled.
>
>Another bug is trying to use 9600 baud in KISS. It can Tx but not Rx.
>
>The other was 1) set the 9600 modem, 2) your serial port at 9600, 3)
>enable the raw A/D data output from the modem. Obviously you will have
>more data trying to go down your serial connection than you have bandwidth
>for. Quickly the DSP-232 overflows its buffers and resets itself. Ad
>infinitum.
>
>The advertisement pictures an MC68340 and a BGM connector, which it really
>has! The 68340 is a 16 MHz Motorola 68000, capable of running on a 16 bit
>data bus. Looks like the SRAM is 8 bits, the EPROM may be 8 bits or 16,
>there are 2 EPROMS but only one SRAM. With the availability of free
>development tools for the 68000 plus the onboard BGM port for debugging I
>expect the DSP-232 to become the future packet hackers' standard platform.
>Or some variation thereof.
>
>73,
>--
>David Kelly N4HHE,   [e-mail],    [e-mail]
>===========================================================
>To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk.
>                - Thomas Edison
I read you comments with interest as I sold my dsp2232 for a dsp232. I
thought about it hard and fast but thought that the new hardware loks
good for pactor 2 ext eventually.

What is a BGM connector. I am not too sure what they are.

Incientally, I phoned AEA re the updated Eprom but they said they were
still working on bug fixes.
My unit actually came with Pacratt for Windows version 2 ( I presume a
new version is in the pipline) but am going to use the PK/DSP gold
version as soon as it becomes available
73's de Paul GW4AMZ


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (Stan Huntting)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Dual port TNC software
Date: 10 Jun 1996 13:46:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4ph90g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...

>Anybody know any good dual port software for the 9612? I am interested
in
>having split windows...one for each port (vhf, 1200 & uhf, 9600).
>
>WinPack has split windows, but not for ports, hence, it cant be used
>effectively. Anybody have any ideas/suggestions?

KaWin does just what you ask. Download it from the KaWin Home Page
(below). 73,

Stan
--
Stan Huntting,    KF0IA
Email:            [e-mail]
Fax:              303 444 2314
KaWin home page:  http://www.mutadv.com/kawin/
Postal address:   4655 Pleasant Ridge Rd.,
                  Boulder, CO 80301-1731, USA



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:12 1996
From: [e-mail](Rod Linsalato)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: HELP WITH JNOS - GATEWAY
Date: 9 Jun 1996 22:19:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4pfiln$[e-mail]>

Hi, does anyone know how to set up JNOS to run as a gateway only under
the internet? I just want to set up JNOS as an internet bbs for now,
and not packet. Only to telnet to. I am using my modem on COM 1. Under
the ports in the autoexec.nos, what should it read? I beleive the
correct setup is under 'ATTATCHED PORTS'. Is that correct? I appreciate
your help very much!

Thank You,
73
Rod

PLEASE, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, EMAIL ME AT:
[e-mail]

-- If its more convient to reply to this message, go ahead and do that
instead. THANKS!!!


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:13 1996
From: Simon GW7SOZ <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: HLP: Terminal software & Net/Rom x-1j4
Date: 12 Jun 1996 12:40:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4pmdrc$[e-mail]>

Hi,
I am having problems finding a terminal program that will allow me to
alter the configuration of my netrom x-1j4 node.  I've tried to use paKet
and a terminal program that comes with BPQ, but I can't get the escape
character to work.

I would appreciate any suggestions about software, because having to
remotely change the configuration from another station is annoying

73 de Simon
 ====================================================================
 =          Simon Jude  University of Wales Aberystwyth             =
 =       E-Mail [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]         =
 =      GW7SOZ @ GB7BAY on AX25 amateur radio packet network        =
 =            gw7soz.ampr.org TCP/IP over amateur radio             =
 =                During holidays G7SOZ @ GB7SAM                    =
 =    GW7SOZ Amateur Radio WWW Page http://www.aber.ac.uk/~srj5     =
 ====================================================================




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Demetre Ch. Valaris)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: IC730 and AMTOR
Date: 8 Jun 96 23:08:24 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hello all,

I would like to use an IC730 in AMTOR but I have problems in connecting
when I use this radio. Has anyone used IC730 on AMTOR or PACTOR.
Please let me know.



73 from Demetre - SV1UY - IP coordinator of AMPRnet in Greece
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
| Demetre Ch. Valaris - SV1UY                      /////  ////  ////  /  ////
|
| e-mail (home) : [e-mail]              /   /     ////  /  ////
|
| e-mail (work) : [e-mail]   /   ////  /     /  /
|
| AX25 packet   : [e-mail]
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
|    Recyclable bits and bytes have been used for the message above.
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Vesta Technology)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Idea for new license class
Date: 7 Jun 1996 22:12:28 -0600
Message-ID: <4paujc$[e-mail]>

(The following are solely my opinions and not those of my employer -
 Andrew Jonathan Fine, WA2JAZ)

TWIMC,

  I've been interested in helping people with serious mental disabilities get
started in amateur radio, but I've met a distinct lack of interest as far
as learning theory is concerned.

They're pretty enthusiastic as far as the Morse Code is concerned though.
One person I know, from a long time ago, really liked the idea of sending
messages over a flashlight. When I told him that there was a whole world of
people who used radio this way to talk to each other, he really lit up.  But
then his face fell when I told him that he would have to pass a written test.

Here's my idea.   It is called the Amateur Basic Class License.  It would
require only the 5 word per minute Morse Code element, no theory.  It would
provide a complementary entry path to the current No-Code Technician, which
requires a theory element but no Morse.

The Basic Class License would authorize use of the 80 Meter CW Novice segment
only, same power limit as Novice.  No other bands permitted.

I think that a simple, restricted taste of amateur radio could be most
theraputic to a class of very enthusiastic people who could not be amateurs
otherwise.  And in my humble opinion, the one thing that distinguishes an
amateur operator from a casual user of spectrum is the use of Morse code.

Opinions?






From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:17 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Idea for new license class
Date: 12 Jun 1996 00:01:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4pl1dn$[e-mail]>
References: 4paujc$[e-mail]



On 7 Jun 1996 vesta said:
   >(The following are solely my opinions and not those of my employer -
   >Andrew Jonathan Fine, WA2JAZ)
   >TWIMC,
   >I've been interested in helping people with serious mental
   >disabilities get started in amateur radio, but I've met a distinct
   >lack of interest as far as learning theory is concerned.
   >They're pretty enthusiastic as far as the Morse Code is concerned
   >though. One person I know, from a long time ago, really liked the
   >idea of sending messages over a flashlight. When I told him that
   >there was a whole world of people who used radio this way to talk
   >to each other, he really lit up.  But then his face fell when I
   >told him that he would have to pass a written test.
   >Here's my idea.   It is called the Amateur Basic Class License.  It
   >would require only the 5 word per minute Morse Code element, no
   >theory.  It would provide a complementary entry path to the current
   >No-Code Technician, which requires a theory element but no Morse.
   >The Basic Class License would authorize use of the 80 Meter CW
   >Novice segment only, same power limit as Novice.  No other bands
   >permitted.
   >I think that a simple, restricted taste of amateur radio could be
   >most theraputic to a class of very enthusiastic people who could
   >not be amateurs otherwise.  And in my humble opinion, the one thing
   >that distinguishes an amateur operator from a casual user of
   >spectrum is the use of Morse code.
   >Opinions?
That all sounds fine but the test for novice and tech is mostly rules with
very little theory.  How is someone going to transmit on the radio spectrum
if they don,t know the rules?  If they want to transmit without knowing the
rules, they can do so as a third party under someone elses liscense.

Ken       KC7CLO

`[1;31;42mNet-Tamer V 1.04 - Test Drive



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tommy Karlberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Linux wefax/SSTV?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:46:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4ph8t0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

"Ken Plumbly (Jr.)" <   > wrote:

>Has anyone seen or even heard of a software package
>for Linux to run hf fax/sstv?
>I have been looking about but can't see anything.
>Thanks.

>Ken

>[e-mail]


Hi!

If you get any response please drop me a line! I've been
looking for that during the last six months!

/ Tommy    SM7PAF





From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:18 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for info on numerology
From: [e-mail] (Pk Smith)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4n9n70$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 23:15:00 +0300

Hi Cheriwee  (oops)  I'm still trying to get a HANDLE on thid(oops) this
hiway .... keep in touch... thansk (oops) thanks.... kerry <pKsn> final
oops..... writye okay... need the practice/help


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rich & Katy Mulvey)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Mods for 440 HT's for 9600 baud packet
Date: 14 Jun 1996 11:49:29 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4po8cc$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:13:31 GMT, Joel B. Black <[e-mail]> wrote
:
>Does anyone know of any mods for 440 ht's for 9600 bps packet?  Would
>I just be better off buying a 440 mobile rig and doing 9600 bps packet
>with it?  Any help is appreciated...


   Actually, you would be far better off buying a crystal rig like the
Tekk or Motorola offerings, for high-speed packet.  They offer much
better BER's than voice-grade rigs that have had data interfaces
kludged on top of them.

- Rich



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Illmayer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: New Winpack Servers available
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:50:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4pimrv$[e-mail]>

Hello ALL

I have uploaded some new servers to my web page for downloading.
Point your browser to

http://www.healey.com.au/~vk2yx

Also, if you have any additional server, TNC parameter files or
anything Winpack related, please send me a copy !!!!

Cheers..Pete..vk2yx



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: PACSAT TNC RECOMMENDATIONS?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 15:38:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4ppclh$[e-mail]>

I just bought a TS-790A and had the dealer do the 9600 baud mod. I have a 1200

baud tnc, however, what kind of tnc do I need to work the 9600 baud pacsats?
Any recommendations would be appreciated. 73 de Rick VE9HF.


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:22 1996
From: "J. Miner" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: PGP On Amateur Packet?
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 10:34:05 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello

I wanted to know if it is legal to use PGP (pertty good privicy) on amateur pa
cket here
in the us.

73, Jon N2XFZ
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|o  WWW: http://www.j51.com/~richard          Email: [e-mail]      o|
|   Amateur Packet : N2XFZ@W2DMC.#ENY.NY.USA.NA      [e-mail]   |
|   TCP/IP : [e-mail] [44.68.48.156]                           |
|o  PGP Public Access Key:  finger  [e-mail]                         o|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:23 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PGP On Amateur Packet?
Date: 10 Jun 1996 16:52:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4phjt0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4peshp$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]> writes:

>I wonder, though, what the FCC might have to say about using PGP
>for authentication?

PGP authentication should be no more unacceptable than using a CRC to verify
correct transmission of a binary file.  Message encryption is obviously out,
but the authentication function should be fine.
--
Dick Flanagan, W6OLD - ([e-mail]) - Minden, NV


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:24 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PGP On Amateur Packet?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:47:16 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4peshp$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4phjt0$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
> but the authentication function should be fine.

That's what I think it ought to be too, but I wonder what the FCC
bureaucrats would say.  Incidentally, anyone have any ideas for
public key service over the air?  How can we keep that safe from
spoofing?  Or do we need to resort to posting those keys on another
medium?

73,
Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:25 1996
From: Kevin Jessup <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PGP On Amateur Packet?
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 17:38:06 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4peshp$[e-mail]>

Greg Putrich wrote:

> Nope. Amateur rules prohibit any sort of encryption.

Agreed.  But practically, I doubt this can be enforced.
We can't even get repeater jammers prosecuted!

Think anyone would know if someone used Stealth (a program
to strip away the obvious PGP headers)?  At that point,
binary or ASCII output from PGP looks essentially like noise.

Kevin, n9sqb


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Marty Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PGP On Amateur Packet?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:17:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4pnfnn$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4peshp$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4phjt0$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:

>Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]> writes:

>>I wonder, though, what the FCC might have to say about using PGP
>>for authentication?

>PGP authentication should be no more unacceptable than using a CRC to verify
>correct transmission of a binary file.  Message encryption is obviously out,
>but the authentication function should be fine.
>--
>Dick Flanagan, W6OLD - ([e-mail]) - Minden, NV

Actually, the FCC is about the worst group you could ask about PGP...
They don't seem to even read their own rules let alone have enough
understanding to make an on the spot judgement call.

The ARRL wouldn't be of any help... Total lack of any clue as to how
the law works there as well.

All of the communication lawyers I have spoke to (about 6 or so) have
wondered why the question has even come up... That is, there is no
problem with PGP signatures for authentication.

Actual message encryption is clearly out.

Take Care & 73

Marty Albert - KC6UFM
KC6UFM@KC6UFM.#SEMO.MO.USA.NOAM
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Whitehurst)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Radio Shack Frequency Counter
Date: 12 Jun 1996 05:20:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4plk3k$[e-mail]>

        Does anyone know if the RS frequency counter is any good? How does it
compare to say, the Optoelectronics' Cub/Scout??? Tnx! David N4ZGT.



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joel B. Black)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: SOME CONFUSION
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:40:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4ppr3p$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Aga Ahmed) wrote:




>        Hi


>   I have some confusion of the following words:

> 1- LEASED LINES
Leased lines are used as dedicated lines.  They can be digital or
analog.  We use these a lot in the type work I do.  Usually the
digital lines are a bit faster, but this is barely perceptible from my
point of view.  You get these installed by the local phone company and
are charged a flat rate.
> 2- ISDN
ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) allows for 128kbps
transmission.  128kbps is only possible with an internal ISDN
TA(terminal adapter).  A terminal adapter is a better name than modem.
A MO(dulate)DEM(modulate) implies the changing of a digital signal to
analog and back to digital.  A terminal adapter allows you to
interface you computer with a digital line.  An external TA is limited
to the throughput of you serial port (around 96kbps).  That is still a
helluva lot faster than my 14.4kbps connection.  ISDN is set up with 3
full-duplex channels.  Two of the channels can be setup to handle
voice, data, or both.  These are 64kbps.  The third channel carries
special packet and data signals at 16kbps.  The third channel is what
ensures correct operation in the line.  Combining the two 64kbps
channels is what allows you to have a 128kbps connection.
> 3- OPTICAL FIBER
Optical fiber allows the communication of data over light waves.  The
limited experience I have with it is classroom only, but I can tell
you that it works great.  It does involve the use of some type decoder
to get the info to light.


>If anyone can help me, I will be apprectiated.

>REGARDS
>[e-mail]

Hope I was some help...
73's...Joel, KS4AW



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joe Convertini)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: test
Date: 9 Jun 1996 05:59:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4pdp7k$[e-mail]>



--
Joe Convertini [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Heatherington)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Test Post 3: Do not read
Date: 7 Jun 1996 21:46:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4pa7v1$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dale Heatherington)

This is set for "world" distribution.





From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:30 1996
From: Bob Smith <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.swap
Subject: Trade DSP-93 for DSP2232 or 1232
Date: 8 Jun 1996 02:17:04 GMT
Message-ID: <01bb54e0.94e406c0$25a447cc@desktop>

Hate to do it but I just have no time to tweak my DSP93 as I need to get
it going for sat work.  SO I wish to trade it for a DSp2232 or 1232.  It
is built and works perfectly.  Also includes the PACCOMM TNC board
installed.  Includes all docs and software.

Thanks for the bandwidth

Get me at [e-mail].

73.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Smith                                       N3FTU
Suwanee, GA
mailto: [e-mail]
http://www.wp.com/~bsmith
ARRL, TAPR




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 12:01:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Barber)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Windows 95 SSTV
Date: 7 Jun 1996 17:47:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4p9pus$[e-mail]>


Hi Folks !

I've seen a few postings go by here regarding SSTV using the
computer's sound card, so I thought I'd make *one* announcement.

We have a beta version of W95SSTV available for download from
our www/ftp sites.  It is an SSTV program for Windows 95 and
Windows NT, and runs on higher-end computers, using the
sound card as an interface.

It is still beta software, and we're working hard to make it the
best SSTV package around.

The beta downloads *DO* have an expiration date that will be
extended with each successive release.  The "final" shareware
release will *NOT* expire, although it will be feature-limited.

You can read about it or download it from :

http://www.wolfenet.com/~jlbarber/sstv.htm


Jim Barber, N7CXI
[e-mail]
CIS: 75230,3644


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Ellsworth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:54:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31b5a916.71201523@cronkite> <4p70nf$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:22:22 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>Personally all the people like you must have interest in the leos to
>feel like the amateur ranks have been stagnant. I really think the
>amateur community as a whole is not stagnant as you say but very
>progressive.
>
Ah, really? Obviously we disagree on this one. Just buying the latest radio fr
om
Japan is not technical progress. I equate ham radio with technological
development. Obviously not everyone agrees with this position, but i think
you'll find historically the innovative applications of technology, and
experimentation by ham radio ops has been sort of a 'bragging' point in suppor
t
of ham radio. The public service aspect is another one but early on, the
technical aspects were a (if not 'the') mainstay. Not true today. The majority
of ham's are nearly baffled by their appliance.

>But you have your ideas and by the way just what the hell
>is your amateur call. And if you don't have one what are you do
>discussing anything about the amateur ranks.
>
Oh? I didn't see where an amateur license was required to post here.

>Also the next time you need emergency communications pick up
>your dead cellphone or lister to the radio station that is off the air
>for help on things...Bill Wright ka9dsa and yes I have a call...
>
yea yea, sure. You are fooling yourself by thinking everyone is convinced that
amateur radio is such a great public service asset. Around here, when the powe
r
goes out so do 90% of the local repeaters. Ham radio's reputation is summed up
by this typical response from a local public official, "oh, yea, CBers right?
No
thanks, we can handle it with the equipment we have...".

-be



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Ellsworth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:55:28 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5290.f78b7260$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31b5a916.71201523@cronkite> <4p70nf$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:22:22 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:
>by the way just what the hell is your amateur call.

Oh yea, if it is REALLY an issue:  ka1jy

-be



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:07 1996
From: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:45:07 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
> >
> Well, I tend to agree with this somewhat. We have little need for
> ACSSB because we already have SSB, and operators skilled enough
> to use it effectively. The benefits we'd derive from ACSSB, freedom
> from the need for fine tuning, and the ability to easily trigger
> a repeater, don't outweigh the costs involved for our uses. If
> our available spectrum were full to the bursting point, switching
> from NBFM to ACSSB for repeater usage might make some sense. But
> our spectrum isn't that heavily loaded for the most part, and
> there are better ways if it were. Linear transponders could
> replace repeaters, allowing us to use a mix of available techniques
> including SSB, digital, and even FM, where we need range extension
> beyond simplex. And SS offers us a method of spectral sharing that
> doesn't require formal coordination. ACSSB answers a question which
> we have no need to ask. It is a solution to a problem we don't
> have.
> >
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems

Gary,

We may see some ACSSB stuff in the future. After the turn of the century,
commercial channels are going to be pared down to 6.25 kHz.

Although digital will most likely be the main modulation technique, we might s
ee some
form of ACSSB in the low end commercial gear. And of course, amateurs
are well known for recycling old commercial stuff.

It would be interesting to try SSB on the current FM frequencies, something
like ACSSB, but without the compandering.

73,

Bruce, WB4YUC


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:08 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: "Patrick W. Soileau" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  9600 baud packet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:46:12 -0500
References: <4po8cc$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

> Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> For 9600 baud packet, you want a simple crystal controlled radio
> with direct FM, and with a receiver having an IF filter selected
> for data rather than voice usage. Two such examples are the data
> radios from TEKK and Kantronics. The KS-900 also has the charms
> of being smaller than a HT, and much cheaper. The D4-10 runs more
> power, but costs about as much as a voice radio.

<snip by psoileau>

A radio that we've had plenty of success with operating 9600 baud packet
is the General Electric Custom MVP.  The local club got several dozen
which were taken out of oilfield service recently.  You can get a set of
crystals for about $20.  Let me know if you'd like one.

73 de pat ka5nmn



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:09 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:52:32 GMT

Cecil Moore wrote:
>
> ...<SNIP>
>
> Your analogy is flawed. Eliminating the testing requirement for Morse code
> is more like not requiring a horse riding test to get a driver's license.
>
> *Nobody wants to reduce the requirements*, just change them to attract
> more technical types which would probably increase the difficulty of the
> written tests.
>
> Seems to me one of the reasons that pro-code-testing hams want to maintain
> the CW requirement is they feel inadequate about their technical knowledge
> and are against increasing the technical difficulty of the written tests.
> They have chosen to be good in a skill that doesn't matter anymore and are
> understandably afraid of the future.
>
> 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)

I am currently learning CW in order to get onto the HF bands.  My major
interest is in homebrew.  CW has three wonderful advantages:

-       It is much easier to design and build a CW transmitter (receiver
        design is not eased as greatly).

-       If the bandpass is narrowed to 300Hz or so, the SN ratio is such
        that low power can go a long way.

-       With sufficiently selective receivers (and suitably de-keyclicked
        transmitters), quite a number of CW channels can be fit into one
        voice channel.

Now, if all you're interested in is buying your equipment, then CW must be
nothing but a burden.  But if you're into designing and building stuff
(which are the roots of Ham), CW is a great entry point.

Besides, learning CW is very easy (I am doing it now).  It seems some people
spend more time whining about having to do it than it takes to actually do
it!

How many people who complain about doing CW design and build their own
equipment?  I can't imagine it'd be too many, given the demonstrated lack of
patience wrt to learning CW.  Stop watching the idiot box (TV), that'll free
up lots of time!!! :-)

Does CW really discourage the technically interested/inclined?

Cheers,

Chris (looking forward to getting on the air).


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Glenn Bath)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 01:25:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4q7hb6$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Cecil Moore wrote:
>>
>> ...<SNIP>
>>
>> Your analogy is flawed. Eliminating the testing requirement for Morse code
>> is more like not requiring a horse riding test to get a driver's license.
>>
>> *Nobody wants to reduce the requirements*, just change them to attract
>> more technical types which would probably increase the difficulty of the
>> written tests.
>>
>> Seems to me one of the reasons that pro-code-testing hams want to maintain
>> the CW requirement is they feel inadequate about their technical knowledge
>> and are against increasing the technical difficulty of the written tests.
>> They have chosen to be good in a skill that doesn't matter anymore and are
>> understandably afraid of the future.
>>
>> 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)

>I am currently learning CW in order to get onto the HF bands.  My major
>interest is in homebrew.  CW has three wonderful advantages:

>-      It is much easier to design and build a CW transmitter (receiver
>       design is not eased as greatly).

>-      If the bandpass is narrowed to 300Hz or so, the SN ratio is such
>       that low power can go a long way.

>-      With sufficiently selective receivers (and suitably de-keyclicked
>       transmitters), quite a number of CW channels can be fit into one
>       voice channel.

>Now, if all you're interested in is buying your equipment, then CW must be
>nothing but a burden.  But if you're into designing and building stuff
>(which are the roots of Ham), CW is a great entry point.

>Besides, learning CW is very easy (I am doing it now).  It seems some people
>spend more time whining about having to do it than it takes to actually do
>it!

>How many people who complain about doing CW design and build their own
>equipment?  I can't imagine it'd be too many, given the demonstrated lack of
>patience wrt to learning CW.  Stop watching the idiot box (TV), that'll free
>up lots of time!!! :-)

>Does CW really discourage the technically interested/inclined?

>Cheers,

>Chris (looking forward to getting on the air).
Speaking for myself, I found the cw test more of a challenge than the
written test for extra. I welcome the addition of more technical
people to the hobby, and wouldnt mind a more technical written test.I
dont think we should lower standards just to increase our numbers.If
you dont want to learn cw, then you shouldnt have to, but lets not
knock cw operators just because they have a skill you dont.

                                Sincerely yours
                                Glenn
                                WA8YIR



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter A. Klein)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 18 Jun 1996 23:15:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4q85ta$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q6pro$[e-mail]>

In article <4q6pro$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>-     If the bandpass is narrowed to 300Hz or so, the SN ratio is such
>>      that low power can go a long way.

>Future licensees will be required to reduce the bandwidth of their voice by
>training or appropriate surgery to 100 Hz or less.

Regular injections of the appropriate hormone might be more effective :-)

73,
Peter - KD7MW
---


--
Peter A. Klein  ([e-mail])  :    -----==3==      ---      ---
Information Services, ext. 5569        :   |    |  |  |    |   |    |   |
Seattle University                     :  @|   @| @| @|   @|  @|   @|  @|


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:12 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:11:58 GMT

Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> ...<SNIP>
> If you don't take a CW test will that change in any way at all?
> ...<SNIP>

If the CW requirement were dropped, then all the no code Hams would have
access to the very limited HF bands while being able to use only phone.
Thus, aside from there being many more people competing for this limited
resource, they'll each always be using five to ten times as much
bandwidth (3KHz minimum for phone) because they can't do Morse.

Also, what of the majority of Hams whose English, while good enough to
do Morse, is not good enough to do phone?  Are you going to insist that
they learn conversational English (a hard thing to do) because others
don't want to learn the (much easier) Morse?

So yes, if you don't take the CW test, a lot will change.

Cheers,

Chris


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:13 1996
From: Phil Sussman <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:30:51 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Amateur Radio is under assault. This is because commercial activities
are recognizing the financial gain that can be realized by using ANY
frequency they can 'lay their hands on'. This includes HAM RADIO
because we are seen as fragmented.

Here is what I mean. There is a move afoot to 'eliminate' CW as a
requirement for Hams worldwide. Of course it started as a 'grass-routes'
campaign somewhere and honestly so. However, some of the people who
are most in favor of it are (you guessed it) 'Commercial interests'.
Now why is that? Simply because if we 'give up' anything, we are seen
as being able to surrender EVERYTHING.

Here are some glaring examples:

 1. SPOC (single point of contact) is a recent concept where one
    organization or body is responsible for communicating between
    members of that organization and other authority. If one were
    to 'control the SPOC' (buy it, steal it, or run it) members
    could be 'had'. SPOC is a bad idea for hams because it removes
    individuals from redress.

 2. Eliminate requirements: While it is always best to move with
    the times there is a difference between changing rules and
    elminating them. It is a double edged sword, if you make it
    so much easier for new Ham Operators to arrive on the band,
    you also make it that much easier for commercial interests to
    gain a foot-hold via that route.

 3. Deregulation: Turning certain functions and missions over to
    the private sector (coordination, licensing, testing, call sign
    assignments, violation monitoring) makes it much easier in the
    future for a commercial 'attack' on the need for ANY regulation.
    Once that is done the BANDS are ripe for picking.

 4. Alternatives: Internet is being touted to hams as an alternative
    to Ham Radio. After all any of us over here on Internet are NOT
    on ham radio. That's why commercial commnications interests are
    so happy to promote Hams moving to a 'higher plane' and off the
    hams bands.

Before we surrender CW, or HF, or 2m or 70cm, we ought to THINK
first. That's why after I type this message, I'm going to be on 20m.

My Point: Talk is cheap.. when it comes to Amateur Radio

   USE IT OR LOSE IT...

Enough said!   73 from Ohio -  de Phil - KB8LUJ


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:14 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:50:20 GMT

Cecil Moore  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi Phil, methinks your logic is upside down. If we increase the
>requirements (the opposite of giving up or surrendering) then
>the number of hams will be so small that it won't matter if
>we lose our bands. In today's society, strength comes from
>having the biggest gang. After all, that is what democracy
>is all about. The greatest number voting the greatest good
>for the greatest number at the expense of the rest.

Hi Cec; So we should reduce requirements (say, by removing code tests) to
increase our strength? This is no different than lowing the voting age to
to maybe 10 to increase the strength of our democracy. Both are a bad idea.
Jeff KH2PZ


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:15 1996
From: Roger Barker <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:52:19 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Phil Sussman <[e-mail]>
writes
>Amateur Radio is under assault. This is because commercial activities
>are recognizing the financial gain that can be realized by using ANY
>frequency they can 'lay their hands on'. This includes HAM RADIO
>because we are seen as fragmented.
>
>Here is what I mean. There is a move afoot to 'eliminate' CW as a
>requirement for Hams worldwide. Of course it started as a 'grass-routes'
>campaign somewhere and honestly so. However, some of the people who
>are most in favor of it are (you guessed it) 'Commercial interests'.
>Now why is that? Simply because if we 'give up' anything, we are seen
>as being able to surrender EVERYTHING.
[snip]

You could argue exactly the opposite - that by keeping CW as a
requirement for certain licence classes, we make ham radio appear to be
an anachronism, with no relevance in modern communications!

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE  [e-mail]
Boston, UK           "Be tolerant of everything, except for intolerance!"


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: 15 Jun 1996 21:21:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]>

Phil Sussman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: There is a move afoot to 'eliminate' CW as a
: requirement for Hams worldwide. Of course it started as a 'grass-routes'
: campaign somewhere and honestly so. However, some of the people who
: are most in favor of it are (you guessed it) 'Commercial interests'.
: Now why is that? Simply because if we 'give up' anything, we are seen
: as being able to surrender EVERYTHING.

Your logic evades me.  Eliminating the obsolete CW requirement
does not mean that we are surrendering the CW subbands, but rather
than other HF users need no longer be competent CW operators.  In
reality, we would be gaining a lot of HF operators, making it even
less likely that those bands would be threatened.

:     Eliminate requirements: While it is always best to move with
:     the times there is a difference between changing rules and
:     elminating them. It is a double edged sword, if you make it
:     so much easier for new Ham Operators to arrive on the band,
:     you also make it that much easier for commercial interests to
:     gain a foot-hold via that route.

A proper reform would be one similar to the novice enhancement
of 1987.  Some doomsdayers predicted the worse, but it actually
was to the overall benefit of ham radio.  My first contact as a
ham was on 10 meters USB, and that teased me just enough to
upgrade.  I don't think that commercial interests would be too
concerned with whether or not displaced amateurs had to do CW.
The more amateurs you have on the band, the less likely it is
to be taken away.

: My Point: Talk is cheap.. when it comes to Amateur Radio

:    USE IT OR LOSE IT...

That's exactly right, and if we have more HF operators, it will
be used a lot more.  I know no-coders who have put up repeaters,
established packet BBSes, built satellite stations and more.
Most of them spend more time on the air than I do.  Their use
of the ham bands (particularly two meters and 440 MHz) make
those bands less attractive to commercial interests.  So, how
often do you get on six or 220?  Remember, use it or lose it...

Cheers -- Mark

***** Mark Walsh ***** [e-mail] *****


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:17 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:21:07 GMT

Mark Walsh <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Eliminating the obsolete CW requirement
>does not mean that we are surrendering the CW subbands, but rather
>than other HF users need no longer be competent CW operators.  In
>reality, we would be gaining a lot of HF operators, making it even
>less likely that those bands would be threatened.

Hi Mark, You're the second one today that mentioned we're being
threatened with the loss of HF spectrum. What leads you to believe
this fallacy? The only loss we've encountered in the last 35 years
was the 11 meter band. But what we've gained (12, 17, 30, and
all of 160M) far outweighs that loss.

And do we really need an additional 300,000+ hams on HF? You must
hate HF to wish that upon us. 600,000 of us can fit nicely on V/UHF,
especially if more folks would use simplex like they're supposed to
(why blanket 5,000 square miles [assuming a rptr with a 40 mile
radius] with your repeated signal when the fellow is within simplex
distance of you?). But placing all 600K of us on MF/HF (a mere 3.75
MHz), where if you so much as sneeze half the world might hear you,
is foolish. HF is already jammed with wall-to-wall signals, especially
on weekends.

And finally, the CW requirement is not obsolete. With it we are assured
that *every* HF ham has at least one mode in common. Without it, we're
partitioned into a disjoint collection of operators only able to communi-
cate with those who share our favorite mode. That would be a terrible
loss of such an important capability.

Jeff KH2PZ / KH6

P.S. Please respect the followup to .policy.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: 16 Jun 1996 18:14:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4q20v9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]>

In article <4q1j05$[e-mail]>,
        Cecil Moore  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>*Nobody wants to reduce the requirements*, just change them to attract
>more technical types which would probably increase the difficulty of the
>written tests.

History shows that the written exams have constantly been dumbed down,
not strengthened.


We were sold a "pig in the poke" once before when we were told that
millions of "technical" people were just waiting for a codeless
license. Well, we created a codeless license -- one that gives
access to 99% of all available amateur spectrum, and one that gives
full operating privs on all bands where "technical innovation"
needs to take place. Yet, no millions of new hams. A hundred thousand
or so, but even then, how many would have come in through the novice
license anyway?

As the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me."

We don't need a codeless HF license. One already exists. Its called
Citizen's Band.

MD

--
--
--  Who needs looks when you've got taste?
--
--  If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:20 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman)
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 07:04:04 GMT

Cecil Moore  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>*Nobody wants to reduce the requirements*, just change them to attract
>more technical types which would probably increase the difficulty of the
>written tests.

Fine, increase the difficulty of the exams - I would honestly be in favor
of that. I would especially like to see more formulas included and *not*
allow use of calculators. Basic algebra and extraction of square roots
by hand should have been mastered in the classroom.

>Seems to me one of the reasons that pro-code-testing hams want to maintain
>the CW requirement is they feel inadequate about their technical knowledge
>and are against increasing the technical difficulty of the written tests.
>They have chosen to be good in a skill that doesn't matter anymore and are
>understandably afraid of the future.

What lead you to come to such a conclusion? Gary C. is the only one who
desires that the tests be an "entrance exam, not a final exam." But if
you do make the exams too difficult you might just end up with no one
*except* technical folks; remember $97.1 asks us to be more than just
technically oriented.

Now if you had asked, I would have told you that keeping the code require-
ment insures us that *all* HF-licensed hams have at least one mode in common
(and one that can be deciphered mentally rather than having to rely on fragile
devices). Delete the code tests and you've partitioned us into disjoint groups

according to our favorite mode. If the Government has to mandate that we have
at least one mode in common, so be it.

Jeff "Keep the code and include more math" KH2PZ / KH6

P.S. Cec, my rebuttal to your "Seems to me..." vision could have been
"Seems to me one of the reasons that anti-code-testing folks are so
against the requirement is that they don't want to master a particular
mental skill when it's less work to allow a machine do it. Too bad they
have to rely on a box to do something that their mind has the capablilty
of doing." But I chose not to include that argument.

P.S.S. Allow the followup to proceed to r.r.a.policy.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:21 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Dr Pepper)
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:04:52 GMT

Bruce Burke <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Roger Barker wrote:

>> You could argue exactly the opposite - that by keeping CW as a
>> requirement for certain licence classes, we make ham radio appear to be
>> an anachronism, with no relevance in modern communications!

>CW by itself does not make the hobby seem like, or not seem like, an anachron
ism.
>It is our attitude toward it and what we project.

>73,
>Bruce, WB4YUC

True, but attitude is everything!  Most of the "old timers" ARE
anachronisms.  Just look at the ARRL, and any issue of QST. It's
straight out of the 1930's. Believe me, nostalgia ain't what it used
to be. I've held a licence since 1963, but do not consider myself an
"old timer"I am primarily a listener, because I don't have anything
 worthwhile to say.

73  de  ron  wb6gki
"The Scannerist"
Dr Pepper
10 - 2 - 4




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (James W. KELLEY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: 19 Jun 1996 19:26:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4q9k8q$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q7ihq$[e-mail]>

In article <4q7ihq$[e-mail]>,
Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Over the past decade we've seen more attacks on our VHF+ spectrum,
>and no attacks on our HF spectrum. Since the Codeless license already
>gives access to the VHF+ spectrum, clearly a Codeless license does
>nothing to prevent our radio spectrum from coming under attack.
>
>Next.
>
>MD

First of all, to accept this logic, I would have to grant you the
equivalence between HF and VHF.  There is no such equivalence.  I'm
sitting here chuckling to myself trying to picture UPS trucks, cell
phones, and satellites with 40 meter dipoles attached to them - not to
mention watching them trying to compete with stations like the VOA and
Radio Moscow.  The differences in propagational phenomenon are obvious,
and the characteristics of VHF and above are no doubt better suited to
the proposed applications.  That the HF frequencies are used by CW
operators has absolutely no bearing on their desirability (or lack
thereof) to commercial and industrial users.

The attack you refer to (I suspect) was on a highly underused portion of
the 220 band Michael.  Had there been more operators there, there would
have been more opposition.  But new hams can hardly be held accountable
for the fact that across the nation there are relatively few repeaters on
that band.  The fact that the United States is one of the few nations in
the world with an amateur band on 220 MHz does make the situation even
worse.  The equipment is more expensive and less available.

If you want to put up a repeater in the amateur service, one way to go
about it is continually to monitor the band for unused frequencies.  When
you find one, you put up a repeater, and petition the local coordinators
to use it.  That's essentially what UPS did successfully with the FCC.

These frequencies were targeted as much for their suitability to the
proposed application as they were to the degree to which they were used in
the existing service.

From this, most reasonable people might conclude that band occupation IS
important for holding on to spectrum.  The no-code license has obviously
created a resurgence in interest in amateur radio, and to deny that this
is a good thing for the hobby brings your values into question Michael.


73 de KE6JPO


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Luiz Felipe Ceglia)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Baycom diagram?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:10:38 -0200
Message-ID: <4q4056$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hi,

Anyone have the baycom duagram and can send it to me?

73's

Felipe - PU1WLF
Luiz Felipe Ceglia - PU1WLF
Teresopolis-RJ-Brasil



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:24 1996
From: Roger Barker <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Baycom VxD driver?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:11:15 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does anyone know of a VxD driver that allows Baycom type modems to be
used in Windows?

It's certainly possible, because G7JJF has written one, and it works
very well, but at the moment the interface to it is embedded in his own
PMS software. I wondered if anyone else had written one with an open
interface.

--
Roger Barker, G4IDE  [e-mail]
Boston, UK           "Be tolerant of everything, except for intolerance!"


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Illmayer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Bizarre anti PGP messages
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:40:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4pl0fp$[e-mail]>

Hello OM's

As a keen supporter of PGP security for my packet messages, I fail to
understand the logic of some sysops killing messages with PGP sigs.
Someone has actually gone to the trouble of writing a piece of code
that detects pgp strings and kills the message.  Well mental giant,
why don't you modify the code to authenticate the messages and strip
the PGP sig out one the message has been validated by the public key !

They stand behind their laws and bellow "Encrypted messages are not
allowed on the packet network".  Well chasps, the PGP sig is not
encrypted text, it does not contain communist propoganda, pornography
or messages from Satan.  Open your mind and understand what it
actually is.  It IS NOT cypher text, it is a character block, when
used in conjunction with your public key block, can be used to
authenticate your messages.  Simple as that BOYS !!!

Talk about double standards, what about compressed message forwarding
using FBB.  If I sit on the forwarding frequency I cannot see the
message in plain text on my screen.  Think about it, this IS ILLEGAL
!The message is NOT in plain text.  How do I know that the messages
that are being transported using compressed forwarding do not contain
nasty things ??  You are hypocrits !~!!!  What about BBS's that have
pornography on them for users to download ? Put them out of business,
not people that wish to legitimately experiment on packet !

If the use of PGP is marginal in your country and could be open for
discussion, don't just follow like a sheep.  Use your reasoning to
make a valid judgement.  My messages have nothing to hide.

This lack of reasoning and mental judgement really concerns me. What
about all of the UTTER TRASH, over 1.5MB per day of @WW messages ?
Things like

1) Where is this message now ?
2) I want your colaboration ?
3) Want a 144mhz sked ?

This utter trash wastes the bandwidth of many digital resources but it
goes on day in, day out.  Because we can't password protect ourselves,
we resort to PGP, our messages are killed.....  HYPOCRITS !!

Regards..Peter..vk2yx



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:26 1996
From: Orrin Winton WN1Z <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Bizarre anti PGP messages
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:34:09 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pl0fp$[e-mail]>

Peter Illmayer wrote:
>
> Hello OM's
>
> As a keen supporter of PGP security for my packet messages, I fail to
> understand the logic of some sysops killing messages with PGP sigs.
> Someone has actually gone to the trouble of writing a piece of code
> that detects pgp strings and kills the message.  Well mental giant,
> why don't you modify the code to authenticate the messages and strip
> the PGP sig out one the message has been validated by the public key !
>
> They stand behind their laws and bellow "Encrypted messages are not
> allowed on the packet network".  Well chasps, the PGP sig is not
> encrypted text, it does not contain communist propoganda, pornography
> or messages from Satan.  Open your mind and understand what it
> actually is.  It IS NOT cypher text, it is a character block, when
> used in conjunction with your public key block, can be used to
> authenticate your messages.  Simple as that BOYS !!!
>
> Talk about double standards, what about compressed message forwarding
> using FBB.  If I sit on the forwarding frequency I cannot see the
> message in plain text on my screen.  Think about it, this IS ILLEGAL
> !The message is NOT in plain text.  How do I know that the messages
> that are being transported using compressed forwarding do not contain
> nasty things ??  You are hypocrits !~!!!  What about BBS's that have
> pornography on them for users to download ? Put them out of business,
> not people that wish to legitimately experiment on packet !
>
> If the use of PGP is marginal in your country and could be open for
> discussion, don't just follow like a sheep.  Use your reasoning to
> make a valid judgement.  My messages have nothing to hide.
>
> This lack of reasoning and mental judgement really concerns me. What
> about all of the UTTER TRASH, over 1.5MB per day of @WW messages ?
> Things like
>
> 1) Where is this message now ?
> 2) I want your colaboration ?
> 3) Want a 144mhz sked ?
>
> This utter trash wastes the bandwidth of many digital resources but it
> goes on day in, day out.  Because we can't password protect ourselves,
> we resort to PGP, our messages are killed.....  HYPOCRITS !!
>
> Regards..Peter..vk2yx


Congrats, Peter.  You are hereby awarded a WN1Z NO-PRIZE for your
analysis.  Your article goes into my SYSOP SYNDROME:  PACKET GOD-ISM
archives:

        http://www.redshift.com/~orrin/#sysop

For your keen insight into the arcane mysteries of Amateur Radio
"good little hammies" you'll undoubtedly be blacklisted from the
all-radio ("who-needs-it") network!

--
               Orrin C. Winton WN1Z      [e-mail]
               http://www.redshift.com/~orrin
               <A href=mailto:[e-mail]></a><br>

   "Two of the gravest general dangers to survival are the desire for
    comfort and a passive outlook." -- U.S. Army Ranger Handbook


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:27 1996
From: "JOSE V. GAVILA" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Do all PACSATs require PSK modems?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 07:25:01 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pvnb3$[e-mail]>

KF8HN wrote:
>
> I would like to try getting on one of those PACSATs out there some day,
> Which one is the easiest as far as equipment goes? Where can you get
> a PSK modem that is reasonably priced?
>
> Curt Benjamin KF8HN
> Ionia MI
> [e-mail]

Hello Curt,

Well, I work digital satellites since a year and a half and I began with
FSK / 9600 satellites (KO-23, KO-25, UO-22). They require FM equipment
and an standard 9600 terrestrial packet modem works fine. I started
working PSK datellites (AO-16, LO-19) about half year ago. They need PSK
modems (which are less common) and works at 1200 baud. The advantage is
that there are less stations working them. The disadvantage is that you
need 70cm SSB receiving.

Please, if you need more specific information, tell me!

Best regards.

73s JOSE - [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:28 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Lee Groller <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSP Wefax ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 21:33:09 GMT

Has anyone tried to use the DSP-12 as a wefax demodulator with a PC ?
I would like to hear of any attempts to make it work with Windows 95
for either wefax or sstv.

      Tnx es CUL...

                     Lee
                     WD4BAV


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:29 1996
From: Walter Seiler <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: FBB USERS
Date: 18 Jun 1996 05:03:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4q5db6$[e-mail]>

I WOULD LIKE TO OBTAIN SOME INFORMATION REGARDING
SETTING UP A PACKET BBS USING FBB 515C AND A PK88 AS
WELL AS A PK232.
ANY INFORMATION OR EVEN AN  IDEA WHERE I CAN GET A
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SETTING UP AND CONFIGURING THE
FBB SOFTWARE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

THANKS AND CHEERS

WALT VE7CWS



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:30 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Field Day Packet Contacts?
Date: 17 Jun 1996 06:11:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4q2su7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, William Vaughn <[e-mail]> writes:
>After a couple of attempts at getting a packet contact during the last
>two field days and Failing. I am wondering what the procedure is for
>making a contact on field day. Must it be a simplex keyboard to keyboard
>contact? Or can you use a node to call cq? How does this work? What does
>everyone else do? I would like to make a few contacts on packet while the
>bands are slow during the day. Another reason is to demonstrate it as a
>viable method of communication to the cw-hf crowd.

Simple.  Fire up your packet station on FD.  Connect to the cluster.  Use the
Announce command.  Announce/Local or Announce/Full QD FD de MYCALL
When the replies come back, they come back as Announcements!

Send back your exchange to them by announce!

We have had MANY packet qso's that way in the last three years!

It may not make the cluster sysops happy, but it WORKS!

Big time!

Watch for us this FD from N5TC via the cluster...   Same trick...

Mike W5WQN as a quest at leviathan.tamu.edu (no mail address there!)



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:31 1996
From: Mike Berg <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Has anyone used the MFJ Packet Transceiver?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 19:55:28 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q6k6a$[e-mail]>


In Article<4q6k6a$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> write:
> Path: cronkite.polaristel.net!news3.mr.net!mr.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.n
et!van-bc!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail
> From: [e-mail] (James W. Barr)
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
> Subject: Has anyone used the MFJ Packet Transceiver?
> Date: 18 Jun 1996 11:06:34 -0500
> Organization: MCSNet Services
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <4q6k6a$[e-mail]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.mcs.com
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2 (KSD)]
>
> I have recently seen an ad for the MFJ-8621 2meter Packet Only
> Transceiver.  Its cost is just over $100.00(US) and it looks pretty
> nice.  I am in the market for a dedicated 2 meter packet transceiver,
> (instead of using my HT) and the unit looks good and is priced quite low.
>
> Has anyone used this?
>
> How is the performance?
>
> Can ist really be used as a 24x7 2 meter transceiver?
> --
> -Jim
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> James W. Barr, N9ONL              |    e-mail: [e-mail]
> Buffalo Grove, IL, USA            |  Web site:
http://www.mcs.net/~jbarr
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> US Robotics' Pilot Organizer info: http://www.usr.com
>       GEOS Operating system info : http://www.geoworks.com
>                     GEOS IZL info: send e-mail to
[e-mail]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Hi Jim.  I own two of the MFJ 8621 radios and use them on both
1k2 and 9k6 packet with good results.  Only thing I can add is
that the factory specs on rx sensivity are very optimistic.  The
best I've measured is .7-.8 uv @12db SINAD.  73  Mike



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:32 1996
From: Ian Brothwell <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: KAM & Yaesu FT-757 GX problems...
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:35:33 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Hi I±igo.  I cannot offer any reasons why your KAM and FT757GX are not working
 together.
I have used a KAM with MY FT757GX and had no problem whatsoever.
Have you tried putting the Tx audio from the KAM into the FT757GX via the back
 panel's patch
socket?

Regards,  Ian.



I±igo Baztarrika wrote:

>         I have recently bought a KAM multimode TNC. The problem is that when
 I conect it
> to my Yaesu FT-757-GX, I have to select the MIC GAIN at minimum to send a cl
ear signal.
> The position of the MIC GAIN is so low that the transceiver only can transmi
t 5 Watts of
> power.
>
> If I put higher MIC GAIN there is a big distorsion in modulation.
>
> The switch K5 in the KAM (output level) is in LOW position (100 mV acording
to the
> manual)


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Terry Fugate)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Kenwood Filters Selection
Date: 17 Jun 1996 14:39:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4q3qnr$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Jim Reid <[e-mail]> says:
>
>Anybody have any ideas about how to access a 500 Hz filter
>in LSB mode.  My TS-950 will only allow the selection
>of thay filter in CW and FSK modes,  but not in either
>SSB modes.
>
>Thanks,  Jim, AH6NB
IF your Kenwood is anything like my R2000 and a freinds R5000, They shift
the lo and bfo at the same time.  This allows them to use one filter for
both USB and LSB.  The shift the freqs by about 1700Hz for ssb and about
1000Hz for cw. If this does not make any sense to you, drop me an Email.
Somewhere I have the test results from when I was trying to add a
Collins Mechanical filter to my receiver.  I graphed out the LO and BFO.
Words are starting to fail, but the "mirror" the filter.  In the SSB
(for example..I do not have the chart in front of me) the lowest
incoming audio is at the freqency, for USB they switch it around and the
lowest frequency is now "inverted" and is at the high end of the filter.
If you filter is truely symetrical, then USB and LSB will be the same.
In my R2000 that is not the case.  The filter shape is far from
symetrical and the radio sounds better in USB than LSB.  AMTOR reception
is affected also.  I can receive the same signal with no errors in USB,
but in LSB (with my MFJ1278 in rinv) there are a lot of errors.
I hope this makes sense.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:34 1996
From: Bob Nielsen <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: KISS-only TNC?
Date: 15 Jun 1996 00:01:06 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pspkn$[e-mail]>

phil reed/kb8uoy wrote:
>
> is there such a thing as a KISS-only TNC (for use in applications like JNOS)
.
> Using a regular TNC for this seems like such a waste of capablility.

Well, not exactly, but there are KISS-only eproms available for TAPR
TNC-2 and clones.  One advantage is that you don't have to worry about
the TNC unexpectedly dropping out of KISS mode (it does happen!)

You still need all of the hardware in the TNC, but could get away with
less RAM.

Images are available on ftp.tapr.org (/tapr/software_lib/tnc/eproms.exe)
and programmed eproms are available from TAPR as well.

Bob

----
Bob Nielsen                 Internet: [e-mail]
Tucson, AZ                  AMPRnet:  [e-mail]
                            AX.25:    [e-mail]
                            http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Benedict P. Barszcz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: kpc-9612 and jnos - problems
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 07:19:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4pse3n$[e-mail]>

Actually I don't know how to interpret the errors that I get here. Jnos
transmits packets and they get to kpc, these in turn are being transmited out
to the air. But no connections accur. When I go to a simple terminal program i

can connect to anything.
Jnos worked on my machine when I first installed it. Then I switched it off
and now it doesn't.

How can i test jnos whether it sees my com1  or not?


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Barber)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Linux wefax/SSTV?
Date: 13 Jun 1996 01:43:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4pnrn8$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ph8t0$[e-mail]>

In article <4ph8t0$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tommy Karl
berg) says:
>
>"Ken Plumbly (Jr.)" <   > wrote:
>
>>Has anyone seen or even heard of a software package
>>for Linux to run hf fax/sstv?
[snip]

A Linux version of our Win32 SSTV package is a possibility, once the
current product is mature.  To be honest, tho, I've yet to
receive a request for Linux software.  It's my guess that
"hams running Linux" divides the market too many times.  If we
get enough requests, we'll look into it.

Regards,
Jim

Jim Barber, N7CXI
[e-mail]
http://www.wolfenet.com/~jlbarber/sstv.htm


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:36 1996
From: JungHo Yu <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: looking for 4 contact plug for FT-50R mic/ear jack
Date: 17 Jun 1996 17:18:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4q440a$[e-mail]>

hi ,
i'm looking for 4 contact plug for FT-50R
'cause i wanna make TNC cable by using this plug.
if u have this stuff or know where i can find this, pse email me
73s de Matt

--
[e-mail]
Amateur Radio Callsign KC8DJQ / DS5RTN
OHIO STATE UNIV.




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:38 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Mods for 440 HT's for 9600 baud packet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4po8cc$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:26:45 GMT

In article <4po8cc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone know of any mods for 440 ht's for 9600 bps packet?  Would
>I just be better off buying a 440 mobile rig and doing 9600 bps packet
>with it?  Any help is appreciated...

None of the current crop of HTs is suitable for 9600 baud, Joel. And
even the mobile rigs which *claim* to be "9600 ready", aren't. There
is one 70cm radio, the Azden PCS9600D, which really is 9600 ready,
the rest are just blowing advertising smoke.

The problem is that the current crop of radios are synthesized, and
modulation is introduced inside the synthesizer loop. The loop filter
will distort the 9600 baud modulation and yield a high BER. A crystal
controlled direct FM radio, such as a Motorola commercial surplus
radio, or old amateur HTs like the Wilson 1402SM, or purpose built
data radios like the TEKK or the Kantronics, can be successfully
used to properly transmit 9600 baud. A couple of multimode radios,
the IC820H and the Yaesu FT736R, can be made to transmit 9600 baud
correctly as well. That's because they, like the Azden mentioned
above, do modulation *outside* the synthesizer loop, IE at IF, and
thus don't suffer from the distortion that almost all other synthesized
amateur rigs have.

Now that's half the battle. The other half is on the receive side.
Many of these radios have IF filters which are too narrow for 9600
baud usage. Filters become very non-linear with respect to phase
near their passband edges. This phase distortion tends to "close
the eye" for 9600 baud packet. That increases BER to an unacceptable
level. The cure is to use a different filter with better group delay,
or just use a wider filter so that the signal doesn't encounter the
passband edges. The more expensive radios tend to have the tightest
filters, and thus tend to fail first in this area. The IC820H is an
example of this. While it can transmit 9600 baud correctly, its IF
filters are too narrow and distort received signals in phase too
much for good performance.

For 9600 baud packet, you want a simple crystal controlled radio
with direct FM, and with a receiver having an IF filter selected
for data rather than voice usage. Two such examples are the data
radios from TEKK and Kantronics. The KS-900 also has the charms
of being smaller than a HT, and much cheaper. The D4-10 runs more
power, but costs about as much as a voice radio.

Hams have the idea that they can press voice radios into data
service because it worked at 1200 baud Bell 202. But it doesn't
work at higher speeds with FSK or MSK waveforms. You need a
purpose designed data radio, or even better, a RF modem which
is both modem and radio in one. Fortunately, there are inexpensive
choices available in this area. The KS-900 is only a little more
than $100, and the GRAPES 56 kb RF modem kit is only $250.

Most amateurs who become seriously enough interested in packet
to make the move to higher speeds than 1200 baud are going to
find that they have to dedicate a radio to packet anyway, and
they'll need to leave it on the local LAN frequency so that the
network can find them. Thus there's little use in worrying about
dual use frequency agile radios which can be pressed into voice
service as well as data service. Buying a true data radio or RF
modem in the first place is much the better choice, both from the
standpoint of performance and total cost.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:39 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Mods for 440 HT's for 9600 baud packet
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 06:30:32 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4po8cc$[e-mail]>

Joel B. Black wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of any mods for 440 ht's for 9600 bps packet?  Would
> I just be better off buying a 440 mobile rig and doing 9600 bps packet
> with it?  Any help is appreciated...

The amount of work inside the radio to do this is probably not worth the
effort, you will end up with a bunch of wires hanging out the radio
and it still won't work 9600 baud very well.
I'd recommend getting something like a TEKK KS-900 single channel
crystal UHF radio.  They work 9600 better than any synthesized radio
and only cost a little over $100.
Another alternative is get a surplus Motorola Mitrek UHF radio, order
crystals and perform a small rewiring modification.  Mitreks can be
found for $50 to $75 and crystals will probably cost you $40 or so.

--
    Gene Kennedy, Mobile AL
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:40 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Need California Packet Freq
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 01:02:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4pqe4l$[e-mail]>
References: <4pg613$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Steve McDonough) wrote:

>Hi,
>       I will be traveling to the Santa Rosa and Palm Springs areas next week
>and would like to here from anyone that would have info on what frequencies
>are being used in those areas.  Thanks  Steve (KE9LZ)
Hi,
   You will use the same freqs in Santa Rosa, as in So Cal. 144.99,
145.01, 145.03, 145.05. APRS is on 145.01.



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert Lauer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Need help with RTTY
Date: 15 Jun 1996 18:59:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4pv166$[e-mail]>

I would like to try some RTTY this field day.  I have available a
pk-232 with a ps2 model 30/slow with DOS.  I do not have any software
though.  Where can I download RTTY software?  Where is the best place
to look for RTTY on the HF bands?  Any other help would be appreciated.

Bob LAuer
KG8WE
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Howard Goldstein)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: New York
Date: 14 Jun 1996 19:47:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 18:17:53 +0100, John Martin <[e-mail]> wrote:
 : Where does one go to buy ham packet gear in New York? - I looked in the
 : yellow pages and there was no mention of ham radio!

Barry Electronics (or am I dating myself with this?)


--
Howard Goldstein   <[e-mail]>



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (SARUMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: New York
Date: 15 Jun 1996 17:46:58 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

>I'm just about to make my first journey to the new world. It's realy
>exciting.

>Where does one go to buy ham packet gear in New York? - I looked in the
>yellow pages and there was no mention of ham radio!
Barry Radio near Canal Street in Manhatten is the only place in NY that I know
of.


<tsb>
                               Midgard Graphics
           3D Animation and Special FX for the hobbyist videographer
                          Email: [e-mail]

--
          Drop into #amigacafe on IRC's undernet for a chat sometime

--

<tsb>

                     A man of many hobby's master of none.

              Visit our Home Page at http://nycmetro.com/midgard




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:43 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Robert Donnell - KD7NM)
Subject: Re: Packet at 9600 and above
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q4dpb$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:17:19 GMT

[e-mail] (Fraser Lees) wrote:

>Hi,

>I wonder if you boffins out there can give me some
>ideas/information on running packet (AX25) at speeds above 9600.

>If there any sites around that could help me with the information
>that I am requesting  would you be kind enough to point me in the
>right direction.

>Many thanks in advance for any advise etc that might come my way.

>73 de Fraser G0JDR @ GB7ZZZ.GBR.EU

>       E-mail [e-mail]



Hi Fraser,

Take a look at:

  http://hydra.carleton.ca/articles/hispeed.html

It's an overview of what's available for 9600 and above, with
descriptions of what sort of equipment is available and what details
are known as of the last update.  The 9600/19200/56000 bps info is a
good resource.

73, Bob




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:44 1996
From: Jim Mitrenga <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: PMP Port Configuration for Serial Modem
Date: 19 Jun 1996 17:16:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4q9cl7$[e-mail]>

I need the port address and bit position information to initialize the
DB9 serial port pin 3 (TXD) for source voltage with a BayCom-style modem
to use with the Poor Man's Packet program.  The BayCom program
automatically programs this pin with a clock pulse to be used in
conjunction with summing diodes to power a TMC3105/hex inverter Bell
202-style modem.

PMP is designed to operate via the parallel port but the program is
sophisticated enough to provide a means to configure the various serial
ports for the same function.  Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how
to get the TXD pin so that it can be used as one of the voltage sources.

Can you help?

Jim Mitrenga
[e-mail]
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:45 1996
From: Rob Swider <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Suggest TNC
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:06:51 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

All that replied, thanks for the advice.  I would eventually like to try some
of the other modes. Based on the info supplied I think I'll save my pennies a
little longer for a better unit.

Thanks
Rob


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary K. Bennett)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: WEFAX Frequencies
Date: 17 Jun 1996 17:29:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4q44lg$[e-mail]>

Could anyone send me a list of the frequencies, call signs, and times for
WEFAX transmissions in the east?  Specifically WLO?

Thanks
BKB


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:13:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tapio Sokura)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: WinPack BPQ
Date: 10 Jun 96 01:04:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>Does anyone know how to set up the BPQ Node for Winpack? My TNC is in
>Terminal mode, but when I load BPQ, it doesn't seem to work. Can

You can try putting your tnc into kiss mode as BPQ doesn't work with tncs in
terminal mode. If you got a Kantronics tnc, commands 'intface kiss' and
'reset' do the trick. There might be some other things to change too, but
this is the first that came into my mind.

---
Tapio Sokura <> [e-mail] <> AX.25: [e-mail]
PGP public key available on public keyservers.
Fingerprint: 5E 88 D6 BA FC 23 A2 E3  BD 8D D9 1F EB B8 3E 00



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:21:55 1996
From: Clifford Buttschardt <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:14:54 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
To: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>

Bruce and the group.  Just a short comment:  ACSSB has used compandoring
for some time and proven that even two to one compression is highly
valuable.  In fact, two to one could be used with non companded systems
effectively and not be too objectionable to non-equipped listeners.  Four
to one compandoring really improves things!  It appears that compandoring
is necessary and would have been useful years ago before ACSSB!!  73
Cliff Buttschardt  K7RR  ex W6HDO  Morro Bay, CA



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:21:56 1996
From: "Thor Wiegman" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 19:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <01bb5fe1.7ca52a60$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

> Compandoring does not improve link performance. It merely makes ACSSB
> sound more "FM-like" to the naive operator by creating a pseudo-quieting
> effect. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing on strong links, it is
> detrimental for weak signals.
>
But who the heck is concerned about weak signals on a link?  Sounds like
ACSSB would be just fine on a link where the intent it to have a
consistantly solid signal.



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:21:57 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:33:11 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <01bb5fe1.7ca52a60$[e-mail]>

Thor Wiegman wrote:
>
> > Compandoring does not improve link performance. It merely makes ACSSB
> > sound more "FM-like" to the naive operator by creating a pseudo-quieting
> > effect. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing on strong links, it is
> > detrimental for weak signals.
> >
> But who the heck is concerned about weak signals on a link?  Sounds like
> ACSSB would be just fine on a link where the intent it to have a
> consistantly solid signal.

The real weakness in compandoring comes in fading and multi-path
situations found in land-mobile operation. Indeed, on a solid
point-to-point link, it would be a worthwhile addition and
has been used commercially on FM, where the situation required
the users HAD to use headphones. Here, it reduced the background
noise making the operation of the equipment less tiring.

73,
Bruce, WB4YUC


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:21:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Beckman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: 144 & 444 MHz about to find a better use
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:10:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CSLE87-2406960910130001@145.39.1.10>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
Clifford Buttschardt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bruce and the group.  Just a short comment:  ACSSB has used compandoring
> for some time and proven that even two to one compression is highly
> valuable.  In fact, two to one could be used with non companded systems
> effectively and not be too objectionable to non-equipped listeners.  Four
> to one compandoring really improves things!  It appears that compandoring
> is necessary and would have been useful years ago before ACSSB!!  73
> Cliff Buttschardt  K7RR  ex W6HDO  Morro Bay, CA

It was also used in the amateur community for years, albeit unknowingly
and not in the most friendly fashion.  Much of the early development work
took place in the sixties and seventies right on the amateur bands.

Have other hams thought about what happens when you use an audio speech
processor between the mic and SSB transmitter?  You limit the peaks, shape
the bandpass, and compress what's left.  That's exactly what ACSSB does,
and also what good and technically innovative amateur operators do to earn
high contest scores and DXCC Honor Roll positions.

Now drop down to the "newbie contester" levels.  Forget the external
processor, after all it costs money (and requires technical intelligence
to operate).  Just crank up the mic gain so "I sound louder."  Here all
the processing is done by the formerly linear amplifier stages being
driven into cutoff during part of the operating cycle.  Both audio and
carrier harmonics and splatter greatly increase; we've heard these signals
on all the HF bands, especially during contests.  They can be routinely
found on 11M+ if you happen to listen there.

Either way, we've been listening to processed or compandored SSB for many
years, but nobody patented it because it was a logical extension of the
current art.  Once people discover the efficiencies of doing it,
unprocessed audio will be a thing of the past [set flamebait on] like
Morse OOK CW [set flamebait off].

Now if you want to be a real hit on the FM scene today, use heavy audio
processing for both voice and 1200b packet.  Get your 1100 Hz average
deviation up to 3-4 kHz where it completely utilizes the available channel
bandwidth.  The only reason that compandored audio is in so few commercial
FM radios is that the chips NEC designed for the purpose umpteen years ago
only worked over a very limited temperature range, nowhere near the -30 to
+60 C required by the mobile communications industry.
--
Karl Beckman, P.E.                <      If our English language is so   >
Motorola Private Data Systems     <   precise, why do you drive on the   >
Schaumburg, IL  /  Parma, OH      <   parkway and park on the driveway?  >
[phone] / [phone]
**  Opinions expressed here do NOT represent the views of Motorola Inc. **
--
Amateur radio WA8NVW                        NavyMARS NNN0VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:21:59 1996
From: "Paul Giusti (VK3FPG)" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: acars shareware wanted
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 02:44:18 +1100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

i am wondering if any one out there can point me in the direction
to some acars decoding software and only the software as the hardware
side of things i have under control (hamcomm type similar to lowes)

  any help in getting some software will be VERY appreciated and
recipricated in kind.

  thanks in advance :-)

    paul



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:00 1996
From: Phil Sussman <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 07:52:20 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]>

Thor Wiegman wrote:
>
> Let's see....my interest is to run AMTOR on the HF bands.  I have to pass
> a test of my skill in CW.  There is no test of my knowledge or skill using
> AMTOR....I might not have a clue how to legally use that mode, but by god
> if I can operate CW then I'm your boy and I can just have at it.
>

> Just my view on it....what do you think?
>
> Thor
> operator of amateur radio station N7JCT

Greetings,

You want to run AMTOR, etc.. a digital mode! Here's what I think:

Perhaps the NOVICE portions of 10, 15, 40, and 80Mtrs should be
allowed to have not only CW, but digital operations. Passing a
CW test at 5 wpm for digital priviledges (limited to 250w in the
Novice band) means any TECH-PLUS licensee could get a taste of
RTTY- Amtor - PACTOR - CLOVER - etc....

Comments???

73 de Phil - KB8LUJ
.end


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Alan Gollom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Date: 22 Jun 1996 23:25:58 GMT
Message-ID: <4qhve6$[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]>

In article <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] s
ays...

>I think our testing methods should be changed to cover general theory and
>rules with a bit of general operation stuff on an assortment of the
>popular modes.  But we should issue licenses for the mode of operations,
>not for frequency groups.

I think that's a damn good idea, but unfortunately good ideas are often
overlooked in this hobby.
>
>Here's something to think about:  If I had an Advanced class license I
>could study real hard and get the Extra.  That would mean taking the 20
>wpm code too.  What does that gain me?  All that gives me is another chunk
>of frequencies right?  Whoa cool....until you realize that the only other
>people to talk to on those frequencies are Extras.  Something just doesn't
>seem right about that.

American Extras yes.  But you could also talk to many others like us
Canadians here who only had to do 12 wpm CW to get those frequency
privileges.  If nothing else, you Yanks have to come up with a much
less complicated testing system.  You should be allowed full band
privileges just for understanding them!!

73...Alan VE3XAG

======================================================
   on the Internet:                        on packet:
   [e-mail]           ve3xag@va3bbs#scon.on.can.na
======================================================



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Alan Gollom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Date: 22 Jun 1996 23:31:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4qhvo8$[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...

>Perhaps the NOVICE portions of 10, 15, 40, and 80Mtrs should be
>allowed to have not only CW, but digital operations. Passing a
>CW test at 5 wpm for digital priviledges (limited to 250w in the
>Novice band) means any TECH-PLUS licensee could get a taste of
>RTTY- Amtor - PACTOR - CLOVER - etc....
>
>Comments???

