From VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk Fri Mar 01 09:23:14 1996 Received: from gw.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk (gw.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk [193.63.243.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA26387 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:20:14 -0600 (CST) From: VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:46:00 GMT To: ss@tapr.org Message-Id: <960301134600.86d@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> Subject: Spread Spectrum in the UK I have been following this SIG recently and thought I should let people know what I have been doing with SS in the UK ! I have been experimenting with Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum on the 70 cm band for a few years. I had to get special permission from the UK Radiocommunication Agency to experiment with SS under the terms of my amateur licence. I have constructed a number of DSS systems the first being based on the Practical Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum UHF Link published by Andre Ke steloot in QST (May 1989) and re-published in the ARRL Spread Spectrum Sourcebook. This was followed by my own design for a digital voice 32 kbit/s direct sequence transmitter with a companion delay-locked loop receiver, which was published in Electronics and Wireless World (Voice Link over Spread Spectrum Radio, September and October 1993). After the initial euphoria of getting the system to work, being unable to find anyone to talk to with this mode led to the system being put away in a cupboard ! However I am thinking of re-visiting the design, simplifying it and hopefully improving its' performance. I would very interested in hearing from anyone who is experimenting with SS techniques and in particular DS delay-locked/Tau-Dither loops and BPSK carrier recovery systems. I am also keen to find out if anyone has successfully constructed a working hybrid frequency- hopping direct sequence system. I am hoping that there will be some active discussion on practical SS in this group and that it will motivate me to do some more experiments with this mode. Regards James Vincent G1PVZ Internet: vincent@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk Packet: G1PVZ@GB7TJF.#45.GBR.EU From cbuttsch@slonet.org Fri Mar 01 11:37:41 1996 Received: from biggulp.callamer.com (cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com [199.74.141.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id LAA01952 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:37:38 -0600 (CST) Received: (from cbuttsch@localhost) by biggulp.callamer.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id JAA02123; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:34:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:34:10 -0800 (PST) From: Clifford Buttschardt X-Sender: cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com To: VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:87] Spread Spectrum in the UK In-Reply-To: <960301134600.86d@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII James. The system described in QST for May 89 works well. Indeed I understand not getting local interest, as at first it seems building two of each breadboard is necessary. We have been experimenting with BPSK systems, primarily addressing some of the locking difficulties in Andre's system. BTW, do check the AMRAD BBS for updates on this very item. Information is easily gotten and provided. Cliff Buttschardt W6HDO On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk wrote: > I have been following this SIG recently and thought I should let > people know what I have been doing with SS in the UK ! > > I have been experimenting with Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum on > the 70 cm band for a few years. I had to get special permission > from the UK Radiocommunication Agency to experiment with SS under > the terms of my amateur licence. > > I have constructed a number of DSS systems the first being based > on the Practical Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum UHF Link > published by Andre Ke > steloot in QST (May 1989) and re-published > in the ARRL Spread Spectrum Sourcebook. > > This was followed by my own design for a digital voice 32 kbit/s > direct sequence transmitter with a companion delay-locked loop > receiver, which was published in Electronics and Wireless World > (Voice Link over Spread Spectrum Radio, September and October > 1993). > > After the initial euphoria of getting the system to work, being > unable to find anyone to talk to with this mode led to the system > being put away in a > cupboard ! However I am thinking of > re-visiting the design, simplifying it and hopefully improving > its' performance. > > I would very interested in hearing from anyone who is > experimenting with SS techniques and in particular DS > delay-locked/Tau-Dither loops and BPSK carrier recovery systems. > I am also keen to find out if anyone has successfully constructed > a working hybrid frequency- hopping direct sequence system. > > I am hoping that there will be some active discussion on > practical SS in this > group and that it will motivate me to do > some more experiments with this mode. > > Regards > > James Vincent G1PVZ > > Internet: vincent@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk > Packet: G1PVZ@GB7TJF.#45.GBR.EU > > From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Fri Mar 01 12:05:58 1996 Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id MAA03443 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 12:05:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA201153543; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:05:44 -0800 Received: from hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (n6gn.sr.hp.com) by srmail.sr.