Date   

vARIM Messaging Program for VARA HF Modem - version 1.2

Bob NW8L
 

Hello,
 
Introducing version 1.2 of vARIM, a host program for message passing and file transfer using the VARA HF modem. Download links are here:
 
 
on the vARIM Documentation page.
 
Files are also available in the Files area at the arim-ham Groups.io group:
 
 
This is a maintenance release. Changes include:
 
v1.2  12Jul2020
---------------
1. Refresh Top Status Bar when port name is changed with the
   'pname' command.
2. During an ARQ session, update timestamp in Heard List whenever
   data is received from the remote station.
3. Immediately detach from the VARA modem on detecting that it has
   closed the TCP connections (e.g. VARA shut down by operator)
   and reset application state.
 
vARIM is a peer-to-peer messaging and file transfer for HF bands. It will run on Linux, Raspberry Pi, Cygwin/X on Windows and Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) on Windows 10. The VARA modem runs only on Windows computers, but vARIM can run in Cygwin/X or WSL on the Windows computer, which is convenient. Alternatively, you can run vARIM on a Linux or RPi computer and attach it to a VARA modem instance running on a Windows computer in the same local area network.
 
For Linux OS, the binary distributions are for Ubuntu 18.04 and derivatives like Linux Mint 19.x only. It's best to compile vARIM from source code to avoid library versioning problems. It's easy, instructions are found in the INSTALL file included in the source distribution (with instructions for Fedora 28 and derivatives, and for Cygwin/X too).
 
vARIM works with VARA HF version 4.0.x which introduces a robust 500Hz ARQ bandwidth option. vARIM allows you to specify which bandwidth to use in the .ini file, or as a choice in the "ARQ Connect" dialog (500 or 2300 Hz).
 
To key the rig, if VOX isn't suitable, vARIM supports hardware PTT using serial port RTS or DTR signals. This works on Linux, RPi, Cygwin/X and WSL using built in serial ports or USB-to-Serial converter cables. PTT setup details are found in the Help page. 
 
I have a station running VARA HF version 4.0.3 on (dial) 7.085 MHz that's available for testing. The station call sign is NW8L and it will be configured for ARQ using the 500Hz bandwidth. It might be QRT from time to time if thunderstorms are in the area (near Albuquerque, NM). At NW8L vARIM is running in WSL on the same Windows 10 laptop that hosts the VARA HF modem. The audio interface is a USB sound card connected to line in and line out jacks on the rig. The rig is keyed using vARIM's hardware PTT (DTS) over a USB-to-Serial converter cable between computer and rig.
 
If anyone using VARA HF has time to test vARIM I would be interested in your results and bug reports. If you install vARIM, try connecting to NW8L on (dial) 7.085MHz and sending me a message!
 
73,
Bob NW8L
 


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Andrew OBrien
 

if you are using paired virtual ports , try removing the paired ports and then re-create the pair 

Andy


On Jul 12, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Graham <g0nbd@...> wrote:

Tomeck , 

Ros,  suspects , there is another application runinning that has acquired the com port
Needed to address the modem ...

Might  need a little knife and forking , in the device manager  to see what is 
Using what resource   

Or post into the vara user groups, which is in Google groups , should
get a more tailored response 

73 Graham
G0nbd


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Graham
 

Tomeck , 

Ros,  suspects , there is another application runinning that has acquired the com port
Needed to address the modem ...

Might  need a little knife and forking , in the device manager  to see what is 
Using what resource   

Or post into the vara user groups, which is in Google groups , should
get a more tailored response 

73 Graham
G0nbd


Re: Need info on reliable refurbished computer source

Rick Brown
 

ASUS E203MA is less than $200.00. I bought 2, one for the Mobile setup and one for an RMS Gateway.

Regards
Rick


Winmor to be dropped from Winlink

Andrew OBrien
 

https://winlink.org/content/winmor_deprecated

Many of us in this group enjoyed early experimentation with Rick’s Winmor and reliable use of this mode on Winlink and P2P .  Thanks to Rick for this and for his work with the current ARDOP. 



