Return-Path: Received: from mtain-dg11.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-dg11.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.65.19]) by air-dc04.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDC041-86004bdb3e1221f; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:31:14 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-dg11.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 628CD380000DB; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wqi-0004wv-GS for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:30:12 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1O7wqh-0004wm-U8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:30:11 +0100 Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1O7wqf-0006rJ-3T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:30:11 +0100 Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so425596wwd.16 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=2AaWMOaRAVwyZBNRwtwky3VmRhEMdNkQcIUtWH0hjZk=; b=Y3qiDZGOplLo/L3L58WGzRYtsJuw6M5VZVhcnd1pAuALUDspHHzgwzPwS3E0Ltpxs0 JCU6e5IYEeiz0HI3A3ZgjTOMUHZijhUogq2dNyU0IgcR4F2dduaQGUQ+UQoIIFaQfFvy 3Q7tO/Ow12WRLPHxTHVbbOuorq4q+FkeRg8DM= 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=iLIoXUIMjtZM2qvJFLBfpZ4yxkTP/uFnCx7X+hUTlTAXYgyY82mFDeCyJo5I5rTSyF BRdWKFZQh10ae3kzzoC6OAweuxyEMPsDu6fkdkrjjY2XHR9w3olRbWN3dctQlrzTF2Sa LZDwSjgI4eG4CjvMhhXZu9ThRT9Hggu4HNktY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.3 with SMTP id v3mr2238891wee.190.1272659401175; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.175.8 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <618970.37366.qm@web28105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <005801cae88f$64116770$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <4BDB2274.14798.2CE59E3@dave.davesergeant.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:30:01 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b7482b67e7c49f42 Message-ID: From: Gary - G4WGT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 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=0016e6d7841986f39404857a1bf0 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 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-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d248.2 ; domain : googlemail.com DKIM : fail x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d41134bdb3e106b07 X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) --0016e6d7841986f39404857a1bf0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Rik, I am not really in favour of the wide modes ie. 500 Hz on our small band, but I will be running the EME mode (64 Hz) regularly for a while & may increase power on some nights Txing for greater distance reports. Tonight power is 5 watts, 15mW ERP estimated. Not disturbed by any comments which may be posted as it is good to know other peoples feelings. As long as I know that I am not abusing the system or breaking any rules I feel that should be OK with most others who use the band. Thanks & 73 Gary - G4WGT On 30 April 2010 21:13, Rik Strobbe wrote: > 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 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.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 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 >> > > --0016e6d7841986f39404857a1bf0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rik,

I am not really in favour of the wide modes ie.= 500 Hz on our small band, but I will be running the EME mode (64 Hz) regu= larly for a while & may increase power on some nights Txing for greate= r distance reports. Tonight power is 5 watts, 15mW ERP estimated.

Not disturbed by any comments which may be posted as= it is good to know other peoples feelings. As long as I know that I am no= t abusing the system or breaking any rules I feel that should be OK with= most others who use the band.

Thanks & 73

Gary - G4WGT<= /div>


On 30 April 2010 21:13, Rik= Strobbe <Rik.Strobbe@fys.kuleuven.be> wrote:
Hello Gary,
=A0
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).
=A0
73, Rik=A0 ON7YD - OR7T
=A0
Van: owner-rsgb_lf= _group@blacksheep.org [owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] namens Ga= ry - 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@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 =A0ON7YD - 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: rsg= b_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<= 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


--0016e6d7841986f39404857a1bf0--