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA099983542; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:05:42 -0800 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA072493541; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:05:41 -0800 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199603011805.AA072493541@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:87] Spread Spectrum in the UK To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:05:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <960301134600.86d@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> from "ss@tapr.org" at Mar 1, 96 09:38:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I would very interested in hearing from anyone who is > experimenting with SS techniques and in particular DS > delay-locked/Tau-Dither loops and BPSK carrier recovery systems. > I am also keen to find out if anyone has successfully constructed > a working hybrid frequency- hopping direct sequence system. > > I am hoping that there will be some active discussion on > practical SS in this > group and that it will motivate me to do > some more experiments with this mode. > James Thanks for posting about your interests and activities. I also have been experimenting and building and am currently working on 1265 DSSS, direct conversion, fully synchronous system. I have experimented with a couple of recovery methods and now hope to be able to use the full synchronism along with a conventional PLL to advantage and let much or all of the acquisition be done with s/w. See the web page for details. Glenn Elmore n6gn amateur IP: glenn@SantaRosa.ampr.org Internet: glenne@sr.hp.com |--------------- N6GN's Higher Speed Packet WWW Page -------------------| | | | ftp://col.hp.com/hamradio/packet/n6gn/index.html | | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From srbible@mindport.net Fri Mar 01 15:15:27 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id PAA11974 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:15:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-41.mindport.net [205.219.167.60]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14564; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 16:15:20 -0500 Posted-Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 16:15:20 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960301211607.0069c754@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 16:16:07 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: Re: [SS:87] Spread Spectrum in the UK Cc: VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk At 09:38 AM 3/1/96 -0600, you wrote: [snip] >This was followed by my own design for a digital voice 32 kbit/s >direct sequence transmitter with a companion delay-locked loop >receiver, which was published in Electronics and Wireless World >(Voice Link over Spread Spectrum Radio, September and October >1993). Hello James, I have heard of your article and have tried to get a copy of it, but to no avail. I am sure if the readers of this list were to read your article there would be much to comment on. Could there perhaps be a way we can post your article on the Web? What are the copywrite permissions needed from Electronics and Wireless World. I'd be glad to help you get the article posted on the www.tapr.org web server. Or perhaps you have an update article to post. Just some thoughts. 73, - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From rw@TXCC.NET Fri Mar 01 18:51:43 1996 Received: from txcc.net (txcc.net [205.218.183.157]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id SAA21176 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 18:51:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from RALPHWAR (port5.txcc.net [205.218.183.135]) by txcc.net (8.7.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA25672 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 18:49:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199603020049.SAA25672@txcc.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ralph Ward" To: ss@tapr.org Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 18:51:55 -0600 Subject: newbie lookie for basic info Reply-to: rw@TXCC.NET Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) I am new to SS and would like a source of basic info...does anyone have suggestions? Ralph Ward rw@txcc.net From cbuttsch@slonet.org Sat Mar 02 16:09:49 1996 Received: from biggulp.callamer.com (cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com [199.74.141.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id QAA17140 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 16:09:47 -0600 (CST) Received: (from cbuttsch@localhost) by biggulp.callamer.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id OAA09754; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 14:09:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 14:09:31 -0800 (PST) From: Clifford Buttschardt X-Sender: cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com To: "Robert A. Buaas" cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Cliff W6HDO/WB6RIJ STA use In-Reply-To: <199603020008.QAA01498@wireless.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Bob...Many thanks for the reply. I did indeed get your address off the TAPR home page, which in itself is a miricle as I have had nothing but difficulty getting any sort of information using FTP connections. Just minutes ago, WB6RIJ and I had a long CW QSO on the 1750 meter band! Both of us running one watt to fifty foot antennas. We use this band as any sort of emmision is allowed. Thus it is called the "experimenters band". You might have read of some of my efforts getting very weak signal, slow BPSK popularized. I have a one character per second ASCII beacon on 187.65 KHz, 24 hours a day. Just as soon as we know more, spread spectrum will be considered, probably on the ham bands since the incremental bandwidth allows SOME help! Bill is way ahead on this and has some breadboards completed. We would like to eventually use some HF ham band if you thought this at all possbile. If by your experience this would be impossible, then we will simply continue on the 1750 meter band. You have no worry about my violating the weak signal guys as I am one of them myself---probably more so than a SS experimenter. When my friends see my involvement, you probably can follow the mushroom cloud generated. Secondly, I am the nearest AMSAT area coordinator to the PANSAT project in Monterey. The devil of it is that I know little of SS and need some practical help! Both Bill and I have struck out on our own as a natural phase from slow BPSK to SS. Therefore, I would like to file your comments (with a copy to Bill) for the moment and listen to suggestions that might be made. I do try and read the TAPR HF SIG in order to bridge these two requirements, but I see little similarity presently. Again thanks for your help and more later on. Cliff Buttschardt W6HDO From djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Sun Mar 03 03:46:57 1996 Received: from dirku.demon.