Andy K3UK


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Tomasz
 

Hello.

I have a problem with Vara HF V4.03 settings with Winlink Express. With the previous version and my settings, everything works. Now winlink does not control the PTT of the Vara modem. Vara Terminal with the same PTT settings works with Vara HF V 4.03 without any problem. RMS works and controls PTT in other ardop winmor modes etc. What could be the problem?

All the Best, 73
SP5LOT / Tomek


New release of MULTIPSK (4.43.1) #Multipsk

Patrick Lindecker
 

New release of MULTIPSK (4.43.1)

 

Pour les francophones: la version en français de ce message se trouve sur mon site (http://f6cte.free.fr). Il suffit de cliquer sur le lien "Principales modifications (courriel avertissant de la sortie de la nouvelle version)".


Hello to all Ham and SWL,

 

The new release of MultiPSK (4.43.1) is on my Web site (http://f6cte.free.fr/index_anglais.htm).
The mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR: https://www.paazig.net/f6cte/MULTIPSK_setup.exe

The MD5 signature of the downloaded MULTIPSK_setup.exe file to, possibly, check (with WinMD5 for example), that the downloading works without error, is equal to:

d24088f4a08b45e3f55075191d008734

Multipsk associated to Clock are freeware programs but with functions submitted to a licence (by user key).

 

The main improvements of MULTIPSK 4.43.1 are the following:

 

·                     Addition of the Contestia 16-250 sub-mode + its RS ID (number 275).
This sub-mode can be used under a noisy channel (minimum signal to noise ratio of -15 dB) with a reasonable characters transmission speed, of about 20 wpm.

·                     Decoding improvement of ACARS, SYNOP, EGC and VDL2 modes.

·                     Addition of two prediction functions in the "Satellites" window:
- over time "Advance" function, to see the satellites trajectories in the future, up to 4 h,
- minimum distance in km/miles + azimuth and elevation at the shortest distance between the satellite and the user.

 

Other improvements:

 

·                     "Knots" unit added for HFDL, ACARS, VDL2, AERO, ADSB modes.

·                     Integration of the rsp_tcp.exe V.1.1 file for the Multipsk interface with the SDRplay RSPdx receiver. However, the SDRuno version 1.4 program must be installed. For more information, see: https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Connect_the_SDRPlay_RSPs_via_TCP_IP_to_Multipsk

 

Note about translation of Multipsk.exe and Clock .exe:  the 4.43 version of Multipsk has been translated to Spanish by Joachin (EA4ZB), from French.

See: http://f6cte.free.fr/Translation_files.htm.

 

73

Patrick

 

 

 




Avast logo

L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
www.avast.com



Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

K6ETA
 

Hi Andy,

I guess if you only want to talk about popularity and adoption I can kind of see that there's a point in there somewhere. Even that is a very strange conversation... because even popularity may be due to other things.

FT8 (and increasingly JS8Call) are 'popular' mostly due to the sunspot cycle minimum. When the bands come back they will probably be dropped like a damp rag. Why? because they are SO SLOW as to be nearly useless for actual communication beyond the brief exchange. When the bands are wide open, even a 'wet noodle' will outperform them. BUT, at the moment they are absolutely great for DX and very, very basic communication. Similarly in tough condx at any point in the sunspot cycle. I use them with a smile on my face.

I think popularity is an odd criteria for the value of a mode though.

If you have ever been on an NBEMS net using FLDigi, etc., it becomes very obvious that you want the *right mode for the mission*. That 'right mode' will change with condx, equipment and user skill. So the Software *Modem* programs and hardware (like VARA, ARDOP, PACTOR, etc.) become a part of the *skill* factor as they switch modes automatically so less skill is needed. So these *Modems*, not to be confused with modes, add an extra value.

FLDigi is like a Swiss Army Knife and any one mode may not be super popular, but its suite of modes is hugely useful to those who have learned some skills and have a variety of missions.

FT8 and soon JS8Call are the obvious evolution for the *mission* that was once carried out by PSK31 and RTTY before it. Those modes are still 'popular' during their various contests, but mode popularity is like a form of fashion. What's in vogue today will change tomorrow. The fact that RTTY sprints are still a thing speaks volumes though!

Anyway, it's an odd conversation and reminds me of comparing all camping gear whether it's for fishing, eating, sleeping or carrying heavy things around. All the gear serves a various set of needs.

73 de K6ETA




On 7/7/20 8:33 AM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:
I was not intending to "compare" them.  I have fun with all of them.   I was attempting to contrast the popularity of FT8 and 4 with the many attempts over the years to get wider adoption of various digital modes that have come and gone. My point was that most modes are minority interest and that mass utilization of a particular mode is closely associated with award chasing.  Ardop, Winmor and others do have many users thanks to their utility and a dedicated core group of emcomm types , but wider use is not likely because the masses center on award chasing. Example:  If magically a keyboard QSO of ARDOP came out tomorrow with decoding capability five times 'deeper" than FT8 but for some reason, ARRL excluded it from DXCC, it would not gain wide adoption.   Perhaps a long-winded way of me pointing out that awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham. 

Andy K3UK 



On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rick Muething <rmuething@...> wrote:

Andy,

Comparing FT8 and FT4 with VARA and P3, P4 is like comparing a golf cart to a Porche!

FT8, FT4 are great for exchanging minimal information (call sign, signal report, Grid square) and they do that well BECAUSE they are so SLOW  and narrow bandwidth  (Higher Eb/No  ....just as Claude Shannon describes in his 1948 landmark paper on channel capacity. They satisfy a niche especially if one is trying to make the maximum number of contacts at low power  each exchanging a very short message.

VARA, P3, P4  Transmit much larger data (text + attachments up to say 30 K bytes)  at ~1000 x (or more) than the FT8 or FT4 rate .  They require stronger signals than FT-4 of FT-8 and a wider bandwidth.   These modes again operate in exact accordance with Shannon's thesis (now proven).  They are what you want to use if you are transmitting a sizeable message/attachment or have to send a large amount of traffic.  These modes are also automatically adaptive (changing their Eb/No and FEC level automatically)  so they can follow a changing path over 20 dB or more and with varying amounts of multipath. 

As hams we should all try to understand the basics of what Shannon proved.  It would make better use of our limited spectrum an different bjectives.  But comparing VARA and FT8 is like comparing an High Definition commercial TV transmission with a deep space photo taken from NASA Voyager using a 10 watt transmitter at 10 bits/second.   Both have their uses but are not in competition.

Rick Muething, KN6KB,  Winlink Development Team

On 7/6/2020 2:46 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
I think FT8 and FT4 have shown that wide adoption of a digital mode is achieved when popular awards , like DXCC , are associated with use of the mode . If , for some odd reason, ARRL developed an award for receiving email from 100 or more DXCC entities via VARA ... VARA  would have many more users . Despite VARA , Ardop, Winmor and Pactor having some utilization in emcomm . these modes seem destined to be niche products in the ham world . 

Andy
K3uk 

Digital modes via SDR = Multipsk or SDR-Radio.com



--
Andy


Re: vARIM Messaging Program for VARA HF Modem - version 1.1

Graham
 

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:55 PM, Bob NW8L wrote:
It allows live key-board chat
Thank's Bob , that looks  a  little  on the  heavy side ,  compared to the  vara chat  module 
its 'chat' aces to the  500 modem that  I'm interested in , I't may function  well  on MF 
but  with  simplicity to deploy . is there  any form of    'cut down version'  about ?

Tnx-Graham


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Graham
 

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 04:33 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:
If magically a keyboard QSO of ARDOP came out tomorrow with decoding capability five times 'deeper" than FT8 but for some reason, ARRL excluded it from DXCC, it would not gain wide adoption.   Perhaps a long-winded way of me pointing out that awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham.
Actually there already is such a thing , and its adif listed , though there  is a  issue  with Semantic change dependant  on location  .. the most prolific deployment can be  found on the  11 meter  band  ...

73-G


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

KD7JYK DM09
 

"awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham."

"Really??? Almost all the hams I know do not chase paper.(maybe 20-30 that I know well enough to say that) Maybe it's different in your area?"

I've been in radio since 1977, and a "Ham" since 1994. I've HEARD paper chasing is an interest, even read about it a few times, never seen, directly heard from those that do it, or personally known of one that does it, whether QSL card, awards, certificates, et cetera. I imagine, among those that do it, it's a thing, however, across scores of clubs as a member, and officer, hundreds of forums, a good portion of the country that I've traveled, the operating I've done, and the DX my wife chases, I can safely say I've only ever heard about it, perhaps a half dozen times, in 40+ years. If it's a thing, it's not a big, or well known thing, even across the radio services.

Kurt


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

kt67
 

RE:" awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham. "

Really???
Almost all the hams I know do not chase paper.(maybe 20-30 that I know well
enough to say that)

Maybe it's different in your area?

KT4WO

On 7/7/20, Andrew O'Brien <andrewobrie@gmail.com> wrote:
I was not intending to "compare" them. I have fun with all of them. I
was attempting to contrast the popularity of FT8 and 4 with the many
attempts over the years to get wider adoption of various digital modes that
have come and gone. My point was that most modes are minority interest and
that mass utilization of a particular mode is closely associated with award
chasing. Ardop, Winmor and others do have many users thanks to their
utility and a dedicated core group of emcomm types , but wider use is not
likely because the masses center on award chasing. Example: If magically a
keyboard QSO of ARDOP came out tomorrow with decoding capability five times
'deeper" than FT8 but for some reason, ARRL excluded it from DXCC, it would
not gain wide adoption. Perhaps a long-winded way of me pointing out that
awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham.

Andy K3UK



On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rick Muething <rmuething@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Andy,

Comparing FT8 and FT4 with VARA and P3, P4 is like comparing a golf cart
to a Porche!

FT8, FT4 are great for exchanging minimal information (call sign, signal
report, Grid square) and they do that well BECAUSE they are so SLOW and
narrow bandwidth (Higher Eb/No ....just as Claude Shannon describes in
his 1948 landmark paper on channel capacity. They satisfy a niche
especially if one is trying to make the maximum number of contacts at low
power each exchanging a very short message.

VARA, P3, P4 Transmit much larger data (text + attachments up to say 30
K
bytes) at ~1000 x (or more) than the FT8 or FT4 rate . They require
stronger signals than FT-4 of FT-8 and a wider bandwidth. These modes
again operate in exact accordance with Shannon's thesis (now proven).
They
are what you want to use if you are transmitting a sizeable
message/attachment or have to send a large amount of traffic. These
modes
are also automatically adaptive (changing their Eb/No and FEC level
automatically) so they can follow a changing path over 20 dB or more and
with varying amounts of multipath.

As hams we should all try to understand the basics of what Shannon
proved. It would make better use of our limited spectrum an different
bjectives. But comparing VARA and FT8 is like comparing an High
Definition
commercial TV transmission with a deep space photo taken from NASA
Voyager
using a 10 watt transmitter at 10 bits/second. Both have their uses but
are not in competition.

Rick Muething, KN6KB, Winlink Development Team
On 7/6/2020 2:46 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:

I think FT8 and FT4 have shown that wide adoption of a digital mode is
achieved when popular awards , like DXCC , are associated with use of the
mode . If , for some odd reason, ARRL developed an award for receiving
email from 100 or more DXCC entities via VARA ... VARA would have many
more users . Despite VARA , Ardop, Winmor and Pactor having some
utilization in emcomm . these modes seem destined to be niche products in
the ham world .

