DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=oDNN7kXtebMjUTAVyqIhyjYFiRJgBBgYpTiZzfgpLL+IpHxYEozug6SzKmVzfrDYzR
         tQmhjZ6b7kkun843c99rOl6TM6AIEdCY/IEeM7JpVJnEn761YlgvFrBJAFEx5GpK69Po
         y5Mf4XmrTzvJqk6GAKdq5li18ePb+eq38CCOw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E96@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be>
References: <618970.37366.qm@web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	 <005801cae88f$64116770$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf>
	 <4BDB2274.14798.2CE59E3@dave.davesergeant.com>
	 <BF4A524700075746A6467658DFC7102C19A2156E96@ICTS-S-EXC2-CA.luna.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:02:33 +0100
Message-ID: <l2h1f0624b91004301302rea5b9599sc721d3cf91670c9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gary - G4WGT <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: RE: Re: ROS s/ware
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d77f5a58c275048579b92e
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


--0016e6d77f5a58c275048579b92e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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@fys.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_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
>

--0016e6d77f5a58c275048579b92e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rik, LF,<div><br></div><div>ROS EME mode is 64 Hz wide apparently &amp; th=
e version (16 &amp; 8 baud) Graham &amp; I were using tonight was 500 Hz=
 wide.</div><div><br></div><div>73</div><div><br></div><div>Gary - G4WGT.<=
/div>
<div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 30 April 2010 20:43, Rik Strobb=
e <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be">Rik=
.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex;">
the EME version has less than 100Hz bandwidth.<br>
The other ROS modes are several kHz wide and not suited for 501-504kHz.<br=
>
What about JT2 or JT4 as an alternative ?<br>
<br>
73, Rik =A0ON7YD - OR7T<br>
________________________________________<br>
Van: <a href=3D"mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">owner-rsgb_lf_g=
roup@blacksheep.org</a> [<a href=3D"mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.=
org">owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org</a>] namens Dave Sergeant [<a href=
=3D"mailto:dave@davesergeant.com">dave@davesergeant.com</a>]<br>

Verzonden: vrijdag 30 april 2010 20:33<br>
Aan: <a href=3D"mailto:rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org">rsgb_lf_group@blacksh=
eep.org</a><br>
Onderwerp: LF: Re: ROS s/ware<br>
<br>
On 30 Apr 2010 at 19:03, mal hamilton wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Pete<br>
&gt; I see what u mean. I have checked the freq of interest and concluded<=
br>
&gt; that it is not a suitable mode for the narrow 500 kcs slot available=
 to<br>
&gt; us. I wonder what is next on the appliance operators list. g3kev<br>
<br>
For once I am afraid I agree with Mal...<br>
<br>
ROS created quite a stir when it first appeared on HF earlier in the<br>
year. Their first suggested working frequency on 20m put it splattering<br=
>
right over the IARU beacons on 14100, which it seems the developers had<br=
>
never heard of. They soon moved it.... And of course the FCC have<br>
decreed it is not legal in the USA because it is &#39;spread spectrum&#39;=
<br>
which is not allowed below 220MHz.<br>
<br>
What advantage has it over the other digital modes which have been<br>
trialed on 500kHz? It is right that we should support these various<br>
digital modes (but none of them turn me on at all) but we should not do<br=
>
so at the danger of making the band unusable for other operators (and<br>
QSOs...).<br>
<br>
I am not on transmit mode at the moment, just receive.<br>
<br>
73 Dave G3YMC<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.davesergeant.com" target=3D"_blank">http://www.daves=
ergeant.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--0016e6d77f5a58c275048579b92e--