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id DAA20791 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 03:46:53 -0600 (CST) Received: (from djk@localhost) by dirku.demon.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.1) id JAA00266; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 09:51:47 GMT Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 09:51:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Dirk-Jan Koopman X-Sender: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Reply-To: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk To: ss@tapr.org cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:87] Spread Spectrum in the UK In-Reply-To: <960301134600.86d@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk wrote: > I have been following this SIG recently and thought I should let > people know what I have been doing with SS in the UK ! > > I have been experimenting with Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum on > the 70 cm band for a few years. I had to get special permission > from the UK Radiocommunication Agency to experiment with SS under > the terms of my amateur licence. > I have been trying to get a response out of the RA about this matter for sometime, without success. However, after carefully reading my BR68 (UK version of Part 97), there is nothing actually in there which prohibits the use of SS - in fact it actually says "If band spreading techniques are used, then the most efficient method should be employed". A facet of the common law in England is that, to quote Lord Denning, "you can do whatever you like, so long as there isn't a law agin it". Perhaps you could tell us the problem you had with the RA (and who with). > I have constructed a number of DSS systems the first being based > on the Practical Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum UHF Link > published by Andre Ke > steloot in QST (May 1989) and re-published > in the ARRL Spread Spectrum Sourcebook. > > This was followed by my own design for a digital voice 32 kbit/s > direct sequence transmitter with a companion delay-locked loop > receiver, which was published in Electronics and Wireless World > (Voice Link over Spread Spectrum Radio, September and October > 1993). > It may be of interest that Harris as currently sampling a 2400 Mhz five chip SS set which takes binary in one end and chucks SS out the other and vice versa to at least part 15 rf levels and up to 2Mbps. -- Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 Computer Consultant Email: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde From JSANFORD@INFI.NET Sun Mar 03 07:54:06 1996 Received: from mh004.infi.net (mh004.infi.net [205.219.238.95]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id HAA28403 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 07:54:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from pa18dsp20.orf.infi.net by mh004.infi.net with SMTP (Infinet-S-3.3) id IAA32676; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 08:54:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199603031354.IAA32676@mh004.infi.net> X-Sender: jsanford@infi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 08:54:08 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jim Sanford Subject: Re: [SS:93] Re: Spread Spectrum in the UK Dirk: Any idea where, how, how much ($$) for the samples???? Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org At 03:47 AM 3/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 VINCENT@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk wrote: > >> I have been following this SIG recently and thought I should let >> people know what I have been doing with SS in the UK ! >> >> I have been experimenting with Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum on >> the 70 cm band for a few years. I had to get special permission >> from the UK Radiocommunication Agency to experiment with SS under >> the terms of my amateur licence. >> > >I have been trying to get a response out of the RA about this matter for >sometime, without success. However, after carefully reading my BR68 >(UK version of Part 97), there is nothing actually in there which >prohibits the use of SS - in fact it actually says "If band spreading >techniques are used, then the most efficient method should be employed". > >A facet of the common law in England is that, to quote Lord Denning, >"you can do whatever you like, so long as there isn't a law agin it". > >Perhaps you could tell us the problem you had with the RA (and who with). > >> I have constructed a number of DSS systems the first being based >> on the Practical Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum UHF Link >> published by Andre Ke >> steloot in QST (May 1989) and re-published >> in the ARRL Spread Spectrum Sourcebook. >> >> This was followed by my own design for a digital voice 32 kbit/s >> direct sequence transmitter with a companion delay-locked loop >> receiver, which was published in Electronics and Wireless World >> (Voice Link over Spread Spectrum Radio, September and October >> 1993). >> > >It may be of interest that Harris as currently sampling a 2400 Mhz five chip >SS set which takes binary in one end and chucks SS out the other and vice >versa to at least part 15 rf levels and up to 2Mbps. > >-- >Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 >Computer Consultant Email: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU >"The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than >the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde > > From srbible@mindport.net Sun Mar 03 09:30:10 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA02306 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 09:30:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-74.mindport.net [205.219.167.133]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA08240 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:30:01 -0500 Posted-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:30:01 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960303153110.006a0934@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 10:31:10 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: Harris Chip Set (was Spread Spectrum in the UK) At 08:18 AM 3/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >Dirk: >Any idea where, how, how much ($$) for the samples???? >Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org Back in November I phoned Harris