Not a chance.  Too progressive for this hobby!  Here's another
progressive idea that would never fly.  Instead of a 5 wpm CW
test to get you digital privileges, how about an actual test that
is strictly about digital - ie  knowledge and operation of the
various digital modes.  I know, it's just to sensible to ever
be accepted.

73...Alan VE3XAG



======================================================
   on the Internet:                        on packet:
   [e-mail]           ve3xag@va3bbs#scon.on.can.na
======================================================



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:03 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Dennis Mobley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:29:17 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]> <4qhve6$[e-mail]> <4qkjjl$[e-mail]>

Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> KEEP THE DAMN CW ARGUMENT OUT OF THE DIGITAL NEWSGROUP!
>
> Is there NOWHERE you people won't spread your feces?
>
> Thank you.

AMEN!

Dennis KT4FI


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 19 Jun 1996 20:49:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4q9p58$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q6s0e$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Chris Broadbent  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Ross Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>> >If the CW requirement were dropped, then all the no code Hams would
>> >have access to the very limited HF bands while being able to use only
>> >phone.
>>
>> I'll grant this for the sake of discussion, though it's transparently
>> fallacious.
>
>If code requirement is dropped for HF access, then all Hams will be no
>code and have access to the HF bands (unless you imply new exclusion
>tests other than code).  I fail to see why this is so "transparently
>fallacious".

Just because amateurs wouldn't have to pass a code test doesn't mean
they won't learn and use code - therefore, your claim appears
fallacious.

>> Accepting for the moment that CW is spectrally efficient (it isn't),
>> won't the severe crowding give these newcomers a great incentive to go
>> to CW?  And could you tell us why they won't use (say) RTTY, ever?
>
>It is not your raw data thoughput that is at issue, it is the size of
>bandwidth occupied by each user.  Perhaps they might use RTTY.  But
>many will use voice, each taking up 3KHz of space (regardless of
>spectral efficiency).  Morse users take up ~300Hz.  That's many more
>users per band.  It's not the speed of data throughput that's
>important, it's the number of people working on the band.  Unless you
>insist on groups of people using concentrators, why is data throughput
>important?

I suppose if you're looking at how many transmitters can be active
at the same time without interference, lower bandwidth modes look
better.  However, if you're looking at how much information can
be transferred in a given amount of time in a given amount of
bandwidth, CW doesn't do so well.

>> How is it that you can with 100% certainty predict the actions of
>> thousands of people whom you've never met?
>
>Where did I claim this?

Where you said that all no-code HF hams would only use phone.


[deletia]

>So, after mockingly accusing me of having superior knowledge, you go on
>to imply, from your contact experience, all current CW and future Hams
>will be able to speak enough English to handle at least voice DX.  If
>not, tough?  Nice attitude, as you say.  Oh, and exactly right about
>Morse - it isn't a language, it's much, much easier.  I'm sure anyone
>can learn it (there I go again, thinking others cannot learn).

Actually, the reason Morse code crosses language barriers is the use
of a limited vernacular, and it actually forces people to use
enough English to handle at least voice DX.  The only thing
Morse offers in addition is the non-spoken communication, which
avoids the problem with accents.

>Obviously I have touched a raw nerve here.  Please back off with your
>unpleasant attitude.  I was giving my opinion about why I think the
>code requirement is good.  If you don't like it, that's your right, but
>please be a little more civilised in your objection.

What? Ross seemed a little hot but nothing near what is commonly seen
in the code requirement discussion, especially when code-requirement
advocates start claiming anyone that doesn't learn code is lazy and/or
stupid ;-).

Dana

--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are mine and should *
 * [phone]               | not be interpreted or represented as     *
 * [e-mail]      | those of Sun Microsystems, Inc.          *



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:05 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 19 Jun 1996 22:50:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4qaoqd$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
: (I already hear a number of SSBers operating on the CW realms)?

Hi Cris, I wonder if they could be foreign hams operating SSB
perfectly legally in the "CW realms"? I work them all the time.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:09 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 20 Jun 1996 05:05:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4qam6i$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9ch2$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4q9ch2$[e-mail]>, "C. Wheeler" <[e-mail]> w
rites:
>Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]> wrote:
..<SNIP>
>>
>>If the CW requirement were dropped, then all the no code Hams would have
>>access to the very limited HF bands while being able to use only phone.
>>Thus, aside from there being many more people competing for this limited
>>resource, they'll each always be using five to ten times as much
>>bandwidth (3KHz minimum for phone) because they can't do Morse.
>
>So what are syaing is that CW tests are a filter.  Maybe not a lid
>filter, like many see it (though often won't admit it), but as a way to
>keep YOU from getting crowded on HF.  Maybe we need a secret handshake.
>

I could have been clearer here.  My emphasis was on the bandwidth that would b
e
taken by those who would use phone because they could not use Morse.  Perhaps
they could use RTTY, but how many would (this isn't rhetorical, I have no idea
)?

The total space available in the HF bands is very small.  Having lots of peopl
e using
it WITHOUT the ability to use such a narrow band mode as Morse would create
much more congestion than if they were to use Morse.

Without a Morse requirement and congestion on the voice bands, how long would
the CW reserves remain just for CW (I already hear a number of SSBers operatin
g
on the CW realms)?

A couple of people suggested that the proposed HF no-coders would learn Morse
once they encountered the congestion.  Of this I am skeptical, for if they won
't
learn Morse in order to gain access in the first place, I cannot believe they'
ll learn
it in order to reduce congestion.

Others have spoken of the spectral efficiency, data throughput, etc.  This all
assumes that maximum throughput per channel is what is important.  I don't
believe this is so.  It is (IMO) number of people per band that is more import
ant.
Besides, what is the spectral efficiency of a voice channel that consumes 3KHz
(ideally)?

Why would anyone care if someone cannot saturate their 300Hz slice with maximu
m
data throughput because they can work at only 5 WPM Morse?  Are they to have
time limits imposed, forcing them to speed?  Is everyone to use some digital m
ode,
and in order to maintain maximum data throughput on the "channel", everyone
is to be connected to concentrators?  Of course not.

Spectral efficiency, Shannon, Nyquist, sampling and signal theory aside, ten C
W
operators could fit into the space of one phone operator.  On HW, this is, I b
elieve,
important.

A rhetorical question to those who say they wouldn't use Morse, thus it's a wa
ste of
time.  I suppose the same argument can be used for the technical component of
the Ham tests with most people these days.  They buy their equipment, so why
should they have to learn Ohm's law and all that other "technical" stuff?  Aft
er all,
they aren't going to use it.  Heck, Radio Shack has radios and antennae off th
e
shelf.   People are so busy, why should they have to study the tech stuff?  Th
eir
free time is their most valuable time.  If they want to build a radio, they're
 not
being stopped from studying it, any more than the Morse proponents.

For those unable to read between the lines, I oppose this viewpoint.  In fact,
 I
believe the tech components should be strengthened.  I haven't written a Ham
exam yet, so no-one can accuse me of trying to create an exclusive club of whi
ch
I just happen to be a member.

I'm spending more time on these posts than I spend on a nightly Morse drill.
Morse
really is not hard.  It requires a little time, perseverence and the right att
itude.
Get a Morse code practicer (better yet, build one) or write a Morse code progr
am.
It'll broaden the mind.  It is quite fun.  The difficulty is not worth all thi
s fuss.

Cheers,

Chris




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:10 1996
From: Thomas Foster <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:51:42 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9ch2$[e-mail]> <4qam6i$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
> ...

> A couple of people suggested that the proposed HF no-coders would learn Mors
e
> once they encountered the congestion.  Of this I am skeptical, for if they w
on't
> learn Morse in order to gain access in the first place, I cannot believe the
y'll
> learn it in order to reduce congestion.
> ...
>
> A rhetorical question to those who say they wouldn't use Morse, thus it's a
waste
> of time.  I suppose the same argument can be used for the technical componen
t of
> the Ham tests with most people these days.  They buy their equipment, so why
> should they have to learn Ohm's law and all that other "technical" stuff?  A
fter
> all, they aren't going to use it.  Heck, Radio Shack has radios and antennae
 off
> the shelf.   People are so busy, why should they have to study the tech stuf
f?
> Their free time is their most valuable time.  If they want to build a radio,

> they're not being stopped from studying it, any more than the Morse proponen
ts.
>
> I'm spending more time on these posts than I spend on a nightly Morse drill.
  Morse
> really is not hard.  It requires a little time, perseverence and the right
> attitude.
>
> Get a Morse code practicer (better yet, build one) or write a Morse code pro
gram.
> It'll broaden the mind.  It is quite fun.  The difficulty is not worth all t
his >
> fuss.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris

Chris,

I've read a lot of arguments for and against the CW requirement. You've articu
lated
my beliefs on the subject extremely well and with the utmost of civility!  Tha
nks.

73,
Lindsay


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:11 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 20 Jun 1996 09:12:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4qbt8h$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qbrue$[e-mail]>

Tom Randolph <[e-mail]> wrote:

: If we're supposed to be a
: technically competent service, promoting modes that simplify understanding o
f
: basic radio concepts can only help us.

Hey Tom, I'm having a hard time with your logic. You want to make the service
more technically competent by promoting outdated, simple-minded modes? IMO,
Morse code makes the ARS a lot less technically competent.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dana Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 04:12:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4qd7fl$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9p58$[e-mail]> <4qanvm$[e-mail]>

In article <4qanvm$[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <4q9p58$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dana Myers) writes:
>>
>>Just because amateurs wouldn't have to pass a code test doesn't mean
>>they won't learn and use code - therefore, your claim appears
>>fallacious.
>>
>
>Well, if they won't learn code to get onto the HF bands, why would they learn
 it
>otherwise?   How many no-code techs learn code in their spare time to use it
>just on VHF/UHF?  I would be willing to bet that the number of people who lea
rn
>Morse code will drop dramatically if the requirement were removed.

While I agree that fewer amateurs would learn Morse code in the absence
of a requirment, keep in mind people sometimes tout the advantages
of CW.  If CW has advantages, people will learn it in the absence of
a requirement; if people aren't learning it in the absence of a
requirement, there probably aren't advantages.

As for "how many techs learn code to use it on VHF/UHF?", how many
amateurs use CW on VHF/UHF in the first place?  There's very little
CW activity on VHF/UHF, apparently mostly on 6m and 2m, and this is
historical, not due to the dropping of the code requirement from the
Technician class.

Perhaps the increased level of CW activity on HF is enough to cause
people to learn code, regardless of the requirement.

>>I suppose if you're looking at how many transmitters can be active
>>at the same time without interference, lower bandwidth modes look
>>better.  However, if you're looking at how much information can
>>be transferred in a given amount of time in a given amount of
>>bandwidth, CW doesn't do so well.
>
>Perhaps not, but how does it compare to voice with its 3KHz requirement?

Well, assuming that people speak at around 250 WPM (my sister, an
educator, supplied this estimate) it appears that CW and phone may
have roughly the same spectral efficiency.

What's your point?

>>>> How is it that you can with 100% certainty predict the actions of
>>>> thousands of people whom you've never met?
>>>
>>>Where did I claim this?
>>
>>Where you said that all no-code HF hams would only use phone.
>
>Great, a semantic argument ensues because someone didn't read what I wrote.
>Re-read what I wrote - I said all no code HF hams would BE ABLE TO use only
>phone (I didn't consider RTTY, etc. when I wrote that).   I did not predict t
he
>actions of anyone.  I simply stated the obvious.  I did not say they'd all, w
ith 100%
>certainty, do anything.

Given that "no code HF hams" could be reasonably interpreted as "amateurs on H
F
that have not passed a code test", I don't think I misread what you wrote.  In
fact, even amateurs that don't know a single character of Morse could
use a multi-mode TNC to operate CW.  If what you meant to write was
"all amateurs on HF that don't know code won't be able to send or receive
it by ear", it wasn't obvious.

>Of course, if any were to voluntarily learn Morse, then they no longer would
be "no
>code", would they?

As mentioned above, that depends on what is meant by 'no-code' - if it means
'do not know code' then you're correct; if it means 'never passed 1A/1B/1C',
which is a reasonable reading, you're incorrect.

--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are mine and should *
 * [phone]               | not be interpreted or represented as     *
 * [e-mail]      | those of Sun Microsystems, Inc.          *



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Frank Dinger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 09:40:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4qc2p7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

> I am currently learning CW in order to get onto the HF bands.  My major
> interest is in homebrew.  CW has three wonderful advantages:

> - It is much easier to design and build a CW transmitter (receiver
>  design is not eased as greatly).

> - If the bandpass is narrowed to 300Hz or so, the SN ratio is such
>  that low power can go a long way.

> - With sufficiently selective receivers (and suitably de-keyclicked
>  transmitters), quite a number of CW channels can be fit into one
>  voice channel.

> Now, if all you're interested in is buying your equipment, then CW must be
> nothing but a burden.  But if you're into designing and building stuff
> (which are the roots of Ham), CW is a great entry point.

> Besides, learning CW is very easy (I am doing it now).  It seems some people

> spend more time whining about having to do it than it takes to actually do
> it!

> How many people who complain about doing CW design and build their own
> equipment?  I can't imagine it'd be too many, given the demonstrated lack of

> patience wrt to learning CW.  Stop watching the idiot box (TV), that'll free

> up lots of time!!! :-)

> Does CW really discourage the technically interested/inclined?

> Cheers,

> Chris (looking forward to getting on the air).

===============comments GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Chris ,I agree that CW operation enables operators to use relatively
simple equipment which can be homebrewed. I don't think that CW
lovers are more or less technically inclined than others. As it comes
over to me ,the whole CW requirement dialogue centers around that ,
when the morse test requirement would be dropped :
1) CW operators fear that the HF bands will be overcrowded in general
and that this overcrowding  will result in the CW segments being squeezed.

2) Quite a number of HF operators resent that with a no code licence
for the HF bands ,the new generation of HF operators would get it 'for free'
I call this the 'jalousy factor'
However I  agree that with a little effort anybody can learn morse code.

Inspite of being very much pro CW incl. QRP operation , I feel that
with the abandonment of manual morse telegraphy by most if not all of
the non amateur users of the HF spectrum , morse code should no
longer be a requirement for hams to use the HF bands ......the world
is moving on .

Frank Dinger , Inver by Tain , Ross-shire IV20 1RX - Scotland UK
e-mail :  [e-mail]
Packet :  GM0CSZ @ GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill Newkirk)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 02:51:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4qd2mu$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4puu61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q1j05$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9ch2$[e-mail]> <4qam6i$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Newkirk)

In <4qam6i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Others have spoken of the spectral efficiency, data throughput, etc.  This al
l
>assumes that maximum throughput per channel is what is important.

it is, because that means you say what you are going to say and then you're do
ne.
this frees up the frequency for the next guy.

>I don't
>believe this is so.  It is (IMO) number of people per band that is more impor
tant.
>Besides, what is the spectral efficiency of a voice channel that consumes 3KH
z
>(ideally)?

if every one was able to communicate *effectively*, again you'd have more user
s
since the stations would be conducting their business "faster" and then you co
uld
have greater turnover let more people on the bands...

Bill Newkirk WB9IVR                  The Space Coast Amateur Technical Group
Melbourne, FL                       duty now for the future of amateur radio
Lombardi's 1st Law of Business:
Companies succeed in spite of their best effort.  If they succeed at all.



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (cc wynn)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:57:18 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9ch2$[e-mail]> <4qam6i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
 Coffman) writes:

>Gary

Please notice you are cross-posting rather large files again.  As you know thi
s
discussion belongs exclusively to R. R. A. P.
Thanks,

--Clay
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:17 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:07:32 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Chris Broadbent <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>I am currently learning CW in order to get onto the HF bands.  My major
>interest is in homebrew.  CW has three wonderful advantages:
>
>-      It is much easier to design and build a CW transmitter (receiver
>       design is not eased as greatly).

The same is true for a FSK transmitter, only a varactor separates
a continous carrier (dead carrier) transmitter from a FSK transmitter.
(Alternatively, a shift capacitor and a switching element, IE relay,
transistor, etc, can substitute for the varactor.) Considering that
a CW transmitter must have a keying circuit too in order to differentiate
it from a dead carrier transmitter, the difference in complexity is moot.

>-      If the bandpass is narrowed to 300Hz or so, the SN ratio is such
>       that low power can go a long way.

It can, if CNR and SNR are the same. However, Shannon's fundamental
relation shows us that *increasing* occupied bandwidth improves SNR
at a faster rate than CNR deteriorates. In the limit case, with infinite
bandwidth, a signal can be perfectly decoded with a Eb/No of -2 db.
Decreasing occupied bandwidth raises the required Eb/No until the
other limit case where occupied bandwidth equals the signaling rate
and SNR=CNR. At that point, the required Eb/No for zero bit errors
is +13 db. (Note that the relation isn't linear, rather it is asymptotic
in the direction of the infinite bandwidth case.) Limiting required
bandwidth to less than the symbol rate (subcoding) requires a CNR
that is greater than the SNR.

What all this means is that we can copy weaker signals if we spread
them over a wider bandwidth, IE wide shift FSK, or in extremis SS,
is up to 15 db better than CW in the limit case. Or we can stuff
more information into a given bandwidth if we're willing to maintain
a higher CNR than the SNR (an example of this is QAM, or more grossly,
AM voice). To maintain simplicity, wide shift FSK (shift 3x baud) gives
us an improvement over CW of 9 db at an Eb/No of 4 db without adding
system complexity to the transmitter assuming a matched filter decoder.

>-      With sufficiently selective receivers (and suitably de-keyclicked
>       transmitters), quite a number of CW channels can be fit into one
>       voice channel.

Yes, but the same is true for FSK, or again as an extreme case, for SS.
And since both of those can operate at a lower CNR, mutual interference
is reduced.

>Now, if all you're interested in is buying your equipment, then CW must be
>nothing but a burden.  But if you're into designing and building stuff
>(which are the roots of Ham), CW is a great entry point.

I'd suggest FSK is a better entry point, especially if a good encoding
and a good ECC are used. Performance is better, but the transmitter and
receiver required to be built are virtually the same as for manual Morse.
The only real differnce is in the external coding and decoding system
used. Either a bit of VLSI and firmware is used, or conditioned wetware
is used. The former is much more cost effective than the latter, and
functionally more effective too when used with a better encoding than
OOK Morse.

>Besides, learning CW is very easy (I am doing it now).  It seems some people
>spend more time whining about having to do it than it takes to actually do
>it!

Total the number of hours used in conditioning the wetware and multiply
by what your time is worth. Even if you're only worth minimum wage, the
total will be greater than the cost of the higher performance VLSI/firmware
system. And that is also time consumed which could be better spent building
amateur radio transmitters or receivers (or designing and building better
hardware modems).

Note, leisure time is worth more to most people than any other time.
That's why they work so hard all week so that they can have some. So
don't tell me that time spent conditioning wetware is free, it isn't.
It's the most expensive time you have.

>Does CW really discourage the technically interested/inclined?

It is discouraging to see so many believing myths and wasting their
time on inefficient methods. That offends the sensibilities of many
who are technically inclined (and who recognize the myths for what they
are). But more seriously discouraging is the idea that the technically
inclined will have to go through the same rituals in order to do
something more efficient and esthetically satisfying to their sense
of technical fitness.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:20 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:26:34 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q549i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q9ch2$[e-mail]> <4qam6i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
>

> Probably not RTTY (that's dying out), but certainly PACTOR, GTOR, and
> Clover. Digital mode operation is now used by over 22% of amateurs on
> HF (ARRL survey), and growing rapidly. Hi Gary!

This this is fragmented over several available versions of digital operation.
CW is still much more universal, which is why there is resistance to getting
away from it as the prefered "digital" method of emergency operating
on HF. Which is also probably why this particular group is still opposed
to removal of morse testing.

Throughputs range from 6 to 40
> char/sec, or roughly 72 to 480 WPM, well above the capabilities of
> Morse users. And they can operate at CNRs where most Morse users give
> up. Perhaps for casual operation. Where the message has some importance,
the operator will hang right in there. Actually, I don't know that
it has actually ever been quantified as to how tough the situation has
to be before an experienced operator will give up. It would be
interesting to know.

While voice, at 120 WPM, is faster than Morse, some of the newer
> digital methods put voice operation to shame while consuming considerably
> less bandwidth.

This is quite true. PACTOR II is one of the latest and very best examples.
But again, how wide-spread will it's usage be? How long before something
else comes along that is newer-bigger-better? This is where some of the
Morse testing proponents can make a good point. Morse is fully developed
and will not see further evolution - again, we are getting back to the
emergency operations senario. And yes, I know that actual CW usage during
the aftermath of a disaater isn't the major mode - especially in the
affected area, where VHF (and up) FM voice rules the roost.

Truth is, packet would be a much better way to go, but, not
everybody has packet equipment yet. Further, many more do not have
a portable set-up. We are currently facing this dilema here in my area.
We want to implement some sort of packet program
into our emergency plan, but have to admit that there aren't enough
local hams with portable packet stations. So, FM voice, wins again
by default. Some day though. . . . .
>

> >A couple of people suggested that the proposed HF no-coders would learn Mor
se
> >once they encountered the congestion.  Of this I am skeptical, for if they
won't
> >learn Morse in order to gain access in the first place, I cannot believe th
ey'll learn
> >it in order to reduce congestion.
>
> I don't think so either. There are much superior non-voice methods
> available than manual Morse. Morse is a mode on welfare, requiring
> government force to keep it viable. Eliminate the forced recruitment
> of the speed tests, and amateurs would likely choose other, better,
> non-voice methods. Though no doubt a few would continue to learn
> Morse simply for nostalgia value, just as some still use AM.

If Morse is on welfare, it is our own doing. The mode will percieved by the
image we project for it. And while there are those who may learn it for
nostalgia. In my experience, when properly presented, Morse is then something
that is WANTED. It also makes the learning process much easier.

> One useful measure of spectral efficiency is information content per unit
> bandwidth per minute. Normal speech is 120 WPM (except for some Southerners
> and Southerner wannabes). SSB speech fits in a 200 Hz-2.1 kHz bandwidth, so
> it has a "Q" of 120/1900=0.063. 20 WPM Morse with standard 5 mS shaping
> fits in a 400 Hz bandwidth, so it has a Q of 0.05, less than SSB. Now
> Clover fits in a 500 Hz bandwidth and has a speed equivalent to 480 WPM,
> so its Q is 0.96.  Which one do you think is more spectrally efficient?
> Which is the least spectrally efficient?

Actually, the usable bandwidth can be much smaller than this. As you mention
below, part of the signal is cut off on receive, but it isn't necessary to hav
e 100%
to maintain 100% intelligibility. A worthwhile trade off to improve
system gain.
>
> Note: You can copy Morse with a narrower filter than 400 Hz, but you
> are clipping off part of the transmitted signal when you do. That
> signal still spills over onto other users within +/- 200 Hz of the
> carrier. That's inherent due to the sidebands generated by the
> keying shaping.

Yes, but evey form of "channelization" has a guard band requirement
for this reaso. Although there isn't such a thing on amateur HF,
it is inherent in the way we operate - for the most part.

 Use square shaping and the key clicks spread over
> tens of kilohertz (theoretically over an infinite bandwidth) causing
> interference to other users.

I must admit to having very mixed feelings about a morse test.
You can argue a bunch of different points on either side of the fence.
Some more legitimate than others.

At times, I would argue to keep the test as morse can be looked at as
a basic simple digital mode, which can be implemented at will.

On the other hand, there is the point that no other mode has
such a requirement. And this point can be argued as to the why's
and why-nots of it's merits. I do see a day soon when the
international treaty requirment is dropped and then I suspect the
FCC will indeed drop the testing requirement.

73,

Bruce, WB4YUC
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:21 1996
From: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Advantages of CW (was: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:30:58 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
>  It would be just as easy to craft regulations
> placing some other method in the universal slot, if the regulators find
> universal interoperability a necessary condition of amateur usage.
> They apparently do not, however, because they don't require us to
> *maintain* a Morse capability once we are licensed.

There was a time when they supposedly did, but I don't ever remember
being asked to go down to the FCC and prove I could do it. Same with
logging. I know when they dropped the logging stuff, I can't put my
finger on when the FCC decided to stop, uhm, advertizing their
right to ask you to prove your morse capability.
>  Note that PACTOR II claims to be able to function
> with a CNR of -15 db. That's below the threshold of audibility
> for a Morse signal,

I don't remember seeing this spec anywhere. And what is meant by "function,"
maintain a link? Pass a certain amount of data?

I would also like to know where
that -15dB is being measured. Is that at the speaker teminals of the
receiver, or after the final filtering done by the TNC?

No, I don't expect you to answer these, just pointing out that claims
are easily manipulated when worded broadly - i.e: The Maxon Antenna matcher!

Still, in a recent review of different digital modes used by hams today,
PACTOR II was head and shoulders above the rest. (July 1996 QST, pg 35)

At 0dB SNR (not mentioned where that was measured, but I suspect at the
receiver audio out terminals) the throughput was 6-7 char/sec.

BTW - In a 250Hz bandwidth, we can copy morse at 20 wpm to
very nearly 0dB S/N. This doesn't take into account the
operator however. I remember once copying a CW signal buried in a
movie soundtrack - this was in High School and the film was on WWII.
I remember blocking out entirely the voice track and other stuff
once I heard the morse. I'm jusdt glad we were't asked any
questions later about the introduction!

>
> >Truth is, packet would be a much better way to go, but, not
> >everybody has packet equipment yet. Further, many more do not have
> >a portable set-up. We are currently facing this dilema here in my area.
> >We want to implement some sort of packet program
> >into our emergency plan, but have to admit that there aren't enough
> >local hams with portable packet stations. So, FM voice, wins again
> >by default. Some day though. . . . .
>
> VHF/UHF packet certainly can play a role in disaster communications,
> and has been used for logistic support in that role by a number of
> groups. But HF packet? Forget that, its a lost cause. We're going
> to have to reinvent packet to make it work usefully on HF. (That's
> an interesting challenge, of course, and something we should be
> working on.)Actually, we are going have to reinvent packet for ALL modes. Of
 course
the path is slow and painful in getting acceptance. Like VHF(and up)
packet at 28.8K in the standard voice bandwidth(2700Hz)
and without rig modifications.
>

> >If Morse is on welfare, it is our own doing. The mode will percieved by the
> >image we project for it. And while there are those who may learn it for
> >nostalgia. In my experience, when properly presented, Morse is then somethi
ng
> >that is WANTED. It also makes the learning process much easier.
>
> >> Note: You can copy Morse with a narrower filter than 400 Hz, but you
> >> are clipping off part of the transmitted signal when you do. That
> >> signal still spills over onto other users within +/- 200 Hz of the
> >> carrier. That's inherent due to the sidebands generated by the
> >> keying shaping.
> >
> >Yes, but evey form of "channelization" has a guard band requirement
> >for this reaso. Although there isn't such a thing on amateur HF,
> >it is inherent in the way we operate - for the most part.
>
> No, for example Clover has a very sharp cutoff characteristic and is
> -50 db at +/- 250 Hz from the channel center. It fills the channel, but
> needs no guardband. This is one of its advantages. Adjacent channels
> can be used with no mutual interference (assuming the receiver is capable
> of that selectivity). But no amount of receiver selectivity can solve the
> problem of sidebands falling *inside* an adjacent channel's passband,
> so Morse must be considered a modulation with a 400 Hz bandwidth
> requirement.

CLOVER is a unique example. Hats off to HAL though for having the
foresight to make full use of the DSP to reduce sidebands.
In the case of CLOVER, the guardband is minimized to the
absolute minimum possible, but some is still required due to
nonlinearities in the transmitter, receiver weaknesses and
frequency stability issues.
>  BTW that's why SS is so attractive.
> It offers total system advantages we can't easily obtain with other
> methods.

I must admit to not being really up on Spread Spectrum. I know enough
though to understand it indeed offers a lot. Maybe someday I'll get the
chance to tinker with it.

Gary, always a pleasure!

73,

Bruce, Wb4YUC
>
> Gary
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:22 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: ASCII
Date: 23 Jun 1996 12:04:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4qk4f1$[e-mail]>

I've never used a digital mode (besides CW). The ARRL
Handbook is not clear on ASCII so I have a few questions:

Are HF ASCII stations common?
Is ASCII combined with higher level protocols like AMTOR, etc?
Is the HF ASCII shift 170 Hz?
What is the most common HF ASCII baud rate?
Is Baudot more popular than ASCII?
What is the most popular HF digital mode?

thanks and 73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Jun 96 16:43:22 EST
References: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q6m3n$[e-mail]>
Distribution: world

In article <4q6m3n$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
u (Kirk James Smith) writes:
[snip]
> Do I think CW keeps the rif-raff off the bands?  No...most convicted
> jammers and problem users are general class or higher.  So much for that
> theory.

I'm not sure that there has been a causal relationship established here. I
think most jammers, etc... hold higher class licenses because they would be
less likely to OWN the HF equipment to jam with if they held a code-free
license. The unfortunate fact that they do, just goes to show that even some
mental midgets like jammers can learn cw if they want access to HF. Just
consider what it could be like without it.

[snip]
Joe - AA3GN
--
[e-mail] - speaking only for myself, of course
No, this is not a sig.


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:24 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: 19 Jun 1996 22:38:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4qao3u$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

cadams5 <[e-mail]> wrote:
: Phil Sussman wrote:
: If I did have a code license I would just let my tnc send it and recv it
: anyhow, and it would run circles around any code operator.

Hi Phil, I think this was a careless statement. I don't know of any
tnc that will equal a good human code operator. I'm working on one,
but, so far, it's only better than me. :-) It appears to me that DSP
techniques are the only way for CW machines to get the best of most
humans. It's something like chess. Machines can beat most people all
the time and all the people some of the time but not all the people
all the time. But make it Coherent CW, and there is no contest -
machines win by a landslide.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:25 1996
From: steve <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:29:36 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]> <4q6m3n$[e-mail]> <4q76dl$[e-mail]> <4q7c84$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> Jim Fellows <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >|MD correctly wrote:
>
> >|> So is SSB (you were aware that SSB is only a few years younger than
> >|> CW, right?) Seems to me all these complaints just to get access to an
> >|> archiac mode is energy best spent on other, more productive, activities.
>
> >Well gee, one person's few years is a lifetime or more to another.  Just go
ing
> >from recollection, Morse Code was invented by S.F.B. Morse sometime in the
mid
> >to late 1800s.  SSB transmission was invented, when, in the 1950s.  Seems l
ike
> >that is more than just a few years to me.  So the answer is WRONG!  And of
> >course MD must get in another one of his slanted cheap shots with the next
> >sentence.  It is unfounded and has no value since the assuption it hinges o
ne i>s
> >not substantiated.
>
> The telephone companies were using SSB by 1926. The first SSB radio
> was on the air by 1933. Thus, you've lost all credibility, Jimmy.
> MD was right on they money - SSB on landline, and CW on radio -
> both came into use at almost exactly the same time.
>
> Thanks for playing Jimbo, and 73 from lovely Hawaii,
> Jeff KH2PZ / KH6

voice ? invented when ?
what is on hf that makes some people think some hams want those bands?
73 steve still in cm88ll  50.125 etc. blah-blah


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:11:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4qbij2$[e-mail]>
References: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q6m3n$[e-mail]> <4q76dl$[e-mail]> <4q7c84$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jim Fellows) wrote:

< lots of previous stuff here SNIPPED not because it's internet
standard operating procedure as some people would have you
believe, and not because I don't want anyone to read it as some
people would have you believe, but because it's one message
back in your newsreader and you can go see it there, so why
repeat it here >

>|>
>|> MD
>|> --
>|> --
>|> --  Who needs looks when you've got taste?
>|> --
>|> --  If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.


>Such pomposity!

>Jim

Jim, calm down. Look at the subject of this message. It's not 'KICK
MD's BUTT'.  Mike is a really nice guy. It's just the fumes from all
that Tomato Sauce make him do some really wierd stuff.  And if
you think about it, both of the above statements are 100% true.
Mike's very honest:

"Who needs looks when you've got taste ?"

He admits, right here in front of God and the internet how ugly he
is.  But that's not his fault, he was born that way. He's just honest.

"If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad."

You mentioned internet standards. If that isn't *THE* internet
standard, I don't know what is.  So give Mike a break. He had
a hard day at the factory, jumping up and down in that big
barrel smashing all those tomatoes with his bare feet.  Let's
get back to the original subject of this thread, I'm just *dying* to
read some more good 2m/70cm related to CW stuff. I just
can't get enuff of this  kinda stuff.

73, Jim KH2D






From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kirk James Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: 18 Jun 1996 09:39:19 -0700
Message-ID: <4q6m3n$[e-mail]>
References: <4pv9gd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

The "why don't you just buckle down and learn CW" thread is alive and well...

As one of those no-code tech's that has put up repeaters, repaired ham
gear, converted commercial gear to ham, etc, here's why I haven't
bothered to learn CW:

1)  I'm a full-time student, and spend enough time studying science, and
don't have the energy at this point to learn CW>

2)  I'm not interested in CW.  This doesn't mean that it isn't a good mode,
    isn't fun for others, etc.  It just doesn't interest ME.  That's what
    I've always liked about ham radio...there's enough different stuff to
    interest EVERYONE.

3)  I work...a LOT.  Currently ~70 hours per week.

4)  I don't plan to operate HF any time soon.  I don't have the cash for HF
    gear, and even if I did, I live in an area where antennas are a problem.

So do I ever plan to learn CW?  Probably.  Will I use it?  Probably only
to figure out CW IDers on repeaters.  I'd like to have an advanced class
ticket someday, so I can operate HF when at our club station, and
eventually want to purchase a sailboat, which would have HF
capabilities.  But this is in the very distant future.

Do I think CW keeps the rif-raff off the bands?  No...most convicted
jammers and problem users are general class or higher.  So much for that
theory.

Do I like the "I learned it, so you should too" attitude?  No, it's
archaic.  I'm sure many of the older hams know how to use a slide rule as
well, but I'm happy with my HP calculator.  But if you enjoy your slide
rule, then by all means, use it.

Do I favor a reduction in the CW requirement for HF?  Yes.  If CW must
remain, make it a portion of the test just like any other...  I can fail
everything relating to packet and still pass the exam.  Fail the CW mode
portion, and I get no upgrade.  This doesn't seem fair.

Just my thoughts...

--
 Kirk J. Smith, KD6RCT, EMT-P    |  Biological Sciences Dept, Microbiology
 [e-mail]    |  California Polytechnic State University
 http://www.calpoly.edu/~kjsmith |  San Luis Obispo, California, USA


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:48:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Bruce Burke <[e-mail]> wri
tes:
>Roger Barker wrote:
>
>> You could argue exactly the opposite - that by keeping CW as a
>> requirement for certain licence classes, we make ham radio appear to be
>> an anachronism, with no relevance in modern communications!
>
>CW by itself does not make the hobby seem like, or not seem like, an anachron
ism.
>It is our attitude toward it and what we project.

True. A stone axe still works in a world of chain saws. It just doesn't
work as well. It is only our insistence on demanding the universal mastery
of the knapping of a stone axe before allowing use of the chain saw which
makes us seem anachronistic.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:30 1996
From: Thomas Foster <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Assault on Ham Radio - 2m/70cm related to CW !!
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:49:42 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> Thomas Foster <[e-mail].c
om> writes:
> >> >CW by itself does not make the hobby seem like, or not seem like, an ana
chronism.
> >> >It is our attitude toward it and what we project.
> >>
> >> True. A stone axe still works in a world of chain saws. It just doesn't
> >> work as well. It is only our insistence on demanding the universal master
y
> >> of the knapping of a stone axe before allowing use of the chain saw which
> >> makes us seem anachronistic.
> >
> >Gary,
> >
> >Are you comparing the stone axe to Morse code and the chain saw to modern
> >modes of communications?  If so, I believe a better analogy might be a
> >more modern metal axe with wooden handle and the chain saw. I suspect
> >that there are many people who own both a chain saw and an axe, and
> >depending on the job that needs to be done, the chain saw and/or the axe
> >might be selected. Which tool would work better if you ran out of fuel?
>
> No, I meant stone axe. You buy a modern steel axe off the rack at the
> corner hardware store just the same as you do the chainsaw, but you
> have to knap your own stone axe, and that's an appropriate analogy to
> Morse. You have to knap your own modem out of wetware. You get to take
> no advantage of the leverage of modern technology or division of labor
> or engineering experience, you have to fall back to the level of Og
> the caveman.
>
> A modern steel axe or a chainsaw are the products of generations of
> engineering refinement and knowledge, the result of the efforts of
> hundreds or thousands of people backed by the power of the industrial
> age. But conditioning a wetware modem isn't. You don't get to expand
> your reach by standing on the shoulders of giants. Rather, you are
> reduced to the level of the stone age flint chipper in producing
> your tool. So it is no surprise that it isn't a very keen tool.
>
> And it is a brittle tool as well, subject to failure points you
> don't even understand because you have no understanding of its internal
> stresses and weaknesses. You haven't been producing and field testing
> that model of stone axe for decades. It's your very first one, just
> like Og's stone axe was his first one. You can't pull down your
> trusty copy of Machinery's Handbook and read out the specifications
> of the material you are using, it is just the piece of rock you happen
> to have between your ears. Its cleavage planes aren't exactly like anyone
> else's, so you can't use their experiences as a trustworthy guide.
> You have to proceed by guess and by feel and hope the result won't
> shatter against the first knot you encounter.
>
> Gary
> --

Gary,

I think we're looking at it from different perspectives. I believe you're
talking about the evolution of a technology, while I'm simply conveying
the relative effectiveness of the tools. The steel axe (Morse code,
especially as CW) and the chain saw (SSB, digital, etc) are both useful
tools depending on the job to be undertaken. Even though the steel axe
was developed long before the chain saw, it continues to be used today
because of its attributes as a cutting or chopping tool. I suspect that,
while lumberjacks cut trees with chainsaws, a good steel axe complements
their toolbox.

From my perspective the drums or smoke signals would be analogous to the
stone axe, since they are among the most primitive means of
"long-distance" communication.

Best regards,
Lindsay
WA4ISZ


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:22:31 1996
From: Heikki Hannikainen <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Autobin protocol definition?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 22:39:39 -0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Do you happen to have any idea where i could find a real specification
of the "autobin" file transfer protocol used on packet? I have the
source code for the implementation in the "call" of Linux ax25utils, but
it really isn't _very_ helpful, since it's not very readable.

  I'm working on implementing the protocol in a software project of mine
(see http://zone.pspt.fi/clusse/ if you're *that* curious). I can
reverse engineer the protocol, but there are easier ways.....

  - Hessu <[e-mail]>


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:44 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bruce Burke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:11:30 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]> <4qhve6$[e-mail]> <4qkjjl$[e-mail]>

Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> KEEP THE DAMN CW ARGUMENT OUT OF THE DIGITAL NEWSGROUP!
>
> Is there NOWHERE you people won't spread your feces?
>
> Thank you.

CW is the original digital mode.....

Your welcome,

Bruce, WB4YUC



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pat Masterson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Field Day Packet Contacts?
Date: 18 Jun 1996 21:05:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4q7jpb$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q2su7$[e-mail]>

In article <4q2su7$[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In <[e-mail]>, William Vaughn <[e-mail]> writes:
>>After a couple of attempts at getting a packet contact during the last
>>two field days and Failing. I am wondering what the procedure is for
>>making a contact on field day. Must it be a simplex keyboard to keyboard
 etc.
>Simple.  Fire up your packet station on FD.  Connect to the cluster.  Use the

>Announce command.  Announce/Local or Announce/Full QD FD de MYCALL
>When the replies come back, they come back as Announcements!
>Send back your exchange to them by announce!
>We have had MANY packet qso's that way in the last three years!
>It may not make the cluster sysops happy, but it WORKS! Big time!
>Watch for us this FD from N5TC via the cluster...   Same trick...
>Mike W5WQN as a quest at leviathan.tamu.edu (no mail address there!)

NO! If you're going to send a reply to only one guy
don't use use Announce! Everybody
on the Cluster will get that message. Very silly.
 Sure, announce will work. But, please use the Talk command to
exchange your reports. Lets not annoy the other users.
 Also, use the DX command to Post yourself, as a normal DX spot.
Anybody who wants to "work" you on the Cluster should then
do so with the Talk command.

-pat


--
*  Pat Masterson  B38-111, Northrop Grumman Corp.*  Ham:KE2LJ
*  1111 Stewart Ave., Bethpage NY 11714          *  Packet: [e-mail]
*  516-346-6316                                  *  President Grumman Amateur
*  email: [e-mail]                        *  Radio Club  WA2LQO


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Max Klingert)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Has anyone used the MFJ Packet Transceiver?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 15:13:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4qbprg$[e-mail]>
References: <4q6k6a$[e-mail]>

In article <4q6k6a$[e-mail]>, James W. Barr <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I have recently seen an ad for the MFJ-8621 2meter Packet Only
>Transceiver.  Its cost is just over $100.00(US) and it looks pretty
>nice.  I am in the market for a dedicated 2 meter packet transceiver,
>(instead of using my HT) and the unit looks good and is priced quite low.
>
>Has anyone used this?
>
>How is the performance?
>
>Can ist really be used as a 24x7 2 meter transceiver?

A buddy of mine and I each ordered one back in March. His arrived Tuesday,
mine hasn't shown up yet. The cable he got had a couple of pins wired
incorrectly so he spent a fair amount of time scratching his head over why
it wouldn't Tx (PTT and Rx were reversed) I'm hoping mine will show up soon
;-)

Someone else here in town is running one 24x7, but until I have had a chance
to see it in action, I won't really know.

Max KB0RSQ


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:47 1996
From: Roger Basford <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Have PK-232(noMBX) Is there a Windows pgm on the net available?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 16:49:28 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qfpiv$[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Roger Barker
<[e-mail]> writes
>In article <4qfpiv$[e-mail]>, Chris Victor
><[e-mail]> writes
>>Looking for a program (beta OK) that I can run under WFW 3.11 that is
>>equivalent to AEA's PC Pakratt for Windows.
>>
>>Don't need any special bells or whistle's, but hate launching a DOS window t
o
>>make PCPakratt for DOS run.
>>
>>Just curious what others have found that works well and has a nice GUI
>>look/feel.
>
>Give WinPack a try, it's free. BUT - make sure you get the PK-232 out of
>host mode first! (95 percent of TNC "problems" with WinPack have been as
>a result of people trying to use it with PK-232s that are stuck in host
>mode as a result of using Pakratt.)
>
>You can find the latest version at ftp.demon.co.uk. The file is
>pub/ham/winpack/winp553.zip. It is also available in the Hamnet forum
>library on Compuserve.
>
Roger,

I've just downloaded and installed WinPack 5.53 from Demon. It looks
very good and I'm hoping to replace Paket6.1 with it, but I think Chris
might be looking for a multi-mode package for the PK232. Of course
WinPack or Paket will do this fine, either by entering the commands
longhand or from macros, but I think PC Pakratt is a Host mode program,
at least my non-Windows version is! Thanks for the advice on the start-
up problems, I'll watch out for that.


Roger Basford, G3VKM


                *///////////////////////////////////////*
                *   e-mail: [e-mail]   *
                * Roger Basford, Haddiscoe, Norfolk U.K.*
                *///////////////////////////////////////*


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:48 1996
From: Roger Basford <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Have PK-232(noMBX) Is there a Windows pgm on the net available?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:13:22 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qfpiv$[e-mail]>

In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960624181050.29782A-
[e-mail]>, Clifford Buttschardt <[e-mail]>
writes
>I'm sorry guys..Winpack or any other windows program written for the PK232
>is USELESS!  Probably if you spend enough time diddling around with it,
>some results might be obtained, but most unlikely!  Cliff Buttschardt K7RR
>
>
>
OK, so what program DO you recommend?

Roger, G3VKM.



                *///////////////////////////////////////*
                *   e-mail: [e-mail]   *
                * Roger Basford, Haddiscoe, Norfolk U.K.*
                *///////////////////////////////////////*


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (Richard Florio)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Help w/ KAM & 767GX
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 19:05:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4qk4dv$[e-mail]>

I would very much appreciate some help connecting my new KAM plus to
my 767. I don't want to make a mistake and fry anything!

Please reply to  [e-mail]

Thank you!

KB2TMA  Rich
"I'm really totally together. I even think I should be."

                    Syd Barrett



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:50 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: "Robert W. Lewis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HF Protocol Comparison
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:54:03 -0400

See July 1996 QST Page 35 "A Comparison of HF Digital Protocols".  Very
interesting results!  If you look at table 1 and "solve for the unknown"
you realize that the modems are as follows:

A = SCS PTC-II
B = AEA (probably a PK-232)
C = HAL (probably a PCI-4000)
D = Kantronics KAM

Of particular interest is the fact that at low SNRs, modem A had nearly
twice the throughput as modem B on Pactor-I.  This seems to take the
mistery out of the value of the analog memory ARQ using an analog to
digital converter - something SCS and Paccomm have been saying for a
long time.



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (James W. Barr)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Idea for new license class
Date: 20 Jun 1996 10:48:30 -0500
Message-ID: <4qbrse$[e-mail]>
References: <4paujc$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Richard H ([e-mail]) wrote:

[nice response to a code-only test snipped]

It would still have to include knowledge of proper operating practices.
--
-Jim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James W. Barr, N9ONL              |    e-mail: [e-mail]
Buffalo Grove, IL, USA            |  Web site: http://www.mcs.net/~jbarr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Robotics' Pilot Organizer info: http://www.usr.com
      GEOS Operating system info : http://www.geoworks.com
                    GEOS IZL info: send e-mail to [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:52 1996
From: John Amdor III <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.ham-radio.packet
Subject: Re: Kantronics KPC-3 & Alinco DJ-580T HT
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:08:41 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qmt9j$[e-mail]>

CrACKeD wrote:
>
> I'm seeking information on how I may interface a Kantronics KPC-3 TNC with
> an Alinco DJ-580T HT.  Can anyone point me in the direction where I may
> find such aa device that will let me do this?  Thanks.

Wire your cable using the specs for ICOM 02AT/RS HTX-202 and it should
work fine.  (Mine does, anyhow)

73...John
--
John Amdor III
email: [e-mail]
AX.25: KD6MXL@K0CNM.#WIA.IA.USA.NOAM
ASE CMTT CMAT L1


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Clint Bradford)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Kantronics KPC-3 & Alinco DJ-580T HT
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:56:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
References: <4qmt9j$[e-mail]>


>>I'm seeking information on how I may interface a Kantronics KPC-3 TNC
>>with an Alinco DJ-580T HT.

I have seen several msgs requesting details on how to connect a TNC to
the ALINCO DJ580 h/held,so heres how i did it !!!
(after immense fiddling,these are the connections used for 6 months)


                        tip  ..  ..ring  ....body
                              .  .       .
                              .  .       .=
                              O [] ========   3.5mm plug
                              .  .       .=
                rx audio ......  .       .
                                 ..n/c   ..gnd



                                           =
                               O [] ========    2.5mm plug
                               :           =
                 TX audio......:
                              ---
                              : :  10 k resistor
                              : :
                              ---
                               :
                 TX ...........:


so,the only connection to the 2.5mm plug is to the TIP!!!! tip=TX audio
TX is to tip via 10k resistor. "sleeve & ring" NO CONNECTIONS

RX audio=TIP of 3.5mm,sleeve NO CONNECTION,body=gnd

Please let me know if this is of any use to you.
don't forget- DO NOT insert/remove plugs while the rig or tnc is on !!

73,Paul G1XUL--HOMEBBS=GB7BAD--AMIGA/AMIPAC--TINY2--DJ580--FREQ 433.675


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott\, G.R. \,  Cundiff)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: KPC3 software problem
Date: 21 Jun 96 16:46:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Brian Williams) wrote:
>>   I verified that the baud rate and com port are correct (matching the
>>settings with the KaGOLD demo software) but when I do a CNTL-C to go to the
>>command mode, all I get as a response is a heart shaped character on the
>>screen.
>>   Can someone help me get PACTERM working or send me software that will
>>work well with the KPC3?

 [e-mail] (Jeff McLeman) responded...
>
>Brian, the KPC3 is in host mode. <snip>
>
>       Hold the ALT key down and type 192 on the keypad,
>             release the ALT key and type the letter q
>             Hold the ALT key down again and type 192 on the keypad
>
>The KPC3 should go back into terminal mode.

Brian, I am sure you have already found out that Jeff has given you good
advice, so I won't restate it.  But I did want to pass along some thoughts
on software for your KPC3.

As you have already seen, the KAGold is a super program, it has to be good
for the price they ask for it!  Before I bit the bullet and got it, I ran
PaKet6.  It is an excellent shareware program, has a built in mailbox,
supports script files, etc.  You can get it from several places on the interne
t.

That Pacterm is about as plain jane as you can get.  If you learn to run
your tnc with it you will be like a person who started off learning to drive
a stick shift -- you should be able to run about anything!

I will also mention that you can run your TNC with a telephone terminal
program too.  If you are in a hurry to get going and already have a terminal
program you are used to you might save some time going that direction.  I
wouldn't recommend it for long term use, but still, it will get you on the air
.

For a long time I wondered from one TNC program to another.  I tried every
one I could get my hands on.  When my friends started raving about KAGold I
held off because of the money, but when I tried it I was hooked!  Of course,
this is with a KAM and doing a lot of HF work including Pactor which is a blas
t.

Hope this helps at least a little!

73, Scott


G.R. "Scott" Cundiff
Borger, Texas
email: [e-mail]
amateur radio: N5ASD@N5ASD.#WTX.TX.USA.NOAM



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:55 1996
From: steve <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.shortwave,
Subject: Re: Latest WEB-HAM.LIST amateur radio websites for jun/96 ,2405 sites
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:05:19 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qmfot$[e-mail]>
To: JOSEPH A CIRA <[e-mail]>

JOSEPH A CIRA wrote:
>
> hello fellow hams
>
>     as of june/1996
>
>     the latest amateur radio related websites
>     is available at....
>
>     http://www.padl.ac.at/shule/chemie/bob.htm
>
>     the lists contains 2,405 ham web sites !!
>     look on this page for websites by KB6AXK.....
>     73' 88' from KB6AXK/ARRL/LAX/ACC/HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
>     AT 818-584-1952....
> JOE
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************************
*
> U.S.AMATEUR RADIO STATION " KB6AXK "| SYSOP OF HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
> PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91107           |  at 818-584-1952 any speed 8-N-1
> e-mail to [e-mail]      | dedicated to amateur radio !
>                 ARRL/LAX/ACC        | ARRL MIRROR SITE...........
> ****************************************************************************
*
>         researching the CIRA family genealogy
>         in TERMINI IMERESE,PALERMO,SICILY,ITALY..........
> ____________________________________________________________________________
_
> IUOE/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS LOCAL 501
>         HVAC/R,IAQ,SYSTEMS,CONTROLS,AIR BALANCE,PERFORMANCE,PM's,PLUMBING,
>         ELECTRICAL,MECH SYSTEMS,EMS/BMS,DDC,CODES,STANDARDS,REGS,QUIDELINES,
>         PPE,HAZMAT,IPP,and more .............
>         info call HALL 213-385-1561 or SCHOOL at 213-385-2889...........
> ****************************************************************************
*
> MY RESUME is on my web site at :) http://www.netcom.com/~kb6axk/resume.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

2,405 web sites 404 not found.73


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dexter N. Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Missing back-issues
Date: 20 Jun 96 10:57:02 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Greetings, again, from New Zealand!

   I sent this a few days ago, and have had replies (thanks!):

>   I keep an archive of this Digest on my 24-hrs Packet station
>for local Hams who have no Internet.  Occasionally (though rarely),
>either UCSD or my (Massey) mail server hiccups, and I lose one or
>two issues.  I would like to keep the archive complete, so am
>seeking issue:
>
>V96 #181  (12 May)
>V96 #186  (16 May)
>
>  If any kind soul has kept this, I would appreciate a copy
>(to email address below).
>
>   Meanwhile, many thanks to Brian, and to all contributors.

   Since then, I have had another hiccup, and am missing

V96 #231

   If some kind soul could repeat the exercise...  ??  :-)

   A further note:  Yes, I have looked in the Archive, and occasionally
manage to avoid posting like this by getting back-issues there.  These
ones, however, are not present: it seems the Digestifier only archives one
Digest each day, though it can post more than one (it sometimes hiccups even
on the usual one, too).  Much valuable information can be lost :-(
   Brian says there is a re-organisation in the wind, and hopefully this
will improve the situation :-)

   I also archive Ham-Ant and TCP-Group from UCSD, and NOS-BBS from
hydra.carleton.ca 's listproc (UCSD is a listserv), and similar problems
occur there, too, though not so seriously as they usually only Digest once
per day.

Thanks in advance, and 73 de Dexter, ZL3LH

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dexter N. Muir          Manufacturing Pilot Plant Technician             |
| [e-mail]   Department of Production Technology              |
|                         Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand |
| http://www.massey.ac.nz/~DNMuir/                                         |
| "Honesty pays --- but not enough."   "Modesty pays --- but even less!! " |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:57 1996
From: "B.A. Merrill" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Modem as TNC
Date: 21 Jun 1996 18:43:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4qeqg5$[e-mail]>

Is there software avail for windows that will allow me to use my fax/modem boa
rd as
a TNC?

TIA,
BettyAnn, KC6ING

--
************
Computer Resource Specialist
Dept. of Plant Pathology
University of California
Riverside, CA  92521
VOICE: [phone]
FAX:     [phone]
E-MAIL:  [e-mail]




From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (James W. Barr)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Need information, remote phone
Date: 24 Jun 1996 09:36:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4qm95g$[e-mail]>
References: <4qjvpu$[e-mail]>

Wilhelm H. Duembeg ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Hi to every one,

: Let me start by describing my current situation. I currently live
: close to the Mexican border, I have been thinking for a while about
: moving to Mexico since living expense is a lot more affordable there
: (Not on everything.)
: My problem is communications, the phone service in Mexico is up to 4
: times more expensive than in the US, and If I move I need a phone
: connection to my work computer and to the WWW. If I where to do this
: from Mexico I would probably be spending about $1000.00 per month (not
: a pretty situation :<).
: In any way, If I move it will be close to the border, I was thinking
: about putting a phone in a friend's house (he lives close to the
: border too (US)) and having a remote phone connection, that way I
: could have my computer in Mexico and still be able to use the WWW and
: communicate to work at a affordable price.

: Does any one have any Ideas or know of a device or apparatus that
: would allow me to have a phone at 2-4 miles away and to wire-less
: connect to it.

: Any help or directions would be greatly appreciated.


Of course, you do realize that part 97 states that Amateur radio is not
meant to replace communications services available elsewhere.  In other
words, Amateur Radio is not meant to replace the Call Phone system, etc.
What you are proposing is definatly technically possible using phone
patch equipment, but there may be a legal issue if you are using it
regularly to simply avoid using the established phone system.

If I am wrong on this, PLEASE correct me!

: -- Wilhelm H. Duembeg


--
-Jim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James W. Barr, N9ONL              |    e-mail: [e-mail]
Buffalo Grove, IL, USA            |  Web site: http://www.mcs.net/~jbarr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Robotics' Pilot Organizer info: http://www.usr.com
      GEOS Operating system info : http://www.geoworks.com
                    GEOS IZL info: send e-mail to [e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:26:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rolfe Tessem)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Need software for Tono 777
Date: 23 Jun 1996 14:02:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4qjiph$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rolfe Tessem)

I have an old Tono Theta 777 that I'd like to use for monitoring a
specific commercial channel. In its native mode, accessed by talking
to it with a dumb terminal program, it's quite unfriendly. I recall
that someone was selling DOS-based software for this unit a few years
ago. Can anyone give me a lead on this?

Thanks,

Rolfe
W3VH
--
Rolfe Tessem         |     Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
[e-mail]        |     96 Morton Street
[phone]       |     New York, NY 10014


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:00 1996
From: "Don L. Miller" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: New Packet Radio Training Course Page on Web
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:13:33 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Please check out our new Ventura County ARES AREA 6 Packet Radio Training
Course Web Page at:

     http://www.fishnet.net/~dlmiller/packet.html

This HTML is in a single (182k) file, designed to be used, copied,
changed, etc. by any interested parties for their own use with or without
our permission.

de Don Miller
N6ZUF
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Nick J Chiarchiaro, AET / N2QXF)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PGP and packet
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:25:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4qm1f8$[e-mail]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Pete,

Most jsut don't have a clue.......they get a radio, some software
finally get it running <g>  bang there a sysop.

You want some to use there brains...PLLLLEASE !

73
nick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMc6JLLcl5ElIDIaJAQF7KgP/bWUjSzr/KyMqfji50/PVS9W/c1Gv7NbW
KDQ5sW9AZh010Xsobp17CLUxBpeBHZTaDDn0DZ6SjDEdIFRenC0OTfGTLKsCy15Z
UwFHP00EGxvlwt5cj73etyBkkNL6oWpwU3mJU8N5+AYjUfBNk+1pFuVzaEl2mEiS
oH1wQdZruUQ=
=Lv7u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:02 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Robert Donnell - KD7NM)
Subject: Re: PK232 ID programming
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qeqg5$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:43:01 GMT

Clifford Buttschardt <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Is there a way in which the set up for Pactor/Amtor can be modified to
>respond to two call signs?  Many of us have changed calls this last week
>so that many do not know which call to issue for a connect!!  Further,
>there apppears to be no way to tell which is programmed in the PK232
>even if the alias listing indicates an alternate call.  This is very
>confusing in this unit which is primarily used on HF rather than 1200 baud
>packet.  Any help would be appreciated!  Cliff  K7RR ex W6HDO

Hi Cliff,

For AMTOR, check out:

MYALTCAL - Alternate AMTOR SELCAL

I've not set it up on the bench, however the PK-232 >may< respond to
both the MYCALL and MYPTCALL callsigns if one is set to your former
call, and the other is set to your new call.  Worth a try!

73, Bob




From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Deano)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: PK232 ID programming
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 19:29:18 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qeqg5$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Robert Donnell - KD7NM) wrote:

>Clifford Buttschardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Is there a way in which the set up for Pactor/Amtor can be modified to
>>respond to two call signs?  Many of us have changed calls this last week
>>so that many do not know which call to issue for a connect!!  Further,
>>there apppears to be no way to tell which is programmed in the PK232
>>even if the alias listing indicates an alternate call.  This is very
>>confusing in this unit which is primarily used on HF rather than 1200 baud
>>packet.  Any help would be appreciated!  Cliff  K7RR ex W6HDO
>


Since you only have ONE legal callsign, connecting using another call
might be just slightly illegal.



>Hi Cliff,
>
>For AMTOR, check out:
>
>MYALTCAL - Alternate AMTOR SELCAL
>
>I've not set it up on the bench, however the PK-232 >may< respond to
>both the MYCALL and MYPTCALL callsigns if one is set to your former
>call, and the other is set to your new call.  Worth a try!
>
>73, Bob
>
>

           C. Dean Norris
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO
      e-mail to [e-mail]
    http://www.syspac.com/~dnorris/


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Hopkins)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Problem with PK-12 TNC
Date: 21 Jun 1996 00:30:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4qcqfk$[e-mail]>

I just bought an AEA PK-12 TNC at Dallas Ham-Com a week or so ago and
I'm having a strange problem. I connected it up to the radio, an Alinco
DR-1200, and the computer, an old XT running CrossTalk, and proceeded
to connect to my favorite ROSE switch to pull up a heard list. It
connected immediately, but no list ever displayed and after swapping
about ten RR frames, the ROSE disconnected me. I then tried to connect
to the TexNet node with about the same result. I can connect to myself
via a local digi, to other individual stations, and to a local Ka-node.
I thought maybe the ROSE didn't like my deviation (which I set at 3.6 KHz
with a service monitor) or I didn't like his, so I tried connecting through
the previously mentioned digi - same result. But when I connected to the
Ka-node and then used it's connect command to connect to ROSE, there's
my heard list. AEA tech support is mystified by it and they're going to
have a programmer call me next week when he returns from vacation, but in the
meantime, has anyone else had such a problem or does anyone have any
ideas for a solution (other than another brand of TNC, which will be the
solution if AEA doesn't come up with something - I'm not pleased with their
support so far.)

                                                TIA & 73,

                                                Jim, N5BFD


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (bob puharic)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 07:35:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4qko8l$[e-mail]>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Burt Fisher <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
>(but I told you that a long time ago)

Dont you just wish burt knew a bit about statistics. there are more
hams, per capita, in the us now than there have ever been. the rate of
growth is steady, and exceeds the rate of growth of the population. if
this is dying, then what is living. my suggestion is that we leave
burt alone. if he really hated ham radio, he'd send me all of his
equipment!



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Alan Gollom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: 24 Jun 1996 12:30:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4qm1ob$[e-mail]>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...

>As we all know how beneficial the practical knowledge gained through
>amateur radio is, perhaps companies like Microsoft are purposely
>trying to murder 'our hobby' so as to minimize competition in the
>future wireless world by limiting the ability of future engineers and
>technicians from gaining self-taught, practical experiences.

Only a paranoid and self-delusioned ham would believe that.
I hardly think that Bill Gates and friends give ham radio a
second thought.  The growth of ham radio doesn't even come
minutely close to the explosive growth of the internet and
other computer related activities.

Alan VE3XAG

======================================================
   on the Internet:                        on packet:
   [e-mail]           ve3xag@va3bbs#scon.on.can.na
======================================================



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:07 1996
From: Madjid VE2GMI <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:07:41 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qm1ob$[e-mail]>

Alan Gollom wrote:
> Only a paranoid and self-delusioned ham would believe that.
> I hardly think that Bill Gates and friends give ham radio a
> second thought.  The growth of ham radio doesn't even come
> minutely close to the explosive growth of the internet and
> other computer related activities.

Your knowledge of Bill Gates's strategy is Hum NIL. This
guy's future strategy is the HOBBY market. The commercial
market is already in his pocket and saturated. Selling
upgrades is less and less profitable, people are fed up
with quaterly 200$ upgrades.

An immense subdivision of Microsoft is now working on
Internet tools and Games, yes Games. New tools for
programmers to develop Internet Agents and Animated Games
are in the pipeline. The hobby market includes world
communication via Microsoft private constellation of
satellites (not bigger than small fridges says Bill Gates)
directly to your computer.

Hams are one of the targets because they communicate for FREE.
And FREE is not a word that Bill Gates likes very much if he
is going after the hobby communication market.

Madjid VE2GMI
===========================================================
And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light,
but Microsoft said he would have to wait until Monday
to be connected to MicroSoftNet. And God rested Sunday.

And Monday God saw the light and it was good.
Then he saw Microsoft's bill and that was not good.
So he became a ham radio operator as G0D.


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:10 1996
From: Burt Fisher <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 05:57:22 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]>

Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
(but I told you that a long time ago)

KENWOOD DEFENDS DISTRIBUTION PLANS

Kenwood Communications Corp says its recently announced plans to make its
products available in more retail outlets will help to rejuvenate ham radio.
Citing concerns about the future of Amateur Radio and a changing business
climate, Kenwood announced it was taking "some bold steps" to revamp its
wholesale distribution scheme.

In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio community, Kenwood's
Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales Manager Paul Middleton,
KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked at where Amateur Radio
is today, and where it is going to be in ten years at the present rate
of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote, citing competition from
unlicensed communications modes. (internet).


 "It is also obvious that the rate of no-code licensees is slowing down
with fewer and fewer people upgrading," Middleton wrote. "Amateur Radio
dealers should be more interested in attracting new people to our hobby.
Every current amateur operator who wants this hobby to continue should
be promoting ham radio to non-hams."


* Microsoft Network (MSN) has dropped its Amateur Radio Forum, reports the
unofficial forum manager Rick McMillion, WB7UGZ. He said MSN gave him the
word recently in a terse e-mail message. McMillion says he had no warning
that MSN was going to dump the forum.


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott\, G.R. \,  Cundiff)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: REQ: Advice on TNCs
Date: 20 Jun 96 22:58:13 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

 [e-mail] (Peter G. Campbell)...wrote

>Hi.  I'm interested in getting involved in packet communications
>and would like some advice on some good TNC's to consider.
>Presently I am looking at the Kantronics KPC-3 and the MFJ
>1270C.  If anyone has any opinion regarding these units or any
>others that would merit attention, it would be very helpful
>Thanks.
>

I have gone through a bit of a TNC odyssey across the years.  I started out
with a PK-64 which was a nifty unit that worked only with a Commodore 64.
Then got a Kantronics KPC-2, then a MFJ 1274, then a Kantronics KAM.  Along
the way I have also had a Baycom modem and a Paccom Tiny 2.  I know there
are some others out there, but I feel I have had a fair amount of experience
with TNC's.

I believe TNC's can be divided up into three classes.

The first would be VHF, 1200 baud only (although expandability to 9600 might
add a subclass here.)  The Paccom, KPC-3, MFJ 1270 would all fall under this
catagory.  They all handle packet about the same and have mailboxes built in
so your friends can leave you a message whether you are there or not, or
whether the computer is running or not.  Personally, I think the Kantronics,
with its built in KA-Node is just a bit ahead of the others, but dollar for
dollar, they are basically the same.

The second TNC class is not a TNC at all, it is a Baycom Modem.  This neat
little piece of gear depends on the computer to do all the work, so it won't
"stand alone" like a real TNC.  Setting up the software, (and there are a
few different programs written with the Baycom type modem in mind) can be a
bit of a challenge if you aren't comfortable with setting up COM Ports and
IRQ's and the like.  Also, the basic Baycom software doesn't have a mailbox,
and that is a drawback, although some more advanced software does have a
built in mailbox.  I use my Baycom with my laptop computer when I travel.

The third class of TNC is the multimode controller.  The big three are the
KAM, the PK-232, and the MFJ 1278.  These rigs not only run packet on VHF or
HF, but also feature such HF modes as CW, RTTY, Amtor, Pactor, and (on the
KAM) Gtor.  I am especially partial to the KAM.  My search for a TNC that
would keep me happy ended when I got the KAM.   It does a great job, and has
the Kantronics mailbox and KA-Node.   If you think you will ever want to
work HF, you would be wise to look toward one of these controllers.  One
nice thing is that you can often find a KAM used for around $150.  You might
need to upgrade the eprom in it to get the latest features, but you can
still get into a used KAM for a good price.

Hope this helps and that you enjoy this aspect of our hobby.

73, Scott

G.R. "Scott" Cundiff
Borger, Texas
email: [e-mail]
amateur radio: N5ASD@N5ASD.#WTX.TX.USA.NOAM



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Christopher K. Greenhalgh)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: REQ: Advice on TNCs
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:32:57 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q9utu$[e-mail]>

In article <4q9utu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter G. Campbell) writes
:

>Hi.  I'm interested in getting involved in packet communications
>and would like some advice on some good TNC's to consider.
>Presently I am looking at the Kantronics KPC-3 and the MFJ
>1270C.  If anyone has any opinion regarding these units or any
>others that would merit attention, it would be very helpful
>Thanks.