Andy
K3uk

Digital modes via SDR = Multipsk or SDR-Radio.com
------------------------------



--
Andy




Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Andrew O'Brien
 

I was not intending to "compare" them.  I have fun with all of them.   I was attempting to contrast the popularity of FT8 and 4 with the many attempts over the years to get wider adoption of various digital modes that have come and gone. My point was that most modes are minority interest and that mass utilization of a particular mode is closely associated with award chasing.  Ardop, Winmor and others do have many users thanks to their utility and a dedicated core group of emcomm types , but wider use is not likely because the masses center on award chasing. Example:  If magically a keyboard QSO of ARDOP came out tomorrow with decoding capability five times 'deeper" than FT8 but for some reason, ARRL excluded it from DXCC, it would not gain wide adoption.   Perhaps a long-winded way of me pointing out that awards are the biggest attraction to the average HF ham. 

Andy K3UK 



On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rick Muething <rmuething@...> wrote:

Andy,

Comparing FT8 and FT4 with VARA and P3, P4 is like comparing a golf cart to a Porche!

FT8, FT4 are great for exchanging minimal information (call sign, signal report, Grid square) and they do that well BECAUSE they are so SLOW  and narrow bandwidth  (Higher Eb/No  ....just as Claude Shannon describes in his 1948 landmark paper on channel capacity. They satisfy a niche especially if one is trying to make the maximum number of contacts at low power  each exchanging a very short message.

VARA, P3, P4  Transmit much larger data (text + attachments up to say 30 K bytes)  at ~1000 x (or more) than the FT8 or FT4 rate .  They require stronger signals than FT-4 of FT-8 and a wider bandwidth.   These modes again operate in exact accordance with Shannon's thesis (now proven).  They are what you want to use if you are transmitting a sizeable message/attachment or have to send a large amount of traffic.  These modes are also automatically adaptive (changing their Eb/No and FEC level automatically)  so they can follow a changing path over 20 dB or more and with varying amounts of multipath. 

As hams we should all try to understand the basics of what Shannon proved.  It would make better use of our limited spectrum an different bjectives.  But comparing VARA and FT8 is like comparing an High Definition commercial TV transmission with a deep space photo taken from NASA Voyager using a 10 watt transmitter at 10 bits/second.   Both have their uses but are not in competition.

Rick Muething, KN6KB,  Winlink Development Team

On 7/6/2020 2:46 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
I think FT8 and FT4 have shown that wide adoption of a digital mode is achieved when popular awards , like DXCC , are associated with use of the mode . If , for some odd reason, ARRL developed an award for receiving email from 100 or more DXCC entities via VARA ... VARA  would have many more users . Despite VARA , Ardop, Winmor and Pactor having some utilization in emcomm . these modes seem destined to be niche products in the ham world . 

Andy
K3uk 

Digital modes via SDR = Multipsk or SDR-Radio.com



--
Andy


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Rick Muething
 

Andy,

Comparing FT8 and FT4 with VARA and P3, P4 is like comparing a golf cart to a Porche!

FT8, FT4 are great for exchanging minimal information (call sign, signal report, Grid square) and they do that well BECAUSE they are so SLOW  and narrow bandwidth  (Higher Eb/No  ....just as Claude Shannon describes in his 1948 landmark paper on channel capacity. They satisfy a niche especially if one is trying to make the maximum number of contacts at low power  each exchanging a very short message.

VARA, P3, P4  Transmit much larger data (text + attachments up to say 30 K bytes)  at ~1000 x (or more) than the FT8 or FT4 rate .  They require stronger signals than FT-4 of FT-8 and a wider bandwidth.   These modes again operate in exact accordance with Shannon's thesis (now proven).  They are what you want to use if you are transmitting a sizeable message/attachment or have to send a large amount of traffic.  These modes are also automatically adaptive (changing their Eb/No and FEC level automatically)  so they can follow a changing path over 20 dB or more and with varying amounts of multipath. 

As hams we should all try to understand the basics of what Shannon proved.  It would make better use of our limited spectrum an different bjectives.  But comparing VARA and FT8 is like comparing an High Definition commercial TV transmission with a deep space photo taken from NASA Voyager using a 10 watt transmitter at 10 bits/second.   Both have their uses but are not in competition.

Rick Muething, KN6KB,  Winlink Development Team

On 7/6/2020 2:46 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
I think FT8 and FT4 have shown that wide adoption of a digital mode is achieved when popular awards , like DXCC , are associated with use of the mode . If , for some odd reason, ARRL developed an award for receiving email from 100 or more DXCC entities via VARA ... VARA  would have many more users . Despite VARA , Ardop, Winmor and Pactor having some utilization in emcomm . these modes seem destined to be niche products in the ham world . 

Andy
K3uk 

Digital modes via SDR = Multipsk or SDR-Radio.com


Re: New digital mode PS-18 (HF pager) from DXsoft and Radial, or we invented APRS again :-)

Chiefsfan2
 

I am beaconing on hfpager 7060 kHz USB-D 1600 center freq. my hfpager # is 5017. If you want to experiment give it a try...

On Jul 1, 2020, 17:50 -0500, Andrew OBrien <k3ukandy@...>, wrote:
I’ll experiment with it 

Andy K3UK 


On Jul 1, 2020, at 6:40 PM, Chiefsfan2 <chiefsfan2@...> wrote:


Anyone on the group want to experiment with hfpager?
On Jun 5, 2020, 03:24 -0500, Kristoff Bonne <kristoff@...>, wrote:
Serge,


On 3/06/2020 19:31, Sergei Podstrigailo wrote:
KB> I can't speak for John, but I think the question was about a port
of the
KB> complete stack (encoder and decoder) to linux single-board computer or a
KB> MCU or MCU/FPGA.

We are working on full "Hardware pager" with embedded transceiver, STM32 controller and e-Ink display too...
Versions for small Linux systems probably will be made also, but some later...
I hope that's will not be a 'just install and use'  box. :-(


These kind of devices almost killed the spirit of amateur-radio.
Thankfully the maker/hacker-community came to save us.


73
kristoff - ON1ARF




Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Andrew OBrien
 

I think FT8 and FT4 have shown that wide adoption of a digital mode is achieved when popular awards , like DXCC , are associated with use of the mode . If , for some odd reason, ARRL developed an award for receiving email from 100 or more DXCC entities via VARA ... VARA  would have many more users . Despite VARA , Ardop, Winmor and Pactor having some utilization in emcomm . these modes seem destined to be niche products in the ham world . 

Andy
K3uk 

On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Graham <g0nbd@...> wrote:

That's ended well  -

I think the  call  is the  licence ,  and can have  various  -/ 
all  the  modems and versions  are covered by the  same key,  

At over 100 baud, the  non  registered set-up  should
provide adequate , two way chating , pity  , really , after 
spending  hours running  dev  versions over the 
past years , there  no real use  for the  modem in the UK 

A simple chat interface that  links the  500  Hz could  have 
various uses  , the  vara  chat still links only to  the  2.4 K 
'vara is not a  chat  mode'  to  quote some one  .. 

73 -Graham 

 


Re: Whats new in VARA 4 ? #VARA #qrp

Graham
 

That's ended well  -

I think the  call  is the  licence ,  and can have  various  -/ 
all  the  modems and versions  are covered by the  same key,  

At over 100 baud, the  non  registered set-up  should
provide adequate , two way chating , pity  , really , after 
spending  hours running  dev  versions over the 
past years , there  no real use  for the  modem in the UK 

A simple chat interface that  links the  500  Hz could  have 
various uses  , the  vara  chat still links only to  the  2.4 K 
'vara is not a  chat  mode'  to  quote some one  .. 

