Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Frequency indication?

Expand Messages
  • John Hirth
    Hello MT-63 ers, I m new to this list and to this mode. I ve downloaded Nino s software for MT63 and am looking forward to experimenting. I know that 14.347 in
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 23, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello MT-63'ers,

      I'm new to this list and to this mode. I've downloaded Nino's software
      for MT63 and am looking forward to experimenting. I know that 14.347 in
      USB is the preferred frequency at the moment. My question: Does that
      14.347 represent the indicated frequency of the suppressed carrier or is
      it something else, such as the actual frequency of the lowest
      transmitted tone, etc.?

      With other modes (except for SSB, of course) I have been using actual
      transmitted frequencies, rather than that of the suppressed carrier, but
      I want to be sure I'm conforming to the standards for this mode.

      Can anyone help reassure me that MT-63 is OK with the USA's FCC?

      Thanks for your help and 73,
      John W2KI (New York)
    • Johan Forrer
      John, Part 97 nowadays calls for a new mode to be publicly published before it is considered legal . Exactly what that means is not clear --- ARRL seems to
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 23, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        John,

        Part 97 nowadays calls for a "new" mode to be publicly
        published before it is considered "legal". Exactly
        what that means is not clear --- ARRL seems to
        say that a blurb in QST or article in QEX or the
        DCC proceedings is considered "adequate".

        MT63 has been discussed ever since its inception on a
        public list, i.e., HFSIG and I am fairly certain that
        one can argue that it is as publicly published as one
        can get, but I still would like to see someone write
        a proper article for posterity. So how about that folks?

        A number of us in the US have been using
        MT63 on the air for some time, and we believe that we
        are meeting all legal requirements. Activity is rather
        sporadic however but perhaps this will change now.

        I have published Pawel's Readme file from the Linux
        distribution on my web page that contains a bit more
        technical details, if anyone is interested in that.

        Not sure this helps.

        73,

        Johan

        http://www.peak.org/~forrerj



        On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, John Hirth wrote:

        > From: John Hirth <w2ki@...>
        >
        > Can anyone help reassure me that MT-63 is OK with the USA's FCC?
        >
        > Thanks for your help and 73,
        > John W2KI (New York)
        >
        > > - The MT63 Reflector -
        > MT63@onelist.com
        >
        >
      • Murray Greenman
        John, Johan has answered your question about MT63 being street-legal as well as anyone could. In answer to the question about the operating frequency, the
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 23, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          Johan has answered your question about MT63 being street-legal as well
          as anyone could.

          In answer to the question about the operating frequency, the answer is that,
          unlike most modes (and not a good idea, I know), the frequency quoted is
          SUPPRESSED CARRIER, i.e. the actual signal will be some 1 - 2 kHz
          higher.

          This mode is new and still being experimented with, so many (most) QSOs
          have some SSB chatter involved, rather like a typical SSTV contact, which
          is why the frequency is quoted this way.

          In the future, once things have settled, and we all agree that no matter
          what the mode is, I believe we should quote the frequency of the LOWEST
          TONE of the transmission (i.e. 500 Hz baseband). In the meantime,
          we go with the suppressed carrier frequency, and operate USB.

          73,

          Murray ZL1BPU
        • Douglas Braun & Nadia Papakonstantinou
          I think this would cause more confusion. If we stick with the suppressed carrier frequency, at least you know what to set your radio to. If it makes sense
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 23, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            I think this would cause more confusion. If we stick
            with the suppressed carrier frequency, at least you know what
            to set your radio to. If it makes sense for voice, it ought
            to make sense for other modes...

            Doug Braun
            NA1DB

            At 09:27 AM 11/24/99 +1300, you wrote:

            >In the future, once things have settled, and we all agree that no matter
            >what the mode is, I believe we should quote the frequency of the LOWEST
            >TONE of the transmission (i.e. 500 Hz baseband). In the meantime,
            >we go with the suppressed carrier frequency, and operate USB.
            >
            >73,
            >
            >Murray ZL1BPU
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.