Semiconductor Sales Office Headquarters in Melbourne, FL (1-800-442-7747). Talked with Dana. There doesn't seemed to be much on the chipset at this time since it is in pre-production (remember, this was November). Here's what she did tell me price (rough) wise. I would not hang my hat on these. Plus, I am not sure if this is small qtys or not. HFA3524 Dual Synthesizer $13.30 HFA3624 RF/IF Converter $12.00 HFA3724 Quad IF Modulator $26.00 HSP3824 DSSS Baseband Processor not available (this is the big chip) HFA3924 RFPA not available The good news is that she said they will be doing an evaluation unit. Alas, no info other than it will be available early next year (Jan - Feb). She gave me the number to Advanced Technical Sales in Mass. (508-644-0888). They had no info. They are going to try and get me some pre-production samples. I have not heard back from these people. Another thing to pay attention to in this chip set is that the portion of the 2.4 GHz band is uses is not entirely in the primary portion of the amateur band that we have. Here is the URL http://www.semi.harris.com/datasheets/wireless/wireless_family.html Guess it's time to get back on the phone. 73, - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Sun Mar 03 12:33:07 1996 Received: from dirku.demon.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id MAA09745 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 12:32:47 -0600 (CST) Received: (from djk@localhost) by dirku.demon.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.1) id SAA01440; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 18:37:38 GMT Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 18:37:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Dirk-Jan Koopman X-Sender: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Reply-To: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:95] Harris Chip Set (was Spread Spectrum in the UK) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4b11.32.19960303153110.006a0934@mindport.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Steven R. Bible wrote: > Another thing to pay attention to in this chip set is that the portion of > the 2.4 GHz band is uses is not entirely in the primary portion of the > amateur band that we have. > That _YOU_ have - none of our bit of the 2400Mhz band is primary :-( Dirk -- Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 Computer Consultant Email: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde From srbible@mindport.net Sun Mar 03 16:40:48 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA20310 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 16:40:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-102.mindport.net [205.219.167.161]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA02535 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:40:37 -0500 Posted-Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 17:40:37 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960303224157.00675d2c@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 17:41:57 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: Re: [SS:96] Re: Harris Chip Set (was Spread Spectrum in the UK) At 12:40 PM 3/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Steven R. Bible wrote: > >> Another thing to pay attention to in this chip set is that the portion of >> the 2.4 GHz band is uses is not entirely in the primary portion of the >> amateur band that we have. >> > >That _YOU_ have - none of our bit of the 2400Mhz band is primary :-( Sorry about that Dirk, I should pay closer attention that this is an International list :-). 73, - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From buaas@wireless.net Sun Mar 03 22:58:22 1996 Received: from wireless.net (wireless-gw.wireless.net [128.49.236.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id WAA07125 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 22:58:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from ir.wdc.net (ir.wdc.net [198.147.74.35]) by wireless.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06241 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 1996 21:04:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 21:04:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199603040504.VAA06241@wireless.net> X-Sender: buaas@hf.wdc.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: buaas@wireless.net (Robert A. Buaas) Subject: Re: [SS:95] Harris Chip Set >At 08:18 AM 3/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >>Dirk: >>Any idea where, how, how much ($$) for the samples???? >>Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org [large snip] Hi Everyone-- Regards this chipset: one of it's market targets is IEEE 802.11 using the DS PHY (There are 3 different PHY's specified in .11: a FHSS using NB GFSK, the subject DSSS, and IR). The DS PHY is patterned very much after the AT&T(NCR) WaveLAN technology which uses an 11-bit Barker code to do the spreading of a DQPSK-coded data stream. As specified in .11, each "channel" is ~~22 MHz wide, allowing 4 non-overlapping channels in the 83+ MHz allocated for FCC Part-15 operations. (Things are different in Japan and Europe.) As you might imagine, an 11-bit spreading sequence doesn't give much spreading gain or jam immunity or help with delay spread, and DQPSK is not a very robust modulation in the face of interference. This does work great for fairly short ranges and for medium range with high gain/highly directional/no sidelobe antennas. I've seen a (very) preliminary datasheet. There are additional spreading sequences and code lengths supported. We won't really know the ultimate usage potential for this product until it comes out. Stay tuned... best regards to all. bob/K6KGS From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Mar 04 00:42:49 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) id AAA17784 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 00:42:48 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603040642.AAA17784@tapr.org> Subject: SS Web Page Update To: ss@tapr.org Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 00:42:48 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Just added to the SS Page. The comments that we have on RM-8737 are posted. We will be keeping this as up to date as possible as we get comments from others to post. Also -- I have added the Ham Radio and More Show of 6.13.93 on Spread Spectrum. Cheers - Greg From bm@hydra.carleton.ca Mon Mar 04 08:51:03 1996 Received: from hydra.carleton.ca (hydra.carleton.ca [134.117.12.18]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id IAA04272 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:50:57 -0600 (CST) Received: (from bm@localhost) by hydra.carleton.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA30123 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:50:52 -0500 From: Barry McLarnon VE3JF Message-Id: <199603041450.JAA30123@hydra.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [SS:97] Re: Harris Chip Set (was Spread Spectrum in the UK) To: ss@tapr.org Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:50:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4b11.32.19960303224157.00675d2c@mindport.net> from "Steven R. Bible" at Mar 3, 96 04:50:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Steve Bible wrote: > > > >> Another thing to pay attention to in this chip set is that the portion of > >> the 2.4 GHz band is uses is not entirely in the primary portion of the > >> amateur band that we have. > >> > > > >That _YOU_ have - none of our bit of the 2400Mhz band is primary :-( > > Sorry about that Dirk, I should pay closer attention that this is an > International list :-). Same situation in Canada - we are only secondary users of the amateur bands above 225 MHz. On the other hand, we do have 150 MHz to play with at 2.3 - 2.45 GHz, and it appears that we can do SS there right now, with no regulatory changes needed. Whilst looking at the new chip sets coming down the pike, I've been contemplating getting some commercial 2.4 GHz hardware to try out and get my feet wet (so to speak). The problem is to identify something that could be confined to the amateur subband so as to avoid the unlicenced/ISM ERP restrictions. The only product that seems to fill the bill off-the-shelf is one of the WaveLAN variants which operates in the 2.4 - 2.45 GHz segment. I suspect that they may not be readily obtainable here, although I haven't really tried yet. Also, as Bob points out in another posting, WaveLAN is not very robust due to its low processing gain - it barely qualifies as SS. I want a WaveLAN with 2.375 GHz center frequency and 70 MHz chipping rate! But off-the-shelf WaveLANs may have to do for starters, if I can get them. One attractive aspect of WaveLAN is the existence of a Linux driver for it. Do any other possibilities come to mind? Any chance of pulling the synthesizer in something like the Proxim FH modem down so it hops in the 2.3 - 2.45 GHz range? My biggest handicap right now is that I've never actually had my hands on any of this hardware... but I know some of you guys have. Comments? Barry -- Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: bm@hydra.carleton.ca Ottawa Amateur Radio Club | AMPRnet: bm@lynx.ve3jf.ampr.org Packet Working Group | Web: http://hydra.carleton.ca From wd5ivd@tapr.org Mon Mar 04 15:53:02 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) id PAA21342; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:52:53 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603042152.PAA21342@tapr.org> Subject: 1996 ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference To: netsig@tapr.org (NETSIG mailing), bbssig@tapr.org (BBS SIG mailing), aprssig@tapr.org (BBS SIG mailing), hfsig@tapr.org (HF SIG mailing), dsp-93@tapr.org (DSP-93 Build), ss@tapr.org, tapr-tnc@tapr.org Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:52:53 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Press Release. Please distribute as widely as possible. http://www.tapr.org March 1st, 1996 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference September 20-22, 1996 Seattle, WA, U.S.A. 1996 ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference Mark your calendar and start making plans to attend the year's premier event in amateur radio digital communications -- The 1996 ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference will be held September 20-22, 1996, in Seattle, Washington -- just minutes from the SeaTac Airport. Local sponsors include the Puget Sound Amateur Radio TCP/IP Group and Boeing Employees Amateur Radio Society (BEARS). The ARRL and TAPR Digital Communications Conference is an international forum for radio amateurs and experts in digital communications, networking, and related technologies to meet, publish their work, and present new ideas and techniques for discussion. Presenters and attendees will have the opportunity to exchange ideas and learn about recent hardware and software advances, theories, experimental results, and practical applications. This year marks the first year in which the ARRL Digital Communications Conference and TAPR Annual General Meeting have joined into one conference! Anyone interested in digital communications is invited to submit a paper for publication in the Conference Proceedings. Presentation at the Conference is not required for publication. Papers are due by July 23, 1996, and should be submitted to Maty Weinberg, ARRL, 225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111 U.S.A. or via Internet at lweinberg@arrl.org. Please contact Maty for detailed format requirements. Papers are due by July 23, 1996 ARRL and TAPR especially welcome papers from full time students to compete for the first annual student papers award. Two $500 travel awards will be given, one in each of the following categories: a) best technical/theory-oriented paper by a student, and b) best educational or community-oriented application paper by a student. The paper should relate directly to a wireless digital communication topic (see guidelines for more information). Papers coauthored by educators or telecommunications professionals are also eligible for this award, as long as a student is the first author. First year awards have been funded through a grant by The ARRL Foundation, Inc. Deadline for receipt of finished student paper manuscript: June 11, 1996. Please note that this deadline is different than the general conference submission date. For full details and paper guidelines, contact TAPR or check http://www.tapr.org. The current schedule has a workshop and student papers on Friday afternoon. Conference Papers, Introductory thread, Lunch, and Dinner on Saturday. Sunday will have additional paper sessions, if necessary, as well as one or more workshops. Workshops will include Keith Sproul, WU2Z, on APRS packet-location software, Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP , on "How to utilize Part 15 Radios for Ham Applications" and a workshop on Wireless Networking using WA4DSY 56K RF modem technology and its accessories. See the advanced registration form for more details as well as http://www.tapr.org For more information on the Conference, registration, and hotel reservations please contact TAPR at the address below. TAPR Office: 8987-309 E. Tanque Verde Rd. #337 Tucson, AZ 85749-9399 Phone: (817) 383-0000 Fax: (817) 566-2544 Internet E-Mail: tapr@tapr.org Internet Web: http://www.tapr.org From swebb@iastate.edu Mon Mar 04 16:45:25 1996 Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.166.169]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA23619 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:45:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from wilson02.res.iastate.edu (dial39.ppp.iastate.edu [129.186.97.39]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA08334 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:45:15 -0600 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960304224516.0067dd1c@pop-1.iastate.edu> X-Sender: swebb@pop-1.iastate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 16:45:16 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Stephen Webb Subject: Solar Car Hi I am from the Iowa State Solar Car Team. We are looking for a plans to a SS device or just to buy one some where. I do not know a lot about SS, but I can tell you that we are thinking of using 900 mhz or 2.4 mhz. The main reason that we need to use SS is to over come the high RF noise for the big electric motor that is at most 4 feet away. We have eliminated line noise by filters. Does any one know where we can start looking for plans to build a device or to buy a pre-build device. I have one company out of Orlando,Fl named Aero-Repco Sales. But I would like to shop around a little. Any Help or Info will be appreciated!!! Thanks Stephen Webb Iowa State Solar Car Team http://www.public.iastate.edu/~prisum From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Tue Mar 05 11:13:51 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id LAA29768 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:13:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA00074; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:45:01 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 13c45d20; Tue, 5 Mar 96 08:46:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:45:16 -0500 Message-Id: <13c45d20@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:102] Solar Car To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Stephen, I am working on a SS xcvr, but unfortuantly, it is in the development stages right now. I have llok for a SS kit or something similar to it, but to no avail. Since I live in Orlando, I would like to know more about the company that you contacted. I would like to know what you have found out. Sincerely, Tony KE4ATO lanier.r.a@wec.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:102] Solar Car Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/4/ 0 4:53 PM Hi I am from the Iowa State Solar Car Team. We are looking for a plans to a SS device or just to buy one some where. I do not know a lot about SS, but I can tell you that we are thinking of using 900 mhz or 2.4 mhz. The main reason that we need to use SS is to over come the high RF noise for the big electric motor that is at most 4 feet away. We have eliminated line noise by filters. Does any one know where we can start looking for plans to build a device or to buy a pre-build device. I have one company out of Orlando,Fl named Aero-Repco Sales. But I would like to shop around a little. Any Help or Info will be appreciated!!! Thanks Stephen Webb Iowa State Solar Car Team http://www.public.iastate.edu/~prisum From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Mar 05 19:10:17 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) id TAA24315 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:10:16 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603060110.TAA24315@tapr.org> Subject: SS Comments To: ss@tapr.org Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:10:15 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text I have added the comments from National Communications System, 2/26/96 to the rules page on the http://www.tapr.org/ss Had some very interesting comments. Greg From jeff@wa1hco.mv.com Tue Mar 05 19:57:02 1996 Received: from bort.mv.net (bort.mv.net [192.80.84.6]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id TAA26622 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:56:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from wa1hco.mv.com (wa1hco.mv.com [199.125.64.47]) by bort.mv.net (8.6.10/mv(b)/mem-951016) with SMTP id UAA12718 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 20:56:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199603060156.UAA12718@bort.mv.net> X-Sender: wa1hco-jm@pop.mv.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 20:57:27 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff Millar Subject: Re: [SS:102] Solar Car At 04:53 PM 3/4/96 -0600, you wrote: >Hi > >I am from the Iowa State Solar Car Team. We are looking for a plans to a SS >device or just to buy one some where. > I do not know a lot about SS, but I can tell you that we are thinking of >using 900 mhz or 2.4 mhz. The main reason that we need to use SS is to over >come the high RF noise for the big electric motor that is at most 4 feet >away. We have eliminated line noise by filters. Spread Spectrum works against interference by spreading narrow bandwidth emissions into noise-like, lower peak power, signals. Since the motor already puts out noise- like emissions, it seems that spread spectrum would not gain an advantage. In fact, a narrow band emission such as FM with 1:1 deviation would allow a narrow receiver bandwidth thus rejecting more noise and improving signal to noise ratio over the link. jeff, wa1hco From mac@ns1.culver.net Tue Mar 05 22:19:30 1996 Received: from ns1.culver.net (mac@ns1.culver.net [206.13.40.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id WAA03600 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:19:26 -0600 (CST) Received: (from mac@localhost) by ns1.culver.