73 -Graham 

 


Re: Time to abandon 14070-14073 ?

 

Hi Matthew.

That does leave having to find a new location for the slowly growing JS8 folks as they use xxxx078 USB dial to interleave between JT9/FT8 and FT4. Just takes some real coordination between communities that do not seem to talk much to sort this out.

73 de tom w7sua

On 7/6/2020 9:21 AM, Matthew Chambers NR0Q via groups.io wrote:
I agree with Tom, it would be easier with newer radios to leave the suppressed carrier (dial) freq at x.074 and just expand the USB filter wider upwards. With the newest radios using DSP for the receiver bandpass filter, there's no reason we couldn't be looking at 4-6kHz of spectrum on WSJT-X/JTDX at one time and leave x.070-x.074 for more traditional keyboard to keyboard modes.
Matthew Chambers, CBT, NR0Q
Owner/Engineer
*M Chambers Communications Engineering LLC*
PO BOX 855, Moberly, MO 65270
Mobile (660)415-5620
www.mchambersradio.com <http://www.mchambersradio.com/>
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:02 AM Tom W7SUA <tom@w7sua.org <mailto:tom@w7sua.org>> wrote:
Hi Andy,
Other than stray FT8 ( some LSB) down at x73 seems like 70-74 still
seems OK on both 40m and 20m. 14074 to 14080 and above pretty busy lots
of the time. Let FT8/FT4 move up!
73, tom w7sua
On 7/5/2020 10:30 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
> With the crowded conditions cause by RTTY, FT4, FT8, JS8, ARDOP,
Packet  and Winlink traffic 14070 to 14106, I’m wondering if Olivia,
PSK, Thor, MT63, MFSK and Domino should move to 14106 to 14109?
There is a little Winlink there and tiny use of ALE there , but
mostly unoccupied last I checked .
>
> Andy K3UK


Re: Time to abandon 14070-14073 ?

Matthew Chambers NR0Q
 

I agree with Tom, it would be easier with newer radios to leave the suppressed carrier (dial) freq at x.074 and just expand the USB filter wider upwards. With the newest radios using DSP for the receiver bandpass filter, there's no reason we couldn't be looking at 4-6kHz of spectrum on WSJT-X/JTDX at one time and leave x.070-x.074 for more traditional keyboard to keyboard modes.

Matthew Chambers, CBT, NR0Q
Owner/Engineer
M Chambers Communications Engineering LLC
PO BOX 855, Moberly, MO 65270
Mobile (660)415-5620


On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:02 AM Tom W7SUA <tom@...> wrote:
Hi Andy,

Other than stray FT8 ( some LSB) down at x73 seems like 70-74 still
seems OK on both 40m and 20m. 14074 to 14080 and above pretty busy lots
of the time. Let FT8/FT4 move up!

73, tom w7sua

On 7/5/2020 10:30 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
> With the crowded conditions cause by RTTY, FT4, FT8, JS8, ARDOP,  Packet  and Winlink traffic 14070 to 14106, I’m wondering if Olivia, PSK, Thor, MT63, MFSK and Domino should move to 14106 to 14109? There is a little Winlink there and tiny use of ALE there , but mostly unoccupied last I checked .
>
> Andy K3UK




Re: Time to abandon 14070-14073 ?

 

Hi Andy,

Other than stray FT8 ( some LSB) down at x73 seems like 70-74 still seems OK on both 40m and 20m. 14074 to 14080 and above pretty busy lots of the time. Let FT8/FT4 move up!

73, tom w7sua

On 7/5/2020 10:30 PM, Andrew OBrien wrote:
With the crowded conditions cause by RTTY, FT4, FT8, JS8, ARDOP, Packet and Winlink traffic 14070 to 14106, I’m wondering if Olivia, PSK, Thor, MT63, MFSK and Domino should move to 14106 to 14109? There is a little Winlink there and tiny use of ALE there , but mostly unoccupied last I checked .
Andy K3UK

281 - 300 of 51512