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

Hang out frequencies

Expand Messages
  • bedford1955
    7060 and 14060 were suggested.... I know there are some morning nets on 7060 ( Canadian Phone Net) and 14060 is where the CW QRP crowd is. Lori VE3VAI
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      7060 and 14060 were suggested....
      I know there are some morning nets on 7060 ( Canadian Phone Net)
      and 14060 is where the CW QRP crowd is.

      Lori VE3VAI
    • Charles Blackburn
      Why can t we use something like 7090 and 14090 ? not much data going on up there over the past week at least on the odd times I ve been on. Charlie Ai4ri
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Why can't we use something like 7090 and 14090 ? not much data going on up
        there over the past week at least on the odd times I've been on.

        Charlie
        Ai4ri


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com [mailto:V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf Of bedford1955
        > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 18:46
        > To: V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [V4Protocol] Hang out frequencies
        >
        > 7060 and 14060 were suggested....
        > I know there are some morning nets on 7060 ( Canadian Phone Net)
        > and 14060 is where the CW QRP crowd is.
      • David Bastress
        How about an 80 meter frequency also? To Rick, Both your comments sound reasonable. Dave K3GAU ... 7060 and 14060 were suggested.... I know there are some
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          How about an 80 meter frequency also?
           
          To Rick,
          Both your comments sound reasonable.
           
          Dave K3GAU

          >>> "bedford1955" 12/02/10 6:46 PM >>>
           

          7060 and 14060 were suggested....
          I know there are some morning nets on 7060 ( Canadian Phone Net)
          and 14060 is where the CW QRP crowd is.

          Lori VE3VAI

        • Michael - VA3LKI
          Are you folks forgetting about the Pactor station frequencies as well? It is going to be fun trying to shoehorn a spot for yet another mode - Pactor, Winmor,
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Are you folks forgetting about the Pactor station frequencies as well?

            It is going to be fun trying to shoehorn a spot for yet another mode - Pactor, Winmor, V4, plus ALL of the other digital modes in prime spectrum, AND the consideration of crossing international borders with different regulations / mode assignments.

            To keep the hard won respect of existing WL2K operations, we might want to take a serious and detailed look at what may or may not be available. All the WL2K station operation is a matter of record. Adding the other 'favourite frequencies' to those lists shouldn't be too difficult.

            After that - pick what is left for V4. It wasn't that long ago that the WDT was taking a lot of flac for the spectrum that Pactor was operating in. Then we added Winmor. Wonder what popularity contest V4 will win for WL2K.

            Not kicking on anybody or anything, but lets do this intelligently, not just bounce numbers around.

            73
            Michael
          • David Bastress
            GE Michael, I m all for picking a frequency intelligently . Anybody got a data base with all the claimed frequencies per mode in it? While you are at it,
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              GE Michael,
               
              I'm all for picking a frequency "intelligently".  Anybody got a data base with all the "claimed" frequencies per mode in it?  While you are at it, throw in the 'special interest' frequencies like for QRP and all the various nets.  What's left??  NOT MUCH!!  But, if we don't pick a "center of interest" frequency, we won't be able to find each other.
               
              The difference between V4 and Pactor or Winmor is that both Pactor and Winmor require fixed frequencies for the RMS stations or otherwise they are pretty much useless.  V4 does not require fixed frequencies any more than any other keyboard to keyboard mode does.  Therefore V4 only needs some "center of interest" frequencies.  That's just some place where stations wishing to make V4 contacts can look around to find other V4 stations rather than having to scan the entire band to look for another V4 station.  VFOs will work wonderfully just like with any other KB to KB.
               
              Somebody call it on this one.
               
              Dave K3GAU     

              >>> "Michael - VA3LKI" 12/02/10 8:26 PM >>>
               

              Are you folks forgetting about the Pactor station frequencies as well?

              It is going to be fun trying to shoehorn a spot for yet another mode - Pactor, Winmor, V4, plus ALL of the other digital modes in prime spectrum, AND the consideration of crossing international borders with different regulations / mode assignments.

              To keep the hard won respect of existing WL2K operations, we might want to take a serious and detailed look at what may or may not be available. All the WL2K station operation is a matter of record. Adding the other 'favourite frequencies' to those lists shouldn't be too difficult.

              After that - pick what is left for V4. It wasn't that long ago that the WDT was taking a lot of flac for the spectrum that Pactor was operating in. Then we added Winmor. Wonder what popularity contest V4 will win for WL2K.

              Not kicking on anybody or anything, but lets do this intelligently, not just bounce numbers around.

              73
              Michael

            • va3lki
              Hi Dave You emphasize my concerns very well. John - W2KI has a reasonable suggestion with potential for growth in the V4 mode. I too don t know if it will
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Dave

                You emphasize my concerns very well.