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04182; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 20:22:23 -0800 From: Mike Cheponis Message-Id: <199603060422.UAA04182@ns1.culver.net> Subject: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 20:22:23 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text [US Only Information follows. Sorry for the QRM to our non-US list members.] There are people on this list who have better information than this, but I just got a call from our Pacific Division Director and he mentions that comments in RM-8737 were filed by: SCRRBA (apparently very thoughtful comments), MAC (Mid-Atlantic repeater group), NCF, John Mock KD6PAG, AMSAT, San Bernadino Microwave Society, the Indiana Repeater Council, Amateur Television Quarterly, and the comments that are already on the TAPR SS Web Page. Basically, Brad (the Director) says that the comments against SS fall predictably: 1) SS will screw up repeater inputs 2) Weak signal guys will be wiped out. So, when you file your Reply Comments, please specifically answer why SS won't cause problems for repeaters or weak signal guys. -Mike K3MC (p.s. As for me, I had to write my Reply Comments early, and did not include any support for why SS is compatible with repeaters & weak signals. :-( ) From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Tue Mar 05 22:48:56 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id WAA04695 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:48:24 -0600 (CST) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 22:54:26 UTC Message-Id: <9415@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: Solar Car Hi, SS is probably not a plus or a minus in this situation. SS should probably be considered, based on the goals of the project tho. To train young eng- ineers. It should help avoid problem with clock harmonics, too. Being close to an electric car motor, means ur going to be closed to the digital elect- ronics that control the big switching devices too. Lets consider the problem without SS first, tho. This problem is the very problem that led to the invention of FM. A guy named Armstrong needed a way to communicate between army tanks, that were powered by spark ignition engines. AM was pretty useless, mostly because it was limited to the band- widths a 1:1 FM signal would have. The impulse noise is passed thru a filter, the IF filter. In the time domain, the output of the impulse is aproximately SinX/X since the IF filter is aproximately a rectangular frequency response. That is, the output of the IF has approximately a SinX/X envelope. The SinX/X time width is controlled by the IF band width in an inverse relationship. The narrower the BW, the broader the pulse, and lower its amp- litude. In close proximity to an engine, the impulse almost always overpowers any distant VHF source mixed into the IF, with a practical signal BW, how- ever. So, how did Armstrong get around this? He widened the IF BW. Thus, the impulse signal out the IF could be filtered out, since its components were now higher in frequency than the Modulation. To regain signal S/N performance, he also had to widen the FM deviation of the signal, until it approximately fit into the widened IF BW. This was all well and good, but now the system had a Threshold Effect. So, sufficient transmitter power needed to be used to get the signal above the threshold effect. The Broadcast FM system is exactly such a system. It uses a signal and IF BW approximately 10 times wider than the modulation BW. If ur looking for a simple solution, wideband FM is what u need. If u then put SS on top of the wideband FM, you should have a very reliable system. The only disadvantage with this is that it needs a transmitter that is more powerful than more sophisticated technigues might permit. Narrowband modems along with Foward Error Correction would be a more sophisticated technigue that would give larger range, or permit lower power, or more simultaneous users in a given BW. But this might be too much to do for the time/personell you have. Noise blankers have also been successfully used, but are prone to IMD difficulties. That is, as ur car speeds up it xx the blanker would mix in farther out and farther out adjacent channels. 73, Don. 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%n0eir.ampr.org@hydra-gw.carleton.ca From wd5ivd@tapr.org Wed Mar 06 02:54:54 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.4/8.7.3/1.8) id CAA21001 for ss@tapr.org; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 02:54:53 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603060854.CAA21001@tapr.org> Subject: RM-8737 has been updated To: ss@tapr.org Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 02:54:53 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text The RM-8737 page on www.tapr.org/ss has been updated with new comments and reply comments. Cheers - Greg From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Wed Mar 06 14:06:27 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id OAA00748 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:06:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA25792; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:04:41 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 13df0680; Wed, 6 Mar 96 15:07:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:05:51 -0500 Message-Id: <13df0680@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:106] File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Exactly HOW will SS not do what they are claiming it will do? I have a very good idea, but I would like to hear what you have to say. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO laniert.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:106] File your comments in RM-8737! Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/5/ 0 10:27 PM [US Only Information follows. Sorry for the QRM to our non-US list members.] There are people on this list who have better information than this, but I just got a call from our Pacific Division Director and he mentions that comments in RM-8737 were filed by: SCRRBA (apparently very thoughtful comments), MAC (Mid-Atlantic repeater group), NCF, John Mock KD6PAG, AMSAT, San Bernadino Microwave Society, the Indiana Repeater Council, Amateur Television Quarterly, and the comments that are already on the TAPR SS Web Page. Basically, Brad (the Director) says that the comments against SS fall predictably: 1) SS will screw up repeater inputs 2) Weak signal guys will be wiped out. So, when you file your Reply Comments, please specifically answer why SS won't cause problems for repeaters or weak signal guys. -Mike K3MC (p.s. As for me, I had to write my Reply Comments early, and did not include any support for why SS is compatible with repeaters & weak signals. :-( ) From swebb@iastate.edu Wed Mar 06 15:33:06 1996 Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.166.169]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id PAA04515 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:33:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from wilson02.res.iastate.edu (dial20.ppp.iastate.edu [129.186.97.20]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA05938 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:32:56 -0600 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960306213256.00680750@pop-1.iastate.edu> X-Sender: swebb@pop-1.iastate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 15:32:56 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Stephen Webb Subject: Re: [SS:105] Re: Solar Car Thank for all your help. I will bring it up at our meeting. If anyone out is willing to help us build this radio link you are welcome to. Email mail me and I will get you in contact with others in our group. Thanks again, Stephen Webb Iowa State Solar Car Team http://www.public.iastate.edu/~prisum From swebb@iastate.edu Wed Mar 06 15:33:07 1996 Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.166.169]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id PAA04502 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:33:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from wilson02.res.iastate.edu (dial20.ppp.iastate.edu [129.186.97.20]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA05927 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:32:53 -0600 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960306213253.0068fb88@pop-1.iastate.edu> X-Sender: swebb@pop-1.iastate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 15:32:53 -0600 To: ss@tapr.org From: Stephen Webb Subject: Re: [SS:103] Re: Solar Car At 11:38 AM 3/5/96 -0600, you wrote: > Stephen, > > I am working on a SS xcvr, but unfortuantly, it is in the development > stages right now. I have llok for a SS kit or something similar to it, > but to no avail. Since I live in Orlando, I would like to know more > about the company that you contacted. I would like to know what you > have found out. > > Sincerely, > > Tony KE4ATO > lanier.r.a@wec.com Thanks any way. The company that I found was: Aerotron-Repco Sales, Inc. 2400 Sandlake Road Orlando, FL 32809-7666 ph: 407-856-1953 fax:407-856-1960 The person that I talked to was one M.Steve Penick. He is the Telemetry Sales Manager. Thanks again, Stephen Webb Iowa State Solar Car Team http://www.public.iastate.edu/~prisum From karn@qualcomm.com Wed Mar 06 19:51:28 1996 Received: from servo.qualcomm.com (servo.qualcomm.com [129.46.128.14]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id TAA16938 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:51:25 -0600 (CST) Received: (from karn@localhost) by servo.qualcomm.com (8.7.4/8.7.2/1.7.1) id RAA14783; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:50:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:50:54 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Karn Message-Id: <199603070150.RAA14783@servo.qualcomm.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: The battle is joined... Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:38:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert J. Carpenter" To: Phil Karn Cc: biltynan@ktc.com, Jevon.Lieberg-1@tc.umn.edu, w3iwi@amsat.org, n7hpr@amsat.org, wd5ivd@tapr.org Subject: Re: CSVHFS Conference In-Reply-To: <199603061913.LAA13762@servo.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Phil Karn wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I see I succeeded in drawing you out. :-) > > > SS station 100 W ERP +20 dBW > > If spread over 1 MHz -40 dBW/Hz > >free-space attenuation of 20 km at 432 MHz -110 dB > > SS signal at 20 km -150 dBW/Hz > > Where do you get 100W? With power control and reasonably efficient > modulation and FEC, the average required EIRP for data rates of a few > kilobits/sec over a few miles at 900 MHz is more like a few > milliwatts. That's for fading mobile communications using typical omni > vehicle antennas. The number goes down even more when you're > stationary, or use gain antennas. We (Qualcomm) have tons of data from > our CDMA field tests to back up these figures. You choose an unrealistic situation. No one is going to accept "a few kilobits per second" of Web-style communication for live-motion video or file transfer, or even still pictures. Let's look into the future, not the past. I was assuming a central node of a "local" network having high power, but at considerable distance. While users might have gain antennas inside their apartments, I doubt that they will work as well as an outdoor mobile antenna (attenuation of walls, etc.). Let's look, also, at the 1 W SS (into your assumed gain antenna) that the ham down the street is allowed to run WITHOUT automatic power control. With a tiny 10 dB gain antenna, that's within 10 dB of the 100 w ERP I used in my example, but **much** closer than 20 km. How about the deafening noise bursts the narrow-band station would hear? > So try dropping your EIRP by about 50 dB. Also you could include No. You talk about kilobits per second, I talk about megabits per second. Considering local 1-W SS stations, I might even **increase** my estimate of damage to the noise floor. > antenna F/B and F/S ratios at the weak signal stations, unless it > is common for such stations to operate with omni antennas. And what says that the SS station isn't in the same direction as the desired weak station? The worst F/B and F/S lobes are often no better than 10 to 20 dB down. > All you've shown is that automatic power control and strong FEC is > necessary for an efficient spread spectrum system. This is something > we've known for a long time. It's why I worded the automatic power > control language in the ARRL proposal the way I did. No, I have shown that automatic power control will "turn up the wick" as much as needed to beat its way into nasty indoor environments at a distance of many kilometers. How about quoting the power required to work hand-helds inside buildings? Also, you seem to be assuming the commercial SS world, with lots of cells spaced 1 to 5 miles apart on 150 foot towers with land-lines to them. The PCS people are trