Return-Path: Received: from mtain-mj09.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-mj09.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.21.164.93]) by air-md03.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMD033-8b7e4bdb33c21f3; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:47:14 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-mj09.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id EAC4E380000E5; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:47:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wAE-0003ur-Gy for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:46:18 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wAE-0003uh-3r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:46:18 +0100 Received: from cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.44]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O7wAC-0006bY-69 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:46:18 +0100 Received: from smtps01.kuleuven.be (smtpshost01.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.74]) by cavuit02.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F32C51C001 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:46:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB-N2.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub-n2.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.12]) by smtps01.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCA831E702 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:46:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be ([10.112.11.13]) by ICTS-S-HUB-N2.luna.kuleuven.be ([10.112.9.12]) with mapi; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:46:07 +0200 X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster From: Rik Strobbe To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:43:50 +0200 Thread-Topic: Re: ROS s/ware Thread-Index: AcrolBVzxmw/TIcXQE2v/ba0pSFrDwACV9FU Message-ID: References: <618970.37366.qm@web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, <005801cae88f$64116770$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>,<4BDB2274.14798.2CE59E3@dave.davesergeant.com> In-Reply-To: <4BDB2274.14798.2CE59E3@dave.davesergeant.com> Accept-Language: nl-NL, nl-BE Content-Language: nl-BE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, nl-BE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039400c89b24bdb33c039dc X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) the EME version has less than 100Hz bandwidth. The other ROS modes are several kHz wide and not suited for 501-504kHz. What about JT2 or JT4 as an alternative ? 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.or= g] namens Dave Sergeant [dave@davesergeant.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 20:33 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: LF: Re: ROS s/ware On 30 Apr 2010 at 19:03, mal hamilton wrote: > Pete > I see what u mean. I have checked the freq of interest and concluded > that it is not a suitable mode for the narrow 500 kcs slot available to > us. I wonder what is next on the appliance operators list. g3kev For once I am afraid I agree with Mal... ROS created quite a stir when it first appeared on HF earlier in the year. Their first suggested working frequency on 20m put it splattering right over the IARU beacons on 14100, which it seems the developers had never heard of. They soon moved it.... And of course the FCC have decreed it is not legal in the USA because it is 'spread spectrum' which is not allowed below 220MHz. What advantage has it over the other digital modes which have been trialed on 500kHz? It is right that we should support these various digital modes (but none of them turn me on at all) but we should not do so at the danger of making the band unusable for other operators (and QSOs...). I am not on transmit mode at the moment, just receive. 73 Dave G3YMC http://www.davesergeant.com