N5PVL another stupid poll

[W7DJM]

Wll, PVL, I see you've thought up yet ANOTHER (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=100398) way for the ARRL to take note, and of course, keep any meaningful discussion---read that ---disagreement with your opinion---out.


You might want to go read some of the FCC regulations. Last time I checked, 20khz wide signals were not exactly condoned on the amateur bands.

What sillyness. What stupidity. What a waste of time and trouble.

go find something more important to do, please.

N5PVL "take note."

[N5PVL]

From the Q15x25 egroup at Yahoo.Com:

Quote[/b] ]
From: "wb8wka" <wb8wka@...>
Date: Sat Aug 20, 2005 #6:03 pm
Subject: U.S. allows >20khz HF digital bandwidth ALREADY, was Q15X25, RDFT, Wyman etc #wb8wka
Offline
Send Email #

Rick:

Yes, I see the rules. However, you made a specific claim that it "was
currently legal to use UP TO 3khz bandwidth"... I assume you mean in
the U.S.

Again, SPECIFICALLY, where does it spell out the 3khz limitation in
the HF digital subband? I simply don't see it. I was referrencing
97.305, 97.307 and 97.309. There is a vague limitation in the phone
subbands -97.307(f)(2)-, but only -97.307(f)(3 & 9)- apply to the
digital subbands.

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-
305.html#305
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-
305.html#307
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-
305.html#309

I'm dead serious. Look at it. The common wisdom of 3khz (as you cite)
seems to be what folks talk about, but that dog ain't no-where to be
found in USC47, Part 97. I've gone over it time and time again, and
ran it by a few other folks who can't find it either.

-Jeff

p.s. Best as I call tell, the current bandwidth limits for baud rate
limited OFDM (each carrier <300baud, xPSK modulations) are the
subbands.

--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@c...> wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> You can find the Part 97 rules at
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/
>
> The applicable rules for data are
> 97.305, 97.309 and for automatically controlled stations 97.221
>
> Rick KN6KB
>


OK bright boy, point out where it says otherwise in the regs, for us.

While you are at it, go ahead and explain how any action of mine prevents you or anybody else from starting up a topic here at QRZ.Com.

What sillyness. # What stupidity. #What a waste of time and trouble.

Go find something more important to do.

W7DJM "take note."

[w5alt]

Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ Aug. 31 2005,19:42)]You might want to go read some of the FCC regulations. # Last time I checked, #20khz wide signals were not exactly condoned on the amateur bands.
Too bad you aren't in Atlantic Division. You could probably explain that to Carl, WK3C very diplomatically ... And then to the ARRL HSMM group and the emergency mangement teams ...

[ve2nsm]

I especially like the closed topic "poll only" with two choices, smart/stupid. Like everything in life was that easy.

[KA8NCR]

20 KHz with Q15x25 isn't possible unless you are intentionally trying to create that bandwidth via intermod. The audio front-end on a radio just does not have that kind of frequency response. Well, not unless you make it happen.

However, knowing Jeff King, I think he's anxious to see this bandwidth used for spread spectrum.

[ve2nsm]

Did I missed something or this Q15x25 protocol fits into a 2KHz bandwith? http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~signals/FFT/Q15X25.HTML
I mean, 15 tones spaced by 125 Hz does not exactly makes 20KHz... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/Q15X25/Q15X25.html

[w4rot]

N5PVL knows more than I.
I will listen.
I have learned much from his postings.
w4rot

[N5PVL]

Just like it is here, not everybody stays on-topic all the time at the Yahoo! Q15x25 egroup. - The two guys in the Yahoo! posting I showed here had drifted off-topic a bit and were shooting the breeze. There's not a lot of activity on that egroup, so it's not like they were bothering anybody with an informal discussion of digital modes in general.

Rick Muething KN6KB developed the SCAMP protocol that WL2K was supposed to be dropping PACTOR III for - but never did. That's the fellow at the bottom, that WB8WKA is responding to.

I was lurking there due to an abiding interest in Q15x25 mode. - I was authorized last month to initiate an ARRL Skipnet on 17 meters that utilizes Q15x25 mode, so far the only wide digital mode that will work for that purpose.

( PACTOR III works with some but not all BBS software, and costs 900 bucks or more as compared to Q15x25, a free download that will work with anything that expects a KISS TNC. )

Q15x25 looks to be about the same width as PACTOR III on the waterfall display, at least at the most popular setting, 2500 baud.

The Q15x25 modem is scalable from 1000 baud to 3000 baud, with the signal getting wider or narrower according to the bit rate you choose. Just about everybody uses it at the default setting of 2500 baud, as that works out best with the HF radios most of us have.

I should have thought to mention that those guys were not talking about Q15x25... If there is any confusion, it is my fault.

[N5PVL]

W4ROT, I appreciate your kind words as I don't get many of those.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 01 2005,01:24)]I should have thought to mention that those guys were not talking about Q15x25... If there is any confusion, it is my fault.
As I said, I know WB8WKA and I would bet a fiver that he's working on some spread sprectrum projects. He and I had a couple nice packet systems running many years ago; 100 watts or so into antennas at 700 feet.

I have to tell you, I think your fears of a 20 KHz signal on HF are not totally unfounded. There's been talk of the HSMM group having boards that are HF spread spectrum and that there seems like it'll raise the old noise floor a few dB. This is probably the foundation of the email exchange you quoted. This kind of experimentation is exactly what amateur radio needs to push amateur networks out of the 1980's. Concerns about wide RF signals on HF aside, why do you fear what these people are doing? I'd think as a bithead, you'd be excited to see amateur designed devices that give good throughput without having to dance around Part 15 rules as they do in wifi gear.

[W3MIV]

A Simple fact:

The HSMM Committee filed a report on which no further action has been taken.

That leads to the simple question:

If there were a move afoot at the ARRL to introduce 20kHz digital modes to HF, why would they be planning to petition the FCC to permit nothing wider than 3.5kHz below 30Mhz, with the notable exception made for AM?

These threads are like Ed Wynn looking under the bed. They would be riotously funny were it not for the few innocent folks that might lead to actually invest some worry in them. But, then, there are folks who worry about being kidnapped by aliens...



http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K0RGR]

I don't know what the context of the discussion was - I know KN6KB has been working on a higher speed version of SCAMP for VHF, too. I certainly hope he wasn't dreaming about 20 khz. signals on HF. My experience with SCAMP was not all that encouraging - the S/N ratio required was just too high, though it was impressive when it did work. Now that I've got the rig more or less functioning again after the recent CPU meltdown, I want to get both SCAMP and Q15X25 running and see how they do. There are several newer releases of SCAMP than what I was playing with.

[N5PVL]

MIV needs to try to keep up with current events.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ab8ma]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 01 2005,10:52)]were it not for the few innocent folks that might lead to actually invest some worry in them. But, then, there are folks who worry about being kidnapped by aliens...



http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But ... it's true. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif