Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:lists@subich.com: 812 ]

Total 812 documents matching your query.

361. Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:35:50 -0400
Dave, When multiple carriers are used to spread data over a range, they become a narrow band spread spectrum system (e.g ROS) which is illegal. You are well aware of the issues with ROS. In any case
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00118.html (13,107 bytes)

362. Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:59:33 -0400
No, the Bord's proposal substantially increases bandwidth over systems generally in use in the spectrum currently not allocated for phone and image use. In that spectrum, bandwidth in excess of 500
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00123.html (17,230 bytes)

363. Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:20:50 -0400
Are you going to make a ham who happens at the time to be at sea use a commercial service just to let friends and family know where he is at? Not to tell his friends and family where he is. However,
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00127.html (11,582 bytes)

364. Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:08:39 -0400
Make that *further* commercial encroachment. The maritime interests are already using the bands illegally but pushing the bandwidth to 2.8 KHz and increasing data rat to 56K or better will make the b
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00142.html (13,568 bytes)

365. Re: [RTTY] Question... (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:12:12 -0400
Mode based enforcement essentially limits data throughput. Most commercial users are not interested in channels with throughput below a few 10's of kb/s. Providing 2.8 KHz of bandwidth will allow thr
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00143.html (7,005 bytes)

366. Re: [RTTY] Question... (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:16:36 -0400
Your position posits that there are already commercial users on the ham bands now, and that once allowed to go broadband, (so to speak), they will then switch to that mode. Is this true? Are there co
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00153.html (8,844 bytes)

367. Re: [RTTY] Question... (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:45:16 -0400
John, Joe with all due respect if you have seen this please show some text of commercial operation on the ham band. way more open none ham band then anything else. Just because you choose to operate
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00158.html (10,147 bytes)

368. Re: [RTTY] Question... (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:49:33 -0400
Amateur radio is not a broadcast service. Amateur transmissions other than those *labeled as bulletins* are covered by communications secrecy rules and may not be divulged by anyone who intercepts t
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00159.html (9,238 bytes)

369. Re: [RTTY] Question... (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:04:48 -0400
You haven't looked ... 73, ... Joe, W4TV Much of the traffic handled by Winlink 2000/Sailmail networks is entirely commercial in nature and it passes without any system operator review. One is for h
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-07/msg00161.html (9,027 bytes)

370. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:54:48 -0400
The -6 dB bandwidth of the INRAD "300 Hz" filter is shown as 340 Hz which is slightly less than the theoretical 370 Hz required for 170 Hz shift 45.45 baud RTTY. That said, performance will be a trad
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00081.html (8,297 bytes)

371. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:34:43 -0400
Absolutely incorrect as 250 Hz does not account for the necessary modulation sidebands or for the discontinuity (additional bandwidth) generated by the 1.5 bit stop. Due of the half bit, the necessar
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00085.html (10,638 bytes)

372. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:05:54 -0400
No, the half bit makes the baud rate effectively 90.9 (the shortest element is now 11 ms) thus the calculation is: (2 * 90.9) + (1.2 * 170) = 385.5 Hz. although the actual occupied bandwidth will be
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00092.html (13,396 bytes)

373. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:07:55 -0400
And in any case the question was about filters not the signal. There we agree. The problem is that practical narrow crystal or mechanical filters have substantial group delay characteristics in the t
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00096.html (11,616 bytes)

374. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:00:04 -0400
Jim, As I have said many times, 250 Hz filters are trading off one set of SNR compromises for another. Using 250 Hz filters is trading increased ISI for decreased adjacent frequency QRM and potential
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00108.html (15,978 bytes)

375. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:48:07 -0400
In the RTTY case, it also depends the group delay characteristics - which is a metric never published by Inrad (that I've seen). On the Inrad filters I have measured, the group delay humps near the t
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00114.html (18,748 bytes)

376. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:16:22 -0400
However, since that error is not predictable and certainly does *not* occur after 50 "good" characters, one is taking a big chance that the error changes ("busts") a call. Just a few busted calls (o
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00143.html (14,247 bytes)

377. Re: [RTTY] 300hz or 500hz IF filter? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:03:43 -0400
I'm not aware of any published list - nor would such list be at all comprehensive as models of PCI/PCIe cards change weekly and most new systems contain "motherboard" systems. "Motherboard" systems
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-08/msg00150.html (32,364 bytes)

378. Re: [RTTY] List of Russian oblasts? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:50:01 -0400
Lacking any other source, it is included (in three parts - Kaliningrad, European Russia, Asiatic Russia)) in the ADIF specificationhttp://adif.org/304/ADIF_304.htm - or from the primary divisions in
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00040.html (8,008 bytes)

379. Re: [RTTY] Please help me about Win7/64bit of MMTTY (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:14:18 -0400
Please see the example configuration for MMTTY and DigiKeyer II in Router (Help | Download Documents) or on-line in the DigiKeyer II area of www.microHAM-USA.com/support.html. The important thing tha
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00052.html (8,654 bytes)

380. Re: [RTTY] Long TX After Message Ends (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:39:49 -0400
Are you using AFSK (PKT) or FSK (RTTY)? 1) Disable PTT via CAT and use only PTT via RTS 2) Disable any CAT commands to switch TX/RX in MMTTY. 3) make sure "Sound card PTT" is not selected in microHAM
/archives//html/RTTY/2013-09/msg00067.html (7,488 bytes)

Current List: 361 - 380
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
This search system is powered by Namazu