Return-Path: Received: from mtain-me02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-me02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.138]) by air-dd01.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDD011-86074bdb3b3422; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:19:00 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-me02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 18BCF3800015B; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wep-0004pz-Sl for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:17:55 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wep-0004pq-BX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:17:55 +0100 Received: from cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O7wem-0006mt-W1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:17:55 +0100 Received: from smtps02.kuleuven.be (smtpshost02.kulnet.kuleuven.be [134.58.240.75]) by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E357B8054 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:17:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ICTS-S-HUB-N2.luna.kuleuven.be (icts-s-hub-n2.luna.kuleuven.be [10.112.9.12]) by smtps02.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E4AF3862 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:17:43 +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 22:17:43 +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 22:13:27 +0200 Thread-Topic: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware Thread-Index: AcrooIfiRZPjouV8RRurCy/IbojvCgAAQ/wE Message-ID: References: <618970.37366.qm@web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <005801cae88f$64116770$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4BDB2274.14798.2CE59E3@dave.davesergeant.com> , In-Reply-To: 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,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: RE: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E97ICTSSEXC2CAlu_" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, 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: 3039ac1d608a4bdb3b320ec7 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E97ICTSSEXC2CAlu_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Gary, sorry, I overlooked the 500Hz version. But even that mode is "no go" for me (and several others). ON, PA and mayb= e other countries have a 100Hz bandwidth limit. Taking into account that= the band is only 3kHz wide this limit makes sense to me. ROS-EME would be OK in regard with bandwidth, but I am not sure the coding= is public (what is a requirement in Belgium). 73, Rik ON7YD - OR7T ________________________________ Van: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.or= g] namens Gary - G4WGT [g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 22:02 Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Onderwerp: Re: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware Rik, LF, ROS EME mode is 64 Hz wide apparently & the version (16 & 8 baud) Graham= & I were using tonight was 500 Hz wide. 73 Gary - G4WGT. On 30 April 2010 20:43, Rik Strobbe > wrote: 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.org] 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 --_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E97ICTSSEXC2CAlu_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Gary,
 
sorry, I overlooked the 500Hz version.
But even that mode is "no go" for me (and several others).= ON, PA and maybe other countries have a 100Hz bandwidth limit. Taking int= o account that the band is only 3kHz wide this limit makes sense to me.
ROS-EME would be OK in regard with bandwidth, but I am not sure the= coding is public (what is a requirement in Belgium).
 
73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
 
Van: owner-rsgb_= lf_group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Gary= - G4WGT [g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk]
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 22:02
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Onderwerp: Re: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware

Rik, LF,

ROS EME mode is 64 Hz wide apparently & the version (16 & 8= baud) Graham & I were using tonight was 500 Hz wide.

73

Gary - G4WGT.


On 30 April 2010 20:43, Rik Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fy= s.kuleuven.be> wrote:
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_g= roup@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Dave Sergeant [dave@davesergeant.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 20:33
Aan: rsgb_lf_group@blacksh= eep.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<= br> > 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.daves= ergeant.com

--_000_BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E97ICTSSEXC2CAlu_--