> >PACTOR-III requires a bandwidth of 2.2 kHz on the HF band, which
> >means that it requires more space than PACTOR-II (with 500 Hz)
did .

Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF phone
band? To use this much bandwidth on the popular HF digital bands for
the purpose of sending email would surely require a new MBO band
plan!? The freqs that are used now have/are causing enough
problems... Are systems like WinLink seriously thinking of using
Pactor III? I wonder where this is going and how it will work without
starting another round of "us" against "them"!?

Hi,

Yes it would.  Just like SSTV slowscan TV
Not to many people are fans of SSTV for this reason.
But there arn't to many places on the bands you find SSTV.
3.857MHZ, 7.228MHZ, 14.227,30,33,36MHZ, 28.680, 710,740,760MHZ.

One of the cool things I like about the New Pactor III mode is.
You can Send 320x240 24BIT color images photos in a little over a
minute that are QRM free.  Not like slowscan TV images.
This would be great to send pictures to my family while I'm out
fishing.

There is already someone writting a program to do this.
Check this link out.

http://www.angelfire.com/me/ticklemesilly/Pactor-3sstv.html

But,  At this point I don't think there will be to many HAMS that
would want to spend the $800.00 plus for the hardware.
So there is still plenty of time to figure a bandplan I hope.

I did read that the testing for Pactor-III was done on 14.107MHZ in
the 20 meter Band.  This is where I have heard MT63 wide band sinals
a lot of times.   So maybe someone is already thinking about this as
the PACTOR-III frequency.  (I hope not)

Another thing I have been tryng to get an answer to.
Is PACTOR-III legal in the United States?

I had read that this mode falls under the ECPA (paging rules) and is
not allowed to be used by Amateur Radio Operators in the United
States.
I called up the ARRL and they tell me the reason US hams will not be
able to use it is because PACTOR-III is still CONSIDERED
EXPERIMENTAL and or a business mode.

Someone else told me it is because the mode is not in the public
domain what ever that means.

I sent off an Email to FCC last week about this.  All I got back was
the autmatic response from them.


> Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF phone
> band?



Good Luck
73
Ron



--- In digitalradio@y..., "nb6z" <nb6z@y...> wrote:
> > >PACTOR-III requires a bandwidth of 2.2 kHz on the HF band, which
> > >means that it requires more space than PACTOR-II (with 500 Hz)
> did .
>
> Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF phone
> band? To use this much bandwidth on the popular HF digital bands
for
> the purpose of sending email would surely require a new MBO band
> plan!? The freqs that are used now have/are causing enough
> problems... Are systems like WinLink seriously thinking of using
> Pactor III? I wonder where this is going and how it will work
without
> starting another round of "us" against "them"!?

I have a question.

  When a Pactor station is trying to connect to another, you only see
the callsign of the station he is trying to connect to, never the
callsign of the station doing the transmitting. If the station being
called does not answer, then everything just stops, with no ID from
the station doing the calling.
  I thought an Amateur station must identify itself. Am I missing
something here ?

     73, Bernie / KF4FHS

Clover-2000 has been around for a long time. It is probably
just as good as pactor III or better. Clover-2000 is legal on
HF but it is not marketed for that use. The DSP-4100/2k is $1345.
The people at HAL are much nicer that SCS.
Jim W7ANF