Both of these TNCs are fine choices...I have owned both.

The main difference is that the MFJ is a TAPR clone, hence, the modem
portion is seperate, and can easily be upgraded. The KPC-3 is not a TAPR
clone, hence, the modem portion can not be upgraded to a faster speed.

Some added features of the KPC-3 include...small foot print, internal battery
provision (9vdc), and easy to set deviation (with another KPC-3). If you are
getting a new one, it will come with rev. 7.0 firmware. If you are getting an
old one, try to get at least rev. 6.0 (GPS compatable).

The MFJ can run on very low voltage, and IMHO, has better tone "audio".
If you are getting the "c" 1270, it will run GPS too.

Both are very good entry level TNCs...I dont think you can go wrong, but I
sopose I would run an MFJ for my base, and use the Kantronics as a portable.

But since you are only buying one, you need to ask yourself if you plan on
going to 9600 later, because if you buy the MFJ, it can be upgraded...if you
buy the Kantronics...well...you will be buying another TNC for 9600.

I currenty run a Kantronics 9612 from home...which I recommend if you can
swing the price, its basically 2 TNCs in one.



Christopher K. Greenhalgh, N8WCT
Computer/Electronic Tech. II at The Ohio State University
E-Mail: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
AX.25 : n8wct@w8cqk.#cmh.oh.usa.noam


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter G. Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: REQ: Advice on TNCs
Date: 19 Jun 1996 18:28:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4q9utu$[e-mail]>

Hi.  I'm interested in getting involved in packet communications
and would like some advice on some good TNC's to consider.
Presently I am looking at the Kantronics KPC-3 and the MFJ
1270C.  If anyone has any opinion regarding these units or any
others that would merit attention, it would be very helpful
Thanks.





From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul J. Piercey VO1HE)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: REQ: Advice on TNCs
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 12:20:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4qbftc$[e-mail]>
References: <4q9utu$[e-mail]>

In article <4q9utu$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter G. Campbell) wrote
:
>Hi.  I'm interested in getting involved in packet communications
>and would like some advice on some good TNC's to consider.
>Presently I am looking at the Kantronics KPC-3 and the MFJ
>1270C.  If anyone has any opinion regarding these units or any
>others that would merit attention, it would be very helpful
>Thanks.
>

Take the KPC-3. It is more functional and much smaller. The only reason for
taking the MFJ would be if you were going to run a node and now Kantronics has

K-Net, which is just as good as TheNET. If you want a bit of versatility and
expandability, you could go for the KPC-9612, which would give you all the
features of the KPC-3 but also a second port that operates at 9600 baud. Lots
of movement in the higher speed area and it may be more useful later on.

73.


============================================================================
Paul J. Piercey (VO1HE)

*** Work Stuff ***
        Agent - The Mutual Group

        Licenced with:
        Mutual Life of Canada
        Mutual Investco Inc.

        16 Forest Rd.
        St. John's, NF Canada
        A1C 2B9

*** Personal Stuff ***

        President - Society of Newfoundland Radio Amateurs
        Member - Royal Astronomical Society of Canada

        Packet Address     VO1HE@VO1AAA.#ENF.NF.CAN.NOAM
        Internet Address   [e-mail]
============================================================================


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:17 1996
From: Arthur Bard <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: RTTY Source code or help?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:47:39 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Hi Richard ,
             BARTG published the source code for a RTTY decoder in the
spring 95 issue of Datacom. It was a fully functional code well
documented and easly convertable. Back issues are available from Ken
Godwin G0PCA 01634 271548.

Regards Arthur Bard
Editor BARTG Datacom
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~ibx/BARTG/Cmttee/G1XKZ.html


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:18 1996
From: Claudio Ceravolo <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: tnc96 no problems 19200 baud
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:53:45 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello ,  Ciao
We have used in Pisa University a good system with a TNC2 compatible TNC96 bui
ld in LUCCA
http://www.cln.it/~elsys
and Maxon radio DM530 midified ,  we go up 1800 cps in FTP TCP/IP with a linux
 driver, JNOS or TNOS programs in DOS and Linux , the
system is good because the TNC is error free and in TCP/IP protocol is good on
ly is  good TNC and radio system .
Spero sia chiaro sia in inglese che in italiano, abbiamo fatto un sistema sper
imentale di trasferimento in TCP/IP e il sistema funziona
bene perchΦ il TNC96 Φ esente da errori in questo caso si raggiundono trsferim
enti di 1800 cps,  quasi come un modem telefonico diciamo a
14.400, non Φ mica male vero?
Saluti,
Claudio Ceravolo iw5cei


From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:18 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: WEFAX Frequencies
Date: 21 Jun 1996 02:32:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4qd1jt$[e-mail]>
References: <4q44lg$[e-mail]>

>   [e-mail] (Gary K. Bennett) writes:
>  Could anyone send me a list of the frequencies, call signs, and times for
>  WEFAX transmissions in the east?  Specifically WLO?
>

>>>>
WLO stopped transmitting radiofacsimile weather charts in February. The Navy h
as some every day on 8080 k.



From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:19 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Robert Donnell - KD7NM)
Subject: Re: Where is the list of Packet based IP-Address coordinators ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5c97.f2d9d5c0$43cd02c7@eswansen>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:18:39 GMT

"Eric C. Swansen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Does anyone know where the list of IP-Address coordinators is kept in the
>internet.  I'm in the process of establishing a TCP/IP based packet
>station in Central Oregon and need to get a series of IP addresses for my
>station.

>Any thoughts would be appreciated !

>- N7XOB
>- Eric C. Swansen
>- Bend, Oregon

>- Alternate E-Mail to [e-mail]

Look on ftp.ucsd.edu in the /hamradio directory.  Was there last time
I needed it!

73, Bob




From [e-mail] Tue Jun 25 20:27:20 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Where is the list of Packet based IP-Address coordinators ?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 23:02:36 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <01bb5c97.f2d9d5c0$43cd02c7@eswansen>

Eric C. Swansen wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where the list of IP-Address coordinators is kept in the
> internet.  I'm in the process of establishing a TCP/IP based packet
> station in Central Oregon and need to get a series of IP addresses for my
> station.
> The IP coordinator for Oregon appears to be
44.026  Ron Henderson           WA7TAS  Oregon
and the callbook shows his address as: 764 NW Beaver Pl., Corvallis, OR 97330.

I also found this as possibly his telephone number:
Henderson, Ron...Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: [phone]

The above information may or may not be correct at the present time.  I found
it
using internet searches.

I found some ampr.org information at this web site:
http://www.tmisnet.com/__c__/tsxbbs/filesets/m-dir47.htm

Hope this helps, 73

    Gene, WA4WBI
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wilhelm H. Duembeg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Need information, remote phone
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:44:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4qjvpu$[e-mail]>

Hi to every one,

Let me start by describing my current situation. I currently live
close to the Mexican border, I have been thinking for a while about
moving to Mexico since living expense is a lot more affordable there
(Not on everything.)
My problem is communications, the phone service in Mexico is up to 4
times more expensive than in the US, and If I move I need a phone
connection to my work computer and to the WWW. If I where to do this
from Mexico I would probably be spending about $1000.00 per month (not
a pretty situation :<).
In any way, If I move it will be close to the border, I was thinking
about putting a phone in a friend's house (he lives close to the
border too (US)) and having a remote phone connection, that way I
could have my computer in Mexico and still be able to use the WWW and
communicate to work at a affordable price.

Does any one have any Ideas or know of a device or apparatus that
would allow me to have a phone at 2-4 miles away and to wire-less
connect to it.

Any help or directions would be greatly appreciated.

-- Wilhelm H. Duembeg




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Johan Forrer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: HF Protocol Comparison
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 10:41:27 PST
Message-ID: <4qmk03$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Hello Robert,


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>See July 1996 QST Page 35 "A Comparison of HF Digital Protocols".  Very
>interesting results!  If you look at table 1 and "solve for the unknown"
>you realize that the modems are as follows:
>
>A = SCS PTC-II
>B = AEA (probably a PK-232)
>C = HAL (probably a PCI-4000)
>D = Kantronics KAM
>
>Of particular interest is the fact that at low SNRs, modem A had nearly
>twice the throughput as modem B on Pactor-I.  This seems to take the
>mistery out of the value of the analog memory ARQ using an analog to
>digital converter - something SCS and Paccomm have been saying for a
>long time.
>

Just a point of interest; it is evident that a couple of dB gain can be
had from using soft-decision memory ARQ, regardless to the contary that
they want you to believe. One point that is often overlooked, especially
if you have sufficient computing horsepower, is that you may oversample
each symbol, then, first, by brute force, for each of the sampled points,
try find a valid CRC for the frame, if this doesnt work, second, fall
back to soft-decision memory ARQ, also using the oversampled symbol
samples. I do this in my PSA soundcard Pactor-I implementation and the
program shows you the statistics on the satus line of how this two-level
error-correction scheme works. I also use full 16-bit quantising for
memory ARQ, however, I believe it should work just fine with much fewer
levels.

The power of coding should not be overlooked, neither the tradeoff
between power-limited and bandwidth-limited signals. Also never settle
for a mediocre demodulator even if you use the world's most powerful
coding scheme. I have some further points, but we'll leave that for
another time.


Johan Forrer, KC7WW



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:33 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Connecting KDK to MFJ 1278.
Date: 24 Jun 1996 15:40:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4qmcu3$[e-mail]>
Keywords: KDK MFJ connecting

Does anyone have the pinout to connect an MFJ-1278 to a KDK FM-144?

Thanks.

+----------------------------------------------+
|  The virtue of a free government is that the |
|  more freedom you have, the less government  |
|  you need to have.                           |
|  [e-mail]                           |
|  [e-mail]                |
|  [e-mail]   |
|  410-764-5878 (V) 410-764-5830(TTY)          |
|  410-764-5891 (Fax)                          |
+----------------------------------------------+


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:34 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Connecting KDK to MFJ 1278.
Date: 24 Jun 1996 15:41:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4qmcvh$[e-mail]>
Keywords: KDK MFJ connecting

Does anyone have the pinout to connect an MFJ-1278 to a KDK FM-144?

Thanks.

+----------------------------------------------+
|  The virtue of a free government is that the |
|  more freedom you have, the less government  |
|  you need to have.                           |
|  [e-mail]                           |
|  [e-mail]                |
|  [e-mail]   |
|  410-764-5878 (V) 410-764-5830(TTY)          |
|  410-764-5891 (Fax)                          |
+----------------------------------------------+


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:35 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Admit it, the CW test is stupid!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:00:13 -0400
References: <01bb5fe3.b58926e0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Phil Sussman wrote:
>
> Thor Wiegman wrote:
> >
> > Let's see....my interest is to run AMTOR on the HF bands.  I have to pass
> > a test of my skill in CW.  There is no test of my knowledge or skill using
> > AMTOR....I might not have a clue how to legally use that mode, but by god
> > if I can operate CW then I'm your boy and I can just have at it.
> >
>
> > Just my view on it....what do you think?
> >
> > Thor
> > operator of amateur radio station N7JCT
>
> Greetings,
>
> You want to run AMTOR, etc.. a digital mode! Here's what I think:
>
> Perhaps the NOVICE portions of 10, 15, 40, and 80Mtrs should be
> allowed to have not only CW, but digital operations. Passing a
> CW test at 5 wpm for digital priviledges (limited to 250w in the
> Novice band) means any TECH-PLUS licensee could get a taste of
> RTTY- Amtor - PACTOR - CLOVER - etc....
>
> Comments???
>
> 73 de Phil - KB8LUJ
> .end

Sounds good to me.  Maybe we need to move from a CW test to more on
regulations and basic technical info on the various modes.  Heck, if we
need a CW test to get on HF then why not a typing test too?  The total
bandwith used for the digital modes would be reduced to a fraction if
everyone could type as fast as the computer can transfer data :)



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:36 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help w/ KAM & 767GX
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:02:25 -0400
References: <4qk4dv$[e-mail]>
To: Richard Florio <[e-mail]>

Richard Florio wrote:
>
> I would very much appreciate some help connecting my new KAM plus to
> my 767. I don't want to make a mistake and fry anything!
>
> Please reply to  [e-mail]
>
> Thank you!
>
> KB2TMA  Rich
> "I'm really totally together. I even think I should be."
>
>                     Syd Barrett

The 767 has PTT, Rx and Tx audio available at RCA jacks on the rear
panel.  You should have no problem.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:37 1996
From: [e-mail] (Glenn Elmore)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Deviation measurement with spectrum analyzer?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 15:55:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4qp261$[e-mail]>
References: <4qn4o4$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:

: I need help to adjust deviation using a spectum analyser. My rig is
: dsp2232 using g3ruh 9k6 modem and tm733, and a local tv station will
: assist with spectrum analyser.

: What should I measure?

Dennis,
   Depending upon what sort of SA you use, you may be able  measure more
   than one way. An easy way that I often use is to use slope detection.
   Generally the resolution bandwidth filters in an SA have well behaved
   shape. This can be used to advantage.

   With a span of ~5 times your desired modulation bandwidth, sweep a CW
   signal; calibrator, 0 frequency or other stable source and observe
   the display as you change resolution bandwidths (as contrasted to video
   bandwidth which is post-detection).

   You should be able to find a setting which provides a relatively
   straight line for a considerable portion of its skirt at ~45 degree
   angle on screen.  This selection isn't critical, I'm just giving
   these numbers as a starting place. Note the slope of this line, that is,
   how many vertical divisions correspond to the desired modulation width.

   Once you have found an approriate res bandwidth and have your device to
   be measured suitably connected, adjust for a top-of-screen display.
   Note what frequency on either side is more or less centered in the
   straightest section of the resolution bandwidth filter shape determined
   above. The amplitude response at this frequency will probably be at least
   10 or 20 dB below the maximum at the center of the filter.

   Now tune the analyzer center frequency to that frequency and go to zero spa
n.

   At this point you may want to increase the sweep speed, but it's not
   imperative.  What the display should now show is the FM, recovered by the
   slope detection of the filter, with a sensitivity as noted above. When
   you have set the amplitude of the recovered signal to be the same as
   was noted above, your transmitter will be deviating the desired
   amount.  In addition, if you turn up the sweep speed so that it
   sweeps in ~10 symbol times (baud/10 for digital modulation or perhaps
   1-5 ms for audio), you'll be able to verify that the transmitted
   signal is an accurate representation of the input modulation.

   Hope this all makes sense and helps.

   Glenn Elmore n6gn




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:37 1996
From: Bernie McPeck <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Kenwood TS-930SAT
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 22:27:34 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

For Sale Kenwood TS-930SAT HF Transceiver in excellent condition
with service manual and original carton.  $895.00 UPS U.S.
Call 508-746-3734 or e-mail [e-mail]
Tnx es 73, Bernie  WA1CTR


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:38 1996
From: steve <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: help with pocket packet
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:40:16 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

have hp 200Lx,ic-24,micropower-2  and i'm getting "stack overflow"
now remember,this is my first time on packet.thanks  steve


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (ANDY AT HERNE BAY,KENT,UK.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Q? ANYBODY USING GPS/PACKET RADIO IN UK ?
Date: 26 Jun 1996 06:18:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4qqknb$[e-mail]>

I am looking to use GPS via packet in the UK, anybody already using said
beast in UK...


Andy..............



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:40 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Grey)
Subject: AEA DSP-232 User Group??
Message-ID: <61a7cc$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:48:25 GMT


Hi,

Anyone know if there is an AEA DSP-232 user group?

Gordon, ZL3AAI





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (A.C. SPRAGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Is anyone using the Apple IIc for packet?
Date: 26 Jun 1996 10:50:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4qr4ku$[e-mail]>
References: <4qepv2$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hi Mike:
     I still have an Apple ][+ that works and it has a serial board in it that
I used with a modem.  The software that I used with the modem is Modem 740.
I have used modem software (Telix on an XT) with a Kantronics KPC-3, but have
been
looking around for something better with a split screen.  I haven't tried
to put the Apple on packet yet, but that is the game plan for the next month
or so.  Somebody in this newsgroup suggested SofTerm but I haven't found
it on the net yet.  Let me know if you come up with any good software.

Thanks and 73 de A.C., W5EZM
[e-mail]

In article <4qepv2$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Epstein) s
ays:
>Maybe this is a clearer request for info. If anyone is using the Apple II
>for packet, a young ham in the area wants to know what TNC and software
>you are using. E-mail me at [e-mail]

>Mike
>KD1DS
>Starr, SC
>


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:42 1996
From: "Valery Filin" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Radioheart
Date: 26 Jun 1996 11:06:42 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Valery V.Filin/Visotckogo 12 fl.24/Odessa/270025/Ukraine" <[e-mail]>

Hello!

Greetings for everybody who lives in this big and various World.
Greetings for all who likes music or radio.
I am writing my message from Odessa.
It's interesting town, intercity near Black Sea
and here i'm making the tiny musical radiostation.
Even a small station begin to live when she has a pulsing heart.
Yeah, it's a transmitter.
Step by step i save up means for the transmitter.
Anyway i need your help.
You can write me a letter:

  Valery V. Filin
  Visotckogo str. 12, fl.24
  Odessa, 270025
  Ukraine

I'll glad to read your advices, opinions and simply good words.
Peoples who want help me are interesting for myself.
Maybe you have a records which must be on a radio.
Please, send your ideas.
And at last you can support me by small sum:

  Commerzbank AG, Frankfurt/Main acc.no.4008869901USD
  in favour of Imexbank, Odessa in favour of
  Valery Victorovich Filin acc.no.001139619.44

Or the way trough the american bank:

  The Bank Of New York, N.Y. acc.no.890-0054-808 in favour of
  Dialogbank in favour of Imexbank acc.no.02000090088 in favour of
  Valery Victorovich Filin acc.no.001139619.44

Thank you.
Warmest regards,
                                        Valery


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ron Long)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Need software for Tono 777
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:09:51 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qjiph$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Bob Lewis <[e-mail]> wrote
:

> Rolfe Tessem wrote:
> >
> > I have an old Tono Theta 777 that I'd like to use for monitoring a
> > specific commercial channel. In its native mode, accessed by talking
> > to it with a dumb terminal program, it's quite unfriendly. I recall
> > that someone was selling DOS-based software for this unit a few years
> > ago. Can anyone give me a lead on this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rolfe
> > W3VH
> > --
> > Rolfe Tessem         |     Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
> > [e-mail]        |     96 Morton Street
> > [phone]       |     New York, NY 10014
>
> I'm the one who sold TCOM-777 for the Tono.  I'll ship a copy to you
> this week.  No charge.
>
> 73, Bob (AA4PB)

I have a Tono 777 (and the software) which I would like to sell. Anyone
interested?

Ron Long w8gus. [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:44 1996
From: George Georgiev <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Q: How to mesure 900MHz and 2.4GHz RF density?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:31:56 -0400
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960626121233.20229A-100000@smtp>

Hi everyone,

I am interested of how to mesure current 902-916 MHz diapasone RF field
density and also 2.4 GHz diapasone density downtown Montreal in order to
see if a wireless spread-spectrum data link in one of these wave ranges
could be used instead of cable link. Is there some (relatively)simple
device (I will make it if possible), that I can use with yagi antenna to
pinpoint where are located any emiters?

                        Thanks in advance, George.

---------  All opinions are my own, no company or org. ---------
---------  should be linked with what is stated here.  ---------
George Georgiev    [e-mail]
                   [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:45 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:33:43 -0400
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Burt Fisher wrote:
>
> Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
> (but I told you that a long time ago)
>
> KENWOOD DEFENDS DISTRIBUTION PLANS
>
> Kenwood Communications Corp says its recently announced plans to make its
> products available in more retail outlets will help to rejuvenate ham radio.
> Citing concerns about the future of Amateur Radio and a changing business
> climate, Kenwood announced it was taking "some bold steps" to revamp its
> wholesale distribution scheme.
>
> In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio community, Kenwood's
> Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales Manager Paul Middleton,
> KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked at where Amateur Radio
> is today, and where it is going to be in ten years at the present rate
> of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote, citing competition from
> unlicensed communications modes. (internet).
>
>  "It is also obvious that the rate of no-code licensees is slowing down
> with fewer and fewer people upgrading," Middleton wrote. "Amateur Radio
> dealers should be more interested in attracting new people to our hobby.
> Every current amateur operator who wants this hobby to continue should
> be promoting ham radio to non-hams."
>
> * Microsoft Network (MSN) has dropped its Amateur Radio Forum, reports the
> unofficial forum manager Rick McMillion, WB7UGZ. He said MSN gave him the
> word recently in a terse e-mail message. McMillion says he had no warning
> that MSN was going to dump the forum.

Wow!  When did Microsoft become a driving force in ham radio?



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:45 1996
From: Thomas Sailer <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Modem as TNC
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:44:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qeqg5$[e-mail]> <4qr54v$[e-mail]>

A.C. SPRAGGINS wrote:
> shift than a tnc.  I started with a Baycom "modem" for $50, and find that
> it does everything that I need it to do except have a mailbox.  I did go
Well there is the Baycom Mailbox, TheBox, F6FBB, AA4RE and others that do run
with a baycom modem (not that I think 1200 bauds is enough for a mailbox)
Then there is Linux software supporting the baycom ser12 modem...
--
Thomas (Tom) Sailer                    EMail: [e-mail]
Weinbergstrasse 76                     Ham Radio: hb9jnx @ hb9w.che.eu
CH-8408 Winterthur                     Phone: ++41 52 222 32 81


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:46 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: question
From: [e-mail] (Aga Ahmed)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 00:01:00 +0300




   Hi all

    I am woundring if there is any email adress used for medical
 services. For example, If I want to ask about aything  in medical
 field or health care. If it is not availble, what is the email adress
 that can help me find it.



  Thanks alot for your cooperation.

REGARDS
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:47 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: question
From: [e-mail] (Ibrahim Alshugair)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 00:26:00 +0300

->   I am woundring if there is any email adress used for medical
-> services. For example, If I want to ask about aything  in medical
-> field or health care. If it is not availble, what is the email adress
-> that can help me find it.
->
-> Thanks alot for your cooperation.
-> REGARDS
-> [e-mail]
I think that u r asking at the wrrong place, pse find it at the main
conf
73's de Ibrahim


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:48 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: CW: WHO CARES?
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:52:24 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I think everyone arguing both sides of the morse issue fails to
recognize that we agreed years ago through IARU representation and
other international treaties that morse would be an appropriate HF
requirement for hams.  I believe this is still the status quo, even
though technology has obviously changed the playing field.

You don't like it?  Lobby for change.  WARC 97 is coming up.  I see
no better opportunity to correct this problem.  Though I am
proficient with CW, and I find it is still a lot of fun to play
with, I can see it isn't for everyone.  Our hobby has to change to
accomodate popular technologies or it will die.

Now please stop wasting good net bandwidth arguing whether one mode
of communications is better than the other.  One might as well argue
whether Batman could beat up Superman.  They each have their merits,
Ladies and Gentlemen, so let's drop the issue there.  Besides, this
is a hobby where the objective is to have fun.  It doesn't
neccesarily have to be rational or meet some fancy technical
criteria.  If it did, you wouldn't have anything to argue about
because there would be no ham radio.

[ok Jake, you can get off the damned soapbox now...]

73, and let's be civil out there...

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (phil reed)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: CW can not die...
Date: 27 Jun 1996 00:57:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4qsmaa$[e-mail]>
References: <4qmck7$[e-mail]>

In article <4qmck7$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>
>CW has a major advantage over phone.   It can get thru where voice can
>not. ESPECIALLY for emergency communications.   It has the ability to be
>used over longer distances and still be readable.

And data can get through where voice AND CW cannot.

I don't know who you're preaching to, but it is irrelevant to *this* no-code
tech. I'm not interested in what you can do on HF. VHF and up covers exactly
what I'm interested in doing.

--
                        ...phil

Copyright, Phillip C. Reed, 1996. Microsoft Network is prohibited
from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. License
to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1,000.
Appearance without permission constitutes an agreement to these
terms. Please send notices of violation to [e-mail]
and [e-mail].

Naughty words: eWorks! OT7 IBM bomb Green Card hack phreak breast sex

PGP fingerprint =  C5 41 B5 9E B4 56 0C C3  26 FC B9 ED BC D7 CA 8B



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:50 1996
From: [e-mail] (Schmidt)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: desperatly seeking Marco,
Date: 27 Jun 1996 08:13:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4qtfql$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

hi there,

I'm missing an old friend of mine: Marco HB9SFD (of Tessin Switzerland)
He is activ operating packet radio in CH.

his mail-adress has changed so I cannot get in contact to him any more.

If someone got any info about him please let me know or forward him my message
.

tnx Detlef (dk4eg)

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Beckman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Modem as TNC
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:05:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CSLE87-2706961005500001@145.39.1.10>
References: <4qeqg5$[e-mail]> <4qr54v$[e-mail]>

In article <4qr54v$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hi Betty Ann:
>      If it were possible to do it, many hams would have already done it.
> I think that modems use different frequency tones and possibly a different
> shift than a tnc.  I started with a Baycom "modem" for $50, and find that
> it does everything that I need it to do except have a mailbox.  I did go
> out and buy a Kantronics KPC-3 for $130 but rarely use it.  This will change
> soon as I bring up a battery powered system here.
>
>      Let me know if you find someone who has converted a modem to tnc.
>
> Thanks and 73 de A.C., W5EZM, [e-mail]
>
>
The 202 family of modems uses the same tones as current 1200B VHF packet
systems, in fact those were used for packet before TNCs became popular
items.
FYI, it's the fastest wireline modem that works for simplex operation over
a simplex PTT radio (the 103 can be used at 110B or 300B).  All the other
faster ones must hear a handshake signal from the receiving end while they
are sending their originate tone sequence.
The TNC includes an embedded processor to decode the HDLC into simple
ASCII so you can use a dumb terminal to see what's going on.  In the old
days you ran the HDLC conversion as hand-written code in your desktop
computer, which wasn't easy on a Z-80 with 32k RAM!
--
Karl Beckman, P.E.                <      If our English language is so   >
Motorola Private Data Systems     <   precise, why do you drive on the   >
Schaumburg, IL  /  Parma, OH      <   parkway and park on the driveway?  >
[phone] / [phone]
**  Opinions expressed here do NOT represent the views of Motorola Inc. **
--
Amateur radio WA8NVW                        NavyMARS NNN0VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Beckman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 10:14:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CSLE87-2706961014250001@145.39.1.10>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qr7g6$[e-mail]>

In article <4qr7g6$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:

> [e-mail] (Tom  Zoch) wrote:
>
>
> >Don't forget Bill Gates (Microsoft) is one of the Major players behind
> >the Leo Satellite people who want to take over our Ham bands. It is no
> >surprise that they want to call it dead! Apparently Kenwood will be
> >making the electronics for them and are also willing to turn there backs
> >on us. I will never consider buying a Kenwood product.
>
> >Tom
> >KC7PMQ
>
> When Bill Gates is ready for the ham bands, he won't have to murder
> them or take them over with Kenwood's help. He'll just buy them.
> Whatever gives you the idea that Kenwood is turning their back on
> you ? The press release said they were pushing for more new hams....
>
> 73, Jim KH2D

If you guys were paying more attention to reality, you'd already know that
Bill Gates and Microsoft have disclaimed any lust for the 2M and 70 cm
bands.  MS and Apple are major players in reallocating the 5.8 GHz ham
band to low-power unlicensed computer networks.  They need much more
bandwidth for the RF network protocols they have developed, and those
boxes are already in production!
--
Karl Beckman, P.E.                <      If our English language is so   >
Motorola Private Data Systems     <   precise, why do you drive on the   >
Schaumburg, IL  /  Parma, OH      <   parkway and park on the driveway?  >
[phone] / [phone]
**  Opinions expressed here do NOT represent the views of Motorola Inc. **
--
Amateur radio WA8NVW                        NavyMARS NNN0VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:53 1996
From: [e-mail](Jean-Pierre Heulin )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: winsock
Date: 27 Jun 1996 13:55:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4qu3sb$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>hi has anyone tryed to setup trumpet winsock to work with a jnos
program
>if so i need help getting this set up need some directions on how to
do this
>any help would be greatly appreciated.    thank you
>                                             ed/n0ppg
>ampernet:  n0ppg-uhf.ampr.org
>packet:   kz7i.#msp.mn.usa.na


You don't need Winsock to run Jnos, Jnos is a DOS program, Winsock is a
WINdows program.. You use Winsock with Windows tcp/ip programs, Jnos
has no use for Winsock...

73 de Jean-Pierre kc6jet



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (MAILLET D.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: DSP
Date: 27 Jun 1996 14:10:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4qu4p0$[e-mail]>

hello ;
I want to buy a DSP filter audio.
please give me a argumentation for help me in my choise
I'm traffic 80% in CW.
technical restriction; band witch; speed of reaction...

TNX fer all info .



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Glenn Elmore)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Spread Spectrum basic questions
Date: 27 Jun 1996 15:50:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4quajp$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

David Covert ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Ok... I have a handle on the concepts involved with SS, but I am
: unclear as to how it is all actually implemented.


You might be interested in looking at TAPR's page
http://www.tapr.org/ss

and perhaps my pages

http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn

under 'l3tnc'.


Glenn Elmore n6gn

amateur IP:     [e-mail]
Internet:       [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:56 1996
From: [e-mail](JOSEPH A CIRA)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,
Subject: CORRECTION to the latest ham web site list URL !!!
Date: 27 Jun 1996 16:21:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4quce7$[e-mail]>

fellow HAMS
    brain fart ?!?!

    the correct url for the web-ham.list
    is http://www.padl.ac.at/schule/chemie/bob.htm

    look on the page for websites by KB6AXK....
joe,kb6axk

--
*****************************************************************************
U.S.AMATEUR RADIO STATION " KB6AXK "| SYSOP OF HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91107           |  at 818-584-1952 any speed 8-N-1
e-mail to [e-mail]      | dedicated to amateur radio !
                ARRL/LAX/ACC        | ARRL MIRROR SITE...........
*****************************************************************************
        researching the CIRA family genealogy
        in TERMINI IMERESE,PALERMO,SICILY,ITALY..........
_____________________________________________________________________________
IUOE/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS LOCAL 501
        HVAC/R,IAQ,SYSTEMS,CONTROLS,AIR BALANCE,PERFORMANCE,PM's,PLUMBING,
        ELECTRICAL,MECH SYSTEMS,EMS/BMS,DDC,CODES,STANDARDS,REGS,QUIDELINES,
        PPE,HAZMAT,IPP,and more .............
        info call HALL 213-385-1561 or SCHOOL at 213-385-2889...........
*****************************************************************************
MY RESUME is on my web site at :) http://www.netcom.com/~kb6axk/resume.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:24:58 1996
From: "joseph a. cira" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Latest WEB-HAM.LIST amateur radio websites for jun/96 ,2405 sites
Date: 27 Jun 1996 16:27:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4qucpp$[e-mail]>
References: <4qmfot$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

hello folks
the correct URL is;



--
*************************************************************************
****
U.S.AMATEUR RADIO STATION " KB6AXK "| SYSOP OF HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91107           |  at 818-584-1952 any speed 8-N-1
e-mail to [e-mail]      | dedicated to amateur radio !
                ARRL/LAX/ACC        | ARRL MIRROR SITE...........
*************************************************************************
****
        researching the CIRA family genealogy
        in TERMINI IMERESE,PALERMO,SICILY,ITALY..........
_________________________________________________________________________
____
IUOE/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS LOCAL 501
        HVAC/R,IAQ,SYSTEMS,CONTROLS,AIR
BALANCE,PERFORMANCE,PM's,PLUMBING,
        ELECTRICAL,MECH
SYSTEMS,EMS/BMS,DDC,CODES,STANDARDS,REGS,QUIDELINES,
        PPE,HAZMAT,IPP,and more .............
        info call HALL 213-385-1561 or SCHOOL at 213-385-2889...........
*************************************************************************
****
MY RESUME is on my web site at :)
http://www.netcom.com/~kb6axk/resume.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:00 1996
From: "joseph a. cira" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Latest WEB-HAM.LIST amateur radio websites for jun/96 ,2405 sites
Date: 27 Jun 1996 16:27:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4qucpr$[e-mail]>
References: <4qmfot$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

hello folks
the correct URL is;



--
*************************************************************************
****
U.S.AMATEUR RADIO STATION " KB6AXK "| SYSOP OF HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91107           |  at 818-584-1952 any speed 8-N-1
e-mail to [e-mail]      | dedicated to amateur radio !
                ARRL/LAX/ACC        | ARRL MIRROR SITE...........
*************************************************************************
****
        researching the CIRA family genealogy
        in TERMINI IMERESE,PALERMO,SICILY,ITALY..........
_________________________________________________________________________
____
IUOE/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS LOCAL 501
        HVAC/R,IAQ,SYSTEMS,CONTROLS,AIR
BALANCE,PERFORMANCE,PM's,PLUMBING,
        ELECTRICAL,MECH
SYSTEMS,EMS/BMS,DDC,CODES,STANDARDS,REGS,QUIDELINES,
        PPE,HAZMAT,IPP,and more .............
        info call HALL 213-385-1561 or SCHOOL at 213-385-2889...........
*************************************************************************
****
MY RESUME is on my web site at :)
http://www.netcom.com/~kb6axk/resume.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:02 1996
From: "joseph a. cira" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Latest WEB-HAM.LIST amateur radio websites for jun/96 ,2405 sites
Date: 27 Jun 1996 16:30:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4qucvq$[e-mail]>
References: <4qmfot$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

hello
   the corrected URL is ;
    http://www.padl.ac.at/schule/chemie/bob.htm
brain fart
joe,kb6axk


--
*************************************************************************
****
U.S.AMATEUR RADIO STATION " KB6AXK "| SYSOP OF HAM*INFO*LINK*SOURCE*BBS
PASADENA,CALIFORNIA 91107           |  at 818-584-1952 any speed 8-N-1
e-mail to [e-mail]      | dedicated to amateur radio !
                ARRL/LAX/ACC        | ARRL MIRROR SITE...........
*************************************************************************
****
        researching the CIRA family genealogy
        in TERMINI IMERESE,PALERMO,SICILY,ITALY..........
_________________________________________________________________________
____
IUOE/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS LOCAL 501
        HVAC/R,IAQ,SYSTEMS,CONTROLS,AIR
BALANCE,PERFORMANCE,PM's,PLUMBING,
        ELECTRICAL,MECH
SYSTEMS,EMS/BMS,DDC,CODES,STANDARDS,REGS,QUIDELINES,
        PPE,HAZMAT,IPP,and more .............
        info call HALL 213-385-1561 or SCHOOL at 213-385-2889...........
*************************************************************************
****
MY RESUME is on my web site at :)
http://www.netcom.com/~kb6axk/resume.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:03 1996
From: Jean-Luc BARRAUD <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: TNC-24 experience ?
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:12:22 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello,

        I will have a TNC-24 at a quite (very) low cost, I should want to know your
experience about this system. I have a PK232 for some years now, how can you d
efine
(where are) the differences ?

        Best 73's de Jean-Luc [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:03 1996
From: Chuck Harrington <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: What is good Win. pkt prog?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:18:15 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qt2su$[e-mail]>

Ed Gallup wrote:
>
>    I'm planning on finally dropping my old DOS based packet program and
> getting a windows base program.  I'm not necessarily looking for a feature
> rich program,  just a nice simple, fairly easy-to-use program just to check
> into the local bbs and occasionally download or upload messages.
>
>   Can anyone suggest a shareware or freeware for me to try?  It can be for W
in
> 3.1 or Win 95.  Thanks.
>
>    Ed   WB6SAT   [e-mail]

Ed, give Visual PacketPeT a try! Click below to download.

73 Chuck

--
Visual PacketPeT Lite - Terminal Software For All hardware TNCs!
Shareware - Download ftp://qrz.com./incoming/vpaket31.zip
Chuck Harrington Software, Inc. - [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jean-Luc BARRAUD)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: TNC-24 experience ?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 05:49:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4qvro3$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

                        Hello,


        I will have in some days a TNC-24. I already have a PK232 for 3 or 4
years now. Can anyone tell me the major differences in the
performances and in the use of these machines, I think this could help
me to move from PK232 to the TNC-24 (wich have PSK built-in).

                73's de Jean-Luc [e-mail] or 100343,3613 (CIS)



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:06 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
From: [e-mail] (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Re: HELP! - WISP MSPE problem
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qor5m$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:00:05 GMT

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ronal
d G. Parsons) writes:

>In article <4qor5m$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Baker)
>wrote:

>> Greetings,
>>
>> I just got WISP configured, but I get the error message
>> "Error - Unknown KISS data type 10" in the upper right hand
>> corner as data is received.  I selected the option to log
>> KISS data to disk, and it is definately getting data from
>> the sats (KO-23, KO-25, UO-22), but never "recognises" it.
>>
>> Can anyone help????  I am using a 486DX4-100/PK-900/FT-736R.
>> PK-900 firmware is 05.MAR.93.  WISP release 9603.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any help.
>> David - AB5PI


>Nothing (much) to worry about. This in an indication of data overrun from
>the TNC to the computer. So the bytes got shifted in the packet and the
>KISS data type was the wrong byte.

I don't know WISP, but when I would see an error like that in a KISS
based program I would think about a problem with multi-channel KISS.
type 10 (hex) is the type used for data received from the second channel
of the TNC.  Maybe WISP cannot cope with it, or has to be configured
for it.

Rob
--
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen       [e-mail] | BBS: [phone] (2300-0730 local) |
| AMPRnet:       [e-mail] | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Applegate)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: Proof ham radio is dying
Date: 28 Jun 1996 13:30:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0mpv$[e-mail]>
References: <4q7dct$[e-mail]> <znr835215179k@Digex> <4qcv27$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <a8009318.2.0014C342@mcmaster <4qqt0g$[e-mail]>

In article <4qqt0g$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:

>Consider what he says.... If OS/2 reach 1Million users, he would
>restart OS/2 app development.... Well, OS/2 have over 12Millions
>of users. And weeks before the OS/2 app development cut off, he
>stated that there is no reason for him to stop OS/2 app development,
>and yet, he stop the development a few weeks later.... I even have
>a recording of Bill Gates saying "We believe OS/2 is the platform
>for the 90's".... So much for a lying and cheating Businessman....

Let's be honest here for a change... Bill is a VERY schrew
businessman.  I don't know when he said the quote above, but
at the time, he might have really believed it.  As markets
change, a smart businessman changes with it.  Only a complete
moron would favor a product owned 50% by his company over a
product he owns 100% that is gaining market share.

Let's get back to ham radio and leave the MS bashing to the
comp.* groups.





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Chris Farrell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: Q: How to mesure 900MHz and 2.4GHz RF density?
Date: 28 Jun 1996 17:14:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4r13ud$[e-mail]>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960626121233.20229A-100000@smtp>

You could use a RF radiation field servey meter that would give you mw/cmsq
The probes used for such meters are so broad banded that you would
have a difficult time determining which frequencies you are measuring.

The only way to get a good feel for the spectrum is with a spectrum analyzer.
You can connect an amplifier to your Yagi if the signals are low level.
You could build a spectrum analizer that would connect up to an o-scope but I
have never seen one that would extend above 1.2 without down conversion.

You would be much better off with a portable spectrum analyzer tektronics make
s
a model 492P which retailed for ~ $12K US.  Try a rental place or maybe Tucker

will rent/lease one for your measurements.  They are on the WWW I don't have
the address handy. Use a search engine.

You would then need to calculate the free space attenuation of the signal leve
l
you recieved and you could determine the approx tx output if you know the
distance from the emitter.

Chris

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960626121233.20229A-100000@smtp>,
[e-mail] says...
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I am interested of how to mesure current 902-916 MHz diapasone RF fiel
>d
>density and also 2.4 GHz diapasone density downtown Montreal in order
>to
>see if a wireless spread-spectrum data link in one of these wave range
>s
>could be used instead of cable link. Is there some (relatively)simple
>device (I will make it if possible), that I can use with yagi antenna
>to
>pinpoint where are located any emiters?
>
>                        Thanks in advance, George.
>
>---------  All opinions are my own, no company or org. ---------
>---------  should be linked with what is stated here.  ---------
>George Georgiev    [e-mail]
>                   [e-mail]
>



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (jerry wang)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Baypac BP-2 good? bad?
Date: 29 Jun 1996 02:32:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4r24ke$[e-mail]>

Greetings,
I am interested in getting into packet radio.  I have had a tech license
for a year.  Packet is still a mystery to me, so I have a lot of questions.
I plan to by a Baypack BP-2 TNC for $50 from Tigertronics.  The
salesperson told me they also have the BP-2M for the multi-mode version.
What will multi-mode do for me?  Do I need it?  It costs $20 more than the
regular version.
I will be using packet on my HP 200LX palmtop computer with a Yaesu FT530
HT.  Has anyone had experience using this setup?

What about security?  I assume when I connect to a packet station or BBS I
will enter a username (my callsign?) and a password.  Couldn't anyone with
a packet setup see everything I type?  Is this anything I should be
concerned about?

73,
Jerry KE6UUX



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jeff McLeman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Re: AEA PCB-88 COM3 IRQ5 Windows95, Procomm Plus 2.11 f/Win
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 20:13:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4r430u$[e-mail]>
References: <4r3g7r$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Axinar) wrote:

>I have an AEA PCB-88 TNC connected to COM3 and IRQ5.  I am running
>Windows95 and I am having a problem with the TNC dropping characters.

>It works fine under DOS but after the first 2K or so of data my TNC
>starts to drop characters big time.

>My main terminal program is Procomm Plus 2.11 for Windows, but I have
>also tried it with Hyperterminal and have had the same problems.

>Any ideas?

>      Thanks!

>          Ax

Try dropping the TBAUD to 4800. I think the PCB88 only had a 8250 with
no buffering.





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ed Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: Ham Radio Online - June and July 1996
Date: 29 Jun 1996 21:29:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4r4789$[e-mail]>

For June, we've run over a dozen articles and we already have at least that
many in the queue for July. Stop on by and enjoy some good clean ham radio fun
at Ham Radio Online. Always free at
http://www.accessone.com/~vbook/hronline.htm

(and if that is a mouthful of a URL, we will soon be introducing a much easier
URL to remember!)

Original articles, newsletters from throughout the world of amateur radio,
free unclassified ads, real-time radio propagation and auroral conditions,
real-time disaster communication information and so much more.

Have fun!

Tnx and 73,
Ed

------------------------
Ed (KF7VY) and Kim (N7VPL) Mitchell
personal email to [e-mail]
Visit Ham Radio Online, it's free! at
http://www.accessone.com/~vbook/hronline.htm



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:12 1996
From: William Vaughn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: Is it relevent???
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 22:13:15 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Lately this newsgroup has not been up to it's usual standard. I see line
after line of drek drifting in from other newsgroups. I am sure if
someone wants to enter the code no code debate all they have to do is go
to the ..policy or any other group for that matter. This is just a plea
to the sensible to keep, at least this newsgroup, on track.


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:13 1996
From: luis velis <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: tarp psk moden and mfj1278 tnc
Date: 30 Jun 1996 05:18:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4r52mp$[e-mail]>

Hello all

Is there anyone using the TARP PSK modem with the MFJ-1278 TNC..?
I'll like to hear from you...

Best 73's
luis/n3tuk



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:25:14 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: xNOS & Netscape ...?
Date: 30 Jun 96 07:19:07 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


* From: Ravi / G0RTX
* Home PBBS: [e-mail]     [Geneva - JN36BE - 45°6N  6°1E]
* Ham Email: [e-mail] (or mirror) [e-mail]
  <**> Help me sort personal mail by adding G0RTX to the subject field

Hello everyone,

I have just got JNOS up & running with the simple Baycom modem. A very big
thank you to all those OMs who helped with tips & advice...

For those who wonder how to go abt it, here is the procedure:
 1: Load AX25 (Baycom driver)
 2: Load SHROOM (Memory managing module)
 3: Load JNOS (Version compiled with "PACKET" routine)

Well, now I am trying to go one step further and get the JNOS program and
Windows-based network applications such as WinSock, WS_FTP & Netscape to port
correctly. If someone has already tried this successfully, I would like to
hear how it is done & what modifications/drivers were used for this. Config
and batch files could make life easier for me if you send it along with your
tips & hints.

Thanks once again to all those who helped me in getting JNOS running.

73s from Ravi.