                John - W2KI has a reasonable suggestion with potential for growth in the V4 mode. I too don't know if it will apply to the other bands, but sticking in the same area as the other keyboard operations are, does make some sense. I suspect there may be a comfortable niche there, and the 'battles for spectrum' already fought, won, or lost.

                If V4 is really just another keyboard method of doing the same thing in a little different way, then should it not still play in the keyboard sandbox? A bit like faster modes of PSK staying within the PSK area, or CW at 25, 35 and 50 wpm all playing nice together.

                73
                Michael






                --- In V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com, "David Bastress" <bastress@...> wrote:
                >
                > GE Michael,
                >
                > I'm all for picking a frequency "intelligently". Anybody got a data base
                > with all the "claimed" frequencies per mode in it? While you are at it,
                > throw in the 'special interest' frequencies like for QRP and all the
                > various nets. What's left?? NOT MUCH!! But, if we don't pick a "center
                > of interest" frequency, we won't be able to find each other.
                >
                > The difference between V4 and Pactor or Winmor is that both Pactor and
                > Winmor require fixed frequencies for the RMS stations or otherwise they
                > are pretty much useless. V4 does not require fixed frequencies any more
                > than any other keyboard to keyboard mode does. Therefore V4 only needs
                > some "center of interest" frequencies. That's just some place where
                > stations wishing to make V4 contacts can look around to find other V4
                > stations rather than having to scan the entire band to look for another
                > V4 station. VFOs will work wonderfully just like with any other KB to
                > KB.
                >
                > Somebody call it on this one.
                >
                > Dave K3GAU
                >
                >
                > >>> "Michael - VA3LKI" 12/02/10 8:26 PM >>>
                > Are you folks forgetting about the Pactor station frequencies as well?
                >
                > It is going to be fun trying to shoehorn a spot for yet another mode -
                > Pactor, Winmor, V4, plus ALL of the other digital modes in prime
                > spectrum, AND the consideration of crossing international borders with
                > different regulations / mode assignments.
                >
                > To keep the hard won respect of existing WL2K operations, we might want
                > to take a serious and detailed look at what may or may not be available.
                > All the WL2K station operation is a matter of record. Adding the other
                > 'favourite frequencies' to those lists shouldn't be too difficult.
                >
                > After that - pick what is left for V4. It wasn't that long ago that the
                > WDT was taking a lot of flac for the spectrum that Pactor was operating
                > in. Then we added Winmor. Wonder what popularity contest V4 will win for
                > WL2K.
                >
                > Not kicking on anybody or anything, but lets do this intelligently, not
                > just bounce numbers around.
                >
                > 73
                > Michael
                >
              • David Bastress
                GM All, I like John s suggestion. The north ends (high frequency side) of the keyboard to keyboard areas of the bands sounds like a plan to me. The only
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  GM All,
                   
                  I like John's suggestion.  The 'north' ends (high frequency side) of the keyboard to keyboard areas of the bands sounds like a plan to me.  The only question may be on 40 meters where there seems to be two KB to KB areas, one from 7035 and up and the other 7070 and up. 
                   
                  Dave K3GAU
                • Jeff - WA4ZKO
                  Unless someone wants to put together a website where WINMOR K2K ops can hook up, pick a time, pick a freq, etc etc....some general hangout spots on the dial
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Unless someone wants to put together a website where WINMOR K2K ops can hook up, pick a time, pick a freq, etc etc....some general hangout spots on the dial are a good idea.

                    I suggest staying fairly close to the usual 80m/40m WINMOR hotspots of 3.573/7.077 USB (dial). Whether or not those choices were the best could be debated till the cows go home, but momentum is what it is.

                    Doubt there is a perfect solution, especially on our very crowded (at best) lower bands. Bottom line is we have lots of digital modes trying to share some small chunks of HF spectrum.

                    Also consider a 30m hangout spot. Nice thing about 30 is it doesn't turn into a total QRM zoo during digital/cw contests.


                    73
                    Jeff
                    WA4ZKO
                    "Packet Radio never died, it just evolved."
                    Packet: WA4ZKO@WA4ZKO.#NKY.KY.USA.NOAM
                    http://twitter.com/wa4zko
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BBS_Users/ BBS Users Group.
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BBS_Sysop/ BBS Sysops Group.
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hspacket/ High Speed Packet Group.

                    --- In V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com, "David Bastress" <bastress@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > GM All,
                    >
                    > I like John's suggestion. The 'north' ends (high frequency side) of the keyboard to keyboard areas of the bands sounds like a plan to me. The only question may be on 40 meters where there seems to be two KB to KB areas, one from 7035 and up and the other 7070 and up.
                    >
                    > Dave K3GAU
                    >
                  • marc_pd4u
                    ... I fully agree if V4 is merely intended for K2K (keyboard to keyboard) use. Then a center of activity and eventual skeds via http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com, "va3lki" <va3lki@...> wrote:
                      ><..> but sticking in the same area as the other keyboard operations are, does make some sense. I suspect there may be a comfortable niche there, and the 'battles for spectrum' already fought, won, or lost.
                      >
                      > If V4 is really just another keyboard method of doing the same thing in a little different way, then should it not still play in the keyboard sandbox? A bit like faster modes of PSK staying within the PSK area, or CW at 25, 35 and 50 wpm all playing nice together.
                      >

                      I fully agree if V4 is merely intended for K2K (keyboard to keyboard) use. Then a center of activity and eventual skeds via http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ or any other suggested sked page is sufficient it seems to me.

                      But it begs the question is V4 merely intended for K2K use, since it originates from the WL2K team? Or is it (also) going to fit in the Wl2K set of programs in the future (that is my primary focus of interest)? In other words: Is the K2K alpha test a preliminary for the ARQ V4 Mode?

                      Marc, PD4U
                    • Rick Muething
                      Marc, There is no point speculating on these things....It should be fairly obvious from the performance figures and the V4 and V4Chat paper that V4 is intended
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Marc,
                         
                        There is no point speculating on these things....It should be fairly obvious from the performance figures and the V4 and V4Chat paper that V4 is intended strictly as a keyboard mode. It is limited to text, doesn’t use compression and is slower and less adaptive (but more robust and narrower) than WINMOR ....all by design.  It is designed to do keyboard to keyboard at normal typing speeds with fairly good “slickness” (RX to TX  turn over) and be more robust than modes like PSK (especially in poor multipath).  It is the result of many requests and several vain attempts to use WINMOR for keyboarding. 
                         
                        There are good reasons why modes are (or should be) designed for specific purposes.   With DSP it is much easier to design and optimize a mode that does a specific function well. When you try and make one thing fit all applications (Keyboard, files, messages, HF, VHF, wideband, narrow band, etc) you end up with a Camel (aka the Horse designed by committee!)
                         
                        There is absolutely no logic that would suggest that V4 compete with WINMOR or be morphed to have WINMOR capability.  They do 2 different things just like CW and SSB voice.
                         
                        The theory and early testing on the simulator suggests that V4 should fit the keyboarder’s requirements well though of course it will take time and work to optimize this.
                         
                        Rick KN6KB
                         
                        From: marc_pd4u
                        Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:40 PM
                        Subject: [V4Protocol] Re: Hang out frequencies - 4 what?
                         
                         



                        --- In mailto:V4Protocol%40yahoogroups.com, "va3lki" <va3lki@...> wrote:

                        ><..> but sticking in the same
                        area as the other keyboard operations are, does make some sense. I suspect there may be a comfortable niche there, and the 'battles for spectrum' already fought, won, or lost.
                        >
                        > If V4 is really just another keyboard method of
                        doing the same thing in a little different way, then should it not still play in the keyboard sandbox? A bit like faster modes of PSK staying within the PSK area, or CW at 25, 35 and 50 wpm all playing nice together.
                        >

                        I fully agree if V4 is merely intended for K2K (keyboard to keyboard) use. Then a center of activity and eventual skeds via http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ or any other suggested sked page is sufficient it seems to me.

                        But it begs the question is V4 merely intended for K2K use, since it originates from the WL2K team? Or is it (also) going to fit in the Wl2K set of programs in the future (that is my primary focus of interest)? In other words: Is the K2K alpha test a preliminary for the ARQ V4 Mode?

                        Marc, PD4U

                      • Andy obrien
                        Interesting, it sounds a bit like ALE 400 to me, I look forward to seeing if it is anything close to what I imagine. Andy K3UK ... Interesting, it sounds a bit
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Interesting, it sounds a bit like ALE 400 to me, I look forward to seeing if it is anything close to what I imagine.


                          Andy K3UK

                          On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Rick Muething <rmuething@...> wrote:
                           

                          It is designed to do keyboard to keyboard at normal typing speeds with fairly good “slickness” (RX to TX  turn over) and be more robust than modes like PSK (especially in poor multipath).  It is the result of many requests and several vain attempts to use WINMOR for keyboarding. 
                           
                          There are good reasons why modes are (or should be) designed for specific purposes.   With DSP it is much easier to design and optimize a mode that does a specific function well. When you try and make one thing fit all applications (Keyboard, files, messages, HF, VHF, wideband, narrow band, etc) you end up with a Camel (aka the Horse designed by c


                        • W6IDS
                          This isn t operable with WL2K. It s an ARQ keyboard comms application per se. How much spectrum does this take up compared to RTTY, PSK, etc? RTTY and PSK
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This isn't operable with WL2K.  It's an ARQ keyboard comms application per se.
                            How much spectrum does this take up compared to RTTY, PSK, etc?
                             
                            RTTY and PSK aren't compatible simply for the fact that RTTY clobbers PSK.
                            How well will WINMOR play with RTTY?  PSK?  If it's no winder than PSK, I
                            don't see why it can't go anywhere it will fit on a not-to-interfere basis.  NO
                            difference than we do now just out of courtesy for our other modes.
                             
                            I guess I'm a bit reluctant to entertain a discussion about having to find a
                            separate home for the operations when we don't have to, IMHO.  There's no
                            channel list to reference
                             
                            Why can't we just pick a quiet frequency (ies) and test (call CQ WINMOR, set up
                            a sked referencing CF, etc)?  We're not testing for WL2K application are we? 
                            I thought this was totally applicable to normal QSO comms but with the advantage
                            of error-free copy by virtue of ARQ.
                             
                            Seems to me it's no different than RTTY or my PacTOR I ops on 14111 CF.
                            Let's just test the capability to the max, have fun with it, and try not to bust anyone's
                            chops 'cause we weren't checking the freqs like we should.
                             
                            Howard W6IDS
                            Richmond, IN EM79NV
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:24 AM
                            Subject: [V4Protocol] Re: Hang out frequencies

                            GM All,
                             
                            I like John's suggestion.  The 'north' ends (high frequency side) of the keyboard to keyboard areas of the bands sounds like a plan to me.  The only question may be on 40 meters where there seems to be two KB to KB areas, one from 7035 and up and the other 7070 and up. 
                             
                            Dave K3GAU

                             
                          • marc_pd4u
                            Hi Rick, TNX 4 ur reply. And I already guessed that since it was asked several times to include a K2K facility for winmor. So now there is V4 for those. But I
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 3, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Rick,

                              TNX 4 ur reply. And I already guessed that since it was asked several times to include a K2K facility for winmor. So now there is V4 for those.

                              But I sure hope that V4 is not going to take too much development time for winmor, since winmor still has some hick-ups every now and then. But you also said you were going to focus again on winmor in the coming time. So PSE have a look at the "memory issue" (i.e. memory not released/variables not reset after a connect)

                              GD LK

                              Marc, PD4U

                              --- In V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Muething" <rmuething@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Marc,
                              >
                              > There is no point speculating on these things....It should be fairly obvious from the performance figures and the V4 and V4Chat paper that V4 is intended strictly as a keyboard mode. It is limited to text, doesn’t use compression and is slower and less adaptive (but more robust and narrower) than WINMOR ....all by design. It is designed to do keyboard to keyboard at normal typing speeds with fairly good “slickness” (RX to TX turn over) and be more robust than modes like PSK (especially in poor multipath). It is the result of many requests and several vain attempts to use WINMOR for keyboarding.
                              >
                              > There are good reasons why modes are (or should be) designed for specific purposes. With DSP it is much easier to design and optimize a mode that does a specific function well. When you try and make one thing fit all applications (Keyboard, files, messages, HF, VHF, wideband, narrow band, etc) you end up with a Camel (aka the Horse designed by committee!)
                              >
                              > There is absolutely no logic that would suggest that V4 compete with WINMOR or be morphed to have WINMOR capability. They do 2 different things just like CW and SSB voice.
                              >
                              > The theory and early testing on the simulator suggests that V4 should fit the keyboarder’s requirements well though of course it will take time and work to optimize this.
                              >
                              > Rick KN6KB
                              >
                              > From: marc_pd4u
                              > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:40 PM
                              > To: V4Protocol@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [V4Protocol] Re: Hang out frequencies - 4 what?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In mailto:V4Protocol%40yahoogroups.com, "va3lki" <va3lki@> wrote:
                              > ><..> but sticking in the same area as the other keyboard operations are, does make some sense. I suspect there may be a comfortable niche there, and the 'battles for spectrum' already fought, won, or lost.
                              > >
                              > > If V4 is really just another keyboard method of doing the same thing in a little different way, then should it not still play in the keyboard sandbox? A bit like faster modes of PSK staying within the PSK area, or CW at 25, 35 and 50 wpm all playing nice together.
                              > >
                              >
                              > I fully agree if V4 is merely intended for K2K (keyboard to keyboard) use. Then a center of activity and eventual skeds via http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ or any other suggested sked page is sufficient it seems to me.
                              >
                              > But it begs the question is V4 merely intended for K2K use, since it originates from the WL2K team? Or is it (also) going to fit in the Wl2K set of programs in the future (that is my primary focus of interest)? In other words: Is the K2K alpha test a preliminary for the ARQ V4 Mode?
                              >
                              > Marc, PD4U
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.