--- In digitalradio@y..., "ka2hzo" <ronchap@w...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes it would.  Just like SSTV slowscan TV
> Not to many people are fans of SSTV for this reason.
> But there arn't to many places on the bands you find SSTV.
> 3.857MHZ, 7.228MHZ, 14.227,30,33,36MHZ, 28.680, 710,740,760MHZ.
>
> One of the cool things I like about the New Pactor III mode is.
> You can Send 320x240 24BIT color images photos in a little over a
> minute that are QRM free.  Not like slowscan TV images.
> This would be great to send pictures to my family while I'm out
> fishing.
>
> There is already someone writting a program to do this.
> Check this link out.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/me/ticklemesilly/Pactor-3sstv.html
>
> But,  At this point I don't think there will be to many HAMS that
> would want to spend the $800.00 plus for the hardware.
> So there is still plenty of time to figure a bandplan I hope.
>
> I did read that the testing for Pactor-III was done on 14.107MHZ in
> the 20 meter Band.  This is where I have heard MT63 wide band
sinals
> a lot of times.   So maybe someone is already thinking about this
as
> the PACTOR-III frequency.  (I hope not)
>
> Another thing I have been tryng to get an answer to.
> Is PACTOR-III legal in the United States?
>
> I had read that this mode falls under the ECPA (paging rules) and
is
> not allowed to be used by Amateur Radio Operators in the United
> States.
> I called up the ARRL and they tell me the reason US hams will not
be
> able to use it is because PACTOR-III is still CONSIDERED
> EXPERIMENTAL and or a business mode.
>
> Someone else told me it is because the mode is not in the public
> domain what ever that means.
>
> I sent off an Email to FCC last week about this.  All I got back
was
> the autmatic response from them.
>
>
> > Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF
phone
> > band?
>
>
>
> Good Luck
> 73
> Ron
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@y..., "nb6z" <nb6z@y...> wrote:
> > > >PACTOR-III requires a bandwidth of 2.2 kHz on the HF band,
which
> > > >means that it requires more space than PACTOR-II (with 500 Hz)
> > did .
> >
> > Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF
phone
> > band? To use this much bandwidth on the popular HF digital bands
> for
> > the purpose of sending email would surely require a new MBO band
> > plan!? The freqs that are used now have/are causing enough
> > problems... Are systems like WinLink seriously thinking of using
> > Pactor III? I wonder where this is going and how it will work
> without
> > starting another round of "us" against "them"!?

> I thought an Amateur station must
> identify itself. Am I missing
>something here ?
>

Nope - if you don't make the link, it is not legal to just go away without
sending an ID in some mode. The SCS PTC-II has a function that can be activated
to send an automatic CW ID just prior to making a link request.

I don't know why anyone would want to spend that kind of money for Pactor
III or Clover or any of these modes that give marginal improvement. Noen of
them are needed for keyboard to keyboard and to transmit data nothing can
come close to the internet. So why bother?

If all these people would cross license and things could be made at a
reasonable price, then it might be something to look at.

To think you should spend 1345 for a data transfer system like that , give
me a big fat break.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w7anf [mailto:cherry@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:04 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Forwarded PTR III
>
>
> Clover-2000 has been around for a long time. It is probably
> just as good as pactor III or better. Clover-2000 is legal on
> HF but it is not marketed for that use. The DSP-4100/2k is $1345.
> The people at HAL are much nicer that SCS.
> Jim W7ANF
>
> --- In digitalradio@y..., "ka2hzo" <ronchap@w...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes it would.  Just like SSTV slowscan TV
> > Not to many people are fans of SSTV for this reason.
> > But there arn't to many places on the bands you find SSTV.
> > 3.857MHZ, 7.228MHZ, 14.227,30,33,36MHZ, 28.680, 710,740,760MHZ.
> >
> > One of the cool things I like about the New Pactor III mode is.
> > You can Send 320x240 24BIT color images photos in a little over a
> > minute that are QRM free.  Not like slowscan TV images.
> > This would be great to send pictures to my family while I'm out
> > fishing.
> >
> > There is already someone writting a program to do this.
> > Check this link out.
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/me/ticklemesilly/Pactor-3sstv.html
> >
> > But,  At this point I don't think there will be to many HAMS that
> > would want to spend the $800.00 plus for the hardware.
> > So there is still plenty of time to figure a bandplan I hope.
> >
> > I did read that the testing for Pactor-III was done on 14.107MHZ in
> > the 20 meter Band.  This is where I have heard MT63 wide band
> sinals
> > a lot of times.   So maybe someone is already thinking about this
> as
> > the PACTOR-III frequency.  (I hope not)
> >
> > Another thing I have been tryng to get an answer to.
> > Is PACTOR-III legal in the United States?
> >
> > I had read that this mode falls under the ECPA (paging rules) and
> is
> > not allowed to be used by Amateur Radio Operators in the United
> > States.
> > I called up the ARRL and they tell me the reason US hams will not
> be
> > able to use it is because PACTOR-III is still CONSIDERED
> > EXPERIMENTAL and or a business mode.
> >
> > Someone else told me it is because the mode is not in the public
> > domain what ever that means.
> >
> > I sent off an Email to FCC last week about this.  All I got back
> was
> > the autmatic response from them.
> >
> >
> > > Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF
> phone
> > > band?
> >
> >
> >
> > Good Luck
> > 73
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@y..., "nb6z" <nb6z@y...> wrote:
> > > > >PACTOR-III requires a bandwidth of 2.2 kHz on the HF band,
> which
> > > > >means that it requires more space than PACTOR-II (with 500 Hz)
> > > did .
> > >
> > > Wouldn't a signal that wide be required to operate in the HF
> phone
> > > band? To use this much bandwidth on the popular HF digital bands
> > for
> > > the purpose of sending email would surely require a new MBO band
> > > plan!? The freqs that are used now have/are causing enough
> > > problems... Are systems like WinLink seriously thinking of using
> > > Pactor III? I wonder where this is going and how it will work
> > without
> > > starting another round of "us" against "them"!?
>
>
>
> DIGITAL RADIO part of the Cyber Amateur Radio Club at
http://www.netsync.net/users/obrienaj/carc.htm

Digital links at http://www.digitalham.net/

DX Cluster at telnet://208.15.25.196/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Gil, I have decided that my KAM is all I will every need.
At the time I got it, a TNC was the only way to do digital
modes. It sets idle now. I still hear lots of pactor signals.
Maybe some day there will be fewer pactor signals and more
keyboard to keyboard digital signals like Morse.
Jim W7ANF

--- In digitalradio@y..., "Gil Baron" <gbaron@c...> wrote:
> I don't know why anyone would want to spend that kind of money for
Pactor
> III or Clover or any of these modes that give marginal improvement.
Noen of
> them are needed for keyboard to keyboard and to transmit data
nothing can
> come close to the internet. So why bother?
>
> If all these people would cross license and things could be made at
a
> reasonable price, then it might be something to look at.
>
> To think you should spend 1345 for a data transfer system like
that , give
> me a big fat break.

Well, the PTC-IIe will run Pactor III and it costs $649 so I don't
know where you guys are getting the $1345 figure. Yes, if you are
using kbd/kbd QSOs and don't care about perfect copy then the sound
card modes are fine. If you want solid copy for auto-routing mail or
transferring error-free graphics or computer programs then you'll need
Pactor or Clover. By the way, there are still plenty of places in the
world where the Internet is not a cost-effective option.

$1345 is for DSP-4100/2k to do clover-2000.
The PTC-IIe costs $649 plus $89 for the professional
firmware upgrade for pactor III.
On a boat out in the ocean it is cheaper to use HF.
The satellite links cost a lot more for a boat.
Jim W7ANF

--- In digitalradio@y..., "Bob Lewis \(AA4PB\)" <rlewis@s...> wrote:
> Well, the PTC-IIe will run Pactor III and it costs $649 so I don't
> know where you guys are getting the $1345 figure. Yes, if you are
> using kbd/kbd QSOs and don't care about perfect copy then the sound
> card modes are fine. If you want solid copy for auto-routing mail or
> transferring error-free graphics or computer programs then you'll
need
> Pactor or Clover. By the way, there are still plenty of places in
the
> world where the Internet is not a cost-effective option.

I'm interested in working some of the HF digital modes,
in particular Pactor.

Can anyone recommend a particlar TNC? I've been looking at
various Kantronics models, but am unsure what features
are important or not. I'd like to be able to use it for
UHF/VHF packet as well.

Are there any TNC's that can do Pactor as well as 9600 baud
packet?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Keith

KD7OFV/AE

Hi everybody,

The inevitable (has) occurred! PACTOR-III has been released!

We must celebrate this event as since PACTOR-III will be massively used on
HF there will be NO CHANCE to put a place in order.

Some notes regarding that pro firmware 3.2.

-  They  propose  unproto  (FEC)  PACTOR-III  transmissions  "for test
purposes",  but  "Professional  firmware  3.2  does  not  offer a
decoding/receiving tool for PACTOR-III unproto transmissions".

-  I  tried to monitor PACTOR-III connections in progress with no luck.
Seems  the tool to monitor live connections is also absent. So, having
the  famous  PACTOR-III  firmware installed, I still can't idetify
those bad guys who totally ignore HAM spirit and make PACTOR-III links
over existing QSOs.

- The CWID is turned off by default.

- For happy PTC-IIx owners: only 20 connects are available without
license, even if you use old PACTOR-I or PACTOR-II.

The first significant statement was made by Rudolf HS0AC, he promised
to use PACTOR-III immediately, over current PSK31 activity. See
http://www.n2hos.com/digital/peter.html for details.

Welcome to hell, gentlemen...

Best regards,
  Nick                            mailto:nf@...



8<---- cut here -------------------------------------------------------

I would not worry too much. Clover never got anywhere. The will not be many
users. At least I hope not!
Who wants to be first to be hated by all of the reasonable operators of the
world?

OTOH it could lead to RF wars on the spectrum. Who has the biggest signal to
destroy the other one?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Fedoseev [mailto:nf@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: psk31@yahoogroups.com; mixw@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [mixw] Pactor-III has been released
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> The inevitable (has) occurred! PACTOR-III has been released!
>
> We must celebrate this event as since PACTOR-III will be massively used on
> HF there will be NO CHANCE to put a place in order.
>
> Some notes regarding that pro firmware 3.2.
>
> -  They  propose  unproto  (FEC)  PACTOR-III  transmissions  "for test
> purposes",  but  "Professional  firmware  3.2  does  not  offer a
> decoding/receiving tool for PACTOR-III unproto transmissions".
>
> -  I  tried to monitor PACTOR-III connections in progress with no luck.
> Seems  the tool to monitor live connections is also absent. So, having
> the  famous  PACTOR-III  firmware installed, I still can't idetify
> those bad guys who totally ignore HAM spirit and make PACTOR-III links
> over existing QSOs.
>
> - The CWID is turned off by default.
>
> - For happy PTC-IIx owners: only 20 connects are available without
> license, even if you use old PACTOR-I or PACTOR-II.
>
> The first significant statement was made by Rudolf HS0AC, he promised
> to use PACTOR-III immediately, over current PSK31 activity. See
> http://www.n2hos.com/digital/peter.html for details.
>
> Welcome to hell, gentlemen...
>
> Best regards,
>  Nick                            mailto:nf@...
>
>
>
> 8<---- cut here -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   mixw@yahoogroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> mixw-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To visit the groups site goto, http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/mixw/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Keith,

First thing you should know is that there are two versions of Pactor (I
and II,
Pactor III has just been released, although I don't think it will be
used much by the amateur community since its bandwidth is 2.4 Khz as
opposed to 500 Hz for Pactor II)

Also Pactor II is proprietary , it order to use it you have to buy a TNC
from SCS in Germany and the cheapest one goes for $649.00.

Most of the other multi mode TNC's can do Pactor I.  I have read about
some problems in the MFJ 1278.   I personally have used both a PK-232MBX
and
a Kantronics KAM Plus with success.  The Kantronics KAM XL will do
Pactor I as well as 1200/9600 baud packet and even PSK31 and that might
suit your needs
Good luck.
73 Dave WB2FTX

grant390 wrote:

>  I'm interested in working some of the HF digital modes,
> in particular Pactor.
>
> Can anyone recommend a particlar TNC? I've been looking at
> various Kantronics models, but am unsure what features
> are important or not. I'd like to be able to use it for
> UHF/VHF packet as well.
>
> Are there any TNC's that can do Pactor as well as 9600 baud
> packet?
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> KD7OFV/AE
>
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                         ADVERTISEMENT


>
> DIGITAL RADIO part of the Cyber Amateur Radio Club at
> http://www.netsync.net/users/obrienaj/carc.htm
>
> Digital links at http://www.digitalham.net/
>
> DX Cluster at telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> digitalradio-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Nick,

   I looked at the webpage you had the link to at the bottom of your post,
and read with interest. It seems that most everyone is willing to, at least
discuss, a sensible and logical approach to wideband / narrowband usage.
   But, then you have lids like Rudolph - HSO/DL1ZAV - HS0AC, as long as
there are idiots like this guy out there, it's going to be hard to work
together on a resolution.

  73, Bernie / KF4FHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------


Here's HS0AC's feelings on the subject :


HS0AC has NOT cleared the QRG 14.072.5 / 14.069.5 and will not clear this
QRG's !

This QRG's I used since more than 10 years under 7Z1AB and HS0AC and it will
not change till I give up Ham Radio ..

And if Pactor 3 is available than HS0AC will use it !

I do not like the way how this PSK31 was put in to operation in this
Pactor/Amtor Band segment ..

ok take care .. and no need to start any discussion on this topic .. as I
have no time and no interest for more.

73's de Rudolf HS0/DL1ZAV HS0AC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Fedoseev" <nf@...>
To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <psk31@yahoogroups.com>; <mixw@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Pactor-III has been released


> Hi everybody,
>
> The inevitable (has) occurred! PACTOR-III has been released!
>
> We must celebrate this event as since PACTOR-III will be massively used on
> HF there will be NO CHANCE to put a place in order.
>
> Some notes regarding that pro firmware 3.2.
>
> -  They  propose  unproto  (FEC)  PACTOR-III  transmissions  "for test
> purposes",  but  "Professional  firmware  3.2  does  not  offer a
> decoding/receiving tool for PACTOR-III unproto transmissions".
>
> -  I  tried to monitor PACTOR-III connections in progress with no luck.
> Seems  the tool to monitor live connections is also absent. So, having
> the  famous  PACTOR-III  firmware installed, I still can't idetify
> those bad guys who totally ignore HAM spirit and make PACTOR-III links
> over existing QSOs.
>
> - The CWID is turned off by default.
>
> - For happy PTC-IIx owners: only 20 connects are available without
> license, even if you use old PACTOR-I or PACTOR-II.
>
> The first significant statement was made by Rudolf HS0AC, he promised
> to use PACTOR-III immediately, over current PSK31 activity. See
> http://www.n2hos.com/digital/peter.html for details.
>
> Welcome to hell, gentlemen...
>
> Best regards,
>  Nick                            mailto:nf@...
>
>
>
> 8<---- cut here -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> DIGITAL RADIO part of the Cyber Amateur Radio Club at
http://www.netsync.net/users/obrienaj/carc.htm
>
> Digital links at http://www.digitalham.net/
>
> DX Cluster at telnet://208.15.25.196/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> digitalradio-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Gil Baron wrote:
>
> I would not worry too much. Clover never got anywhere. The will not be many
> users. At least I hope not!
> Who wants to be first to be hated. . .
>
-- Gil, I have read your posts on this subject, and while they are
very reasonable you are missing a BIG point.  There are almost 5000
Airmail 2000 users.  Most are on yachts or RV's.  They are hams only
for legal purposes--that is, they get their licenses only to use
Airmail 2000.  They are fully automatic stations in every sense of the
word.  They set their radios up under full computer control and just
click on a button to initiate a contact.

-- You need to research this group before saying that this has
anything to do with the success of any other digital mode.  They are
VERY large and VERY well organized, supported fully, of course, by
SCS.

-- Scott (K6IX)

Well you may be right but I have never had a QSO destroyed by a Pactor
station. I hope it stays that way. I agree that this could get VERY nasty.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hill [mailto:k6ix@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE: [mixw] Pactor-III has been released
>
>
> Gil Baron wrote:
> >
> > I would not worry too much. Clover never got anywhere. The will
> not be many
> > users. At least I hope not!
> > Who wants to be first to be hated. . .
> >
> -- Gil, I have read your posts on this subject, and while they are
> very reasonable you are missing a BIG point.  There are almost 5000
> Airmail 2000 users.  Most are on yachts or RV's.  They are hams only
> for legal purposes--that is, they get their licenses only to use
> Airmail 2000.  They are fully automatic stations in every sense of the
> word.  They set their radios up under full computer control and just
> click on a button to initiate a contact.
>
> -- You need to research this group before saying that this has
> anything to do with the success of any other digital mode.  They are
> VERY large and VERY well organized, supported fully, of course, by
> SCS.
>
> -- Scott (K6IX)
>
>
>
> DIGITAL RADIO part of the Cyber Amateur Radio Club at
http://www.netsync.net/users/obrienaj/carc.htm

Digital links at http://www.digitalham.net/

DX Cluster at telnet://208.15.25.196/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Rudolph Kruggel does not even have a amateur license.
He is operating a pirate station in Bangkok, Thailand.
I am sure is is qualified to operate a HF radio station,
but is it amateur?
Jim W7ANF

You don't find the German call's in Qrz.com because some countries
don't release that information

But I have the callbook of the Deutser Amateur Radio Club and I can
assure you that Rudolph, DL1ZAV is a real amateur.
His wife is E20LAL
HS0AC is the club station of the Radio Amateur Society of Thailand
and he is paying the digital outfit from his own pocket I'm told.
I forward on a daily basis with a couple of hams there
They have a couple of hundred thousand amateurs in Thailand mostly all
at VHF.

Also I doubt very much or somebody there can operate a wide-band
mode in a narrow band area as they have a strict bandplan
and the fines are very high!

73, Bob ve3tok

--- In digitalradio@y..., "w7anf" <cherry@n...> wrote:
> Rudolph Kruggel does not even have a amateur license.
> He is operating a pirate station in Bangkok, Thailand.
> I am sure is is qualified to operate a HF radio station,
> but is it amateur?
> Jim W7ANF

You don't find the German call's in Qrz.com because some countries
don't release that information

But I have the callbook of the Deutser Amateur Radio Club and I can
assure you that Rudolph, DL1ZAV is a real amateur.
His wife is E20LAL
HS0AC is the club station of the Radio Amateur Society of Thailand
and he is paying the digital outfit from his own pocket I'm told.
I forward on a daily basis with a couple of hams there
They have a couple of hundred thousand amateurs in Thailand mostly all
at VHF.

Also I doubt very much or somebody there can operate a wide-band
mode in a narrow band area as they have a strict bandplan
and the fines are very high!

73, Bob ve3tok

--- In digitalradio@y..., "w7anf" <cherry@n...> wrote:
> Rudolph Kruggel does not even have a amateur license.
> He is operating a pirate station in Bangkok, Thailand.
> I am sure is is qualified to operate a HF radio station,
> but is it amateur?
> Jim W7ANF

DL1ZAV may hold an Amateur License, but anyone with his atitude is
not a "real amateur".
  Even if he is paying the digital outfit out of his pocket, this does
not mean he owns any part of the spectrum.

  73, Bernie / KF4FHS



--- In digitalradio@y..., "astronastron" <ve3mch@r...> wrote:
> You don't find the German call's in Qrz.com because some countries
> don't release that information
>
> But I have the callbook of the Deutser Amateur Radio Club and I can
> assure you that Rudolph, DL1ZAV is a real amateur.
> His wife is E20LAL
> HS0AC is the club station of the Radio Amateur Society of Thailand
> and he is paying the digital outfit from his own pocket I'm told.
> I forward on a daily basis with a couple of hams there
> They have a couple of hundred thousand amateurs in Thailand mostly
all
> at VHF.
>
> Also I doubt very much or somebody there can operate a wide-band
> mode in a narrow band area as they have a strict bandplan
> and the fines are very high!
>
> 73, Bob ve3tok
>
> --- In digitalradio@y..., "w7anf" <cherry@n...> wrote:
> > Rudolph Kruggel does not even have a amateur license.
> > He is operating a pirate station in Bangkok, Thailand.
> > I am sure is is qualified to operate a HF radio station,
> > but is it amateur?
> > Jim W7ANF

Bob, thank you for the information. I am glad Thailand has rules.
Rudolph says he is a close friend of the king. I hope that does
not exempt him from the strict rules in Thailand.
Jim W7ANF

--- In digitalradio@y..., "astronastron" <ve3mch@r...> wrote:
> You don't find the German call's in Qrz.com because some countries
> don't release that information
>
> But I have the callbook of the Deutser Amateur Radio Club and I can
> assure you that Rudolph, DL1ZAV is a real amateur.
> His wife is E20LAL
> HS0AC is the club station of the Radio Amateur Society of Thailand
> and he is paying the digital outfit from his own pocket I'm told.
> I forward on a daily basis with a couple of hams there
> They have a couple of hundred thousand amateurs in Thailand mostly
all
> at VHF.
>
> Also I doubt very much or somebody there can operate a wide-band
> mode in a narrow band area as they have a strict bandplan
> and the fines are very high!
>
> 73, Bob ve3tok

Just wanted to ask if anyone knew of a group that discusses the uses of
a soundcard for digital mode use i.e. CW, Packet, Pactor, AGWPE etc.

I am due to have a spare PC with a SoundBlaster audio card in it soon as
I was thinking of making this a digital modes machines for as many of
the modes that will run under the AGWPE splitting engine.

Appreciated and 73 de ZR1HPC
Hylton

Looking over the SCS web page I see that Pactor-III is not being
marketed for use by amateur radio. It is a part only of the
professional package which must be separately purchased. That may not
mean that hams can't purchase and use it but at least SCS is not
targeting it as an amateur mode for use on the ham bands.

I thought thats what this group was for???



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hylton,

Your in the correct group.

Have used AGWPE with Packet on 2 meter FM APRS.  Not many Packet
stations on the air in my location now days.  Guess everyone went to
the internet for email.   Some stations have had success with AGWPE
and some Packet programs that run on that engine using the
digipeaters
on ISS and PCSAT, now called NO-44.

The most robust soundcard software is MixW: http://www.mixw.net/
Quote from the MixW site.
"MixW  supports: SSB, AM, FM, CW, BPSK31, QPSK31,
FSK31, RTTY, Packet (HF/VHF), Pactor (RX only),
AMTOR (FEC), MFSK, Hellschreiber,
Throb, Fax (RX only), SSTV, MT63."

Have fun on the digital modes.

Jerry - K0HZI



--- In digitalradio@y..., "Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC)" <hylton@g...>
wrote:
> Just wanted to ask if anyone knew of a group that discusses the
uses of a soundcard for digital mode use i.e. CW, Packet, Pactor,
AGWPE etc.
>
> I am due to have a spare PC with a SoundBlaster audio card in it
soon as I was thinking of making this a digital modes machines for as
many of the modes that will run under the AGWPE splitting engine.
>
> Appreciated and 73 de ZR1HPC
> Hylton

Hi Hylton.
I use my laptop with FT-100 for portable RTTY & CW from the car. (not while
driving) ;-)
I have used the soundcard on a P-III 600 MHz for RTTY and SSTV at home but the
TNC is much better, especially for weaker sigs.  My opinion is that if you use
this machine with the sound card you can have some fun untill you get a TNC.
73,
Norm, W3IZ
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Hylton Conacher (ZR1HPC)
   To: Digital Radio @ Yahoogroups
   Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 11:14 AM
   Subject: [digitalradio] Soundcard modes group?


   Just wanted to ask if anyone knew of a group that discusses the uses of
   a soundcard for digital mode use i.e. CW, Packet, Pactor, AGWPE etc.

   I am due to have a spare PC with a SoundBlaster audio card in it soon as
   I was thinking of making this a digital modes machines for as many of
   the modes that will run under the AGWPE splitting engine.

   Appreciated and 73 de ZR1HPC
   Hylton


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   DIGITAL RADIO part of the Cyber Amateur Radio Club at
http://www.netsync.net/users/obrienaj/carc.htm

   Digital links at http://www.digitalham.net/

   DX Cluster at telnet://208.15.25.196/

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   digitalradio-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I see our membership for the digitalradio reflector has hit 1000 (pure
digital).  Thanks to all that have helped make this reflector one of the
preeminant reflectors for the ham radio community.  Next week (May 11th) we
will be 2 years old.


73 de Andy KB2EOQ
CARC/DigitalRadio moderator.

siggy200 wrote:
>
> Hylton,
>
> Your in the correct group.
>
> Have used AGWPE with Packet on 2 meter FM APRS.  Not many Packet
> stations on the air in my location now days.  Guess everyone went to
> the internet for email.   Some stations have had success with AGWPE
> and some Packet programs that run on that engine using the
> digipeaters
> on ISS and PCSAT, now called NO-44.
>
> The most robust soundcard software is MixW: http://www.mixw.net/
> Quote from the MixW site.
> "MixW  supports: SSB, AM, FM, CW, BPSK31, QPSK31,
> FSK31, RTTY, Packet (HF/VHF), Pactor (RX only),
> AMTOR (FEC), MFSK, Hellschreiber,
> Throb, Fax (RX only), SSTV, MT63."
>
> Have fun on the digital modes.
>
> Jerry - K0HZI

Greetings to you Jerry and n7dc amongst a few,

I note that you advocate the use of Mixw for a variety of modes however
I would like to do something a little different.

I would like to use the best software program available for each digital
mode i.e. APRS, hell, rtty, packet, CW etc. and then use my KPC-3 TNC or
soundcard (which ever is better) as well as AGWPE to run all the modes
at the same time.

I haven't used AGWPE before so I wonder if there is a limit on the
number of apps it can run off a single piece of hardware?

Just mulling the idea over and wondering
73 de ZR1HPC
Hylton

Just exploring the idea and wondering if I should rather make the
dedicated ham digital mode machine Linux based. Of course there will be
plenty of questions on what and how to use the software.

Does anyone know if such a group exists or would this one be it?
--
===========================================================================
Hylton Conacher on KDE 2.1.1 on kernel 2.4.3-20mdk#1
Registered Linux user # 229959 on Mandrake 8 on an i686 (AMD  1 Ghz K7
mobo
Licenced Windows user
===========================================================================

The KPC3 is only for packet radio,  You cannot run PSK etc on it.  I have a
MFJ1278B which is one of the units that you can run multiple modes on.
Others exist but I know little about them but Im sure others on the reflector
will fill you in on those.  I use a soundcard almost exclusively now though,
as they will do everything my 1278 will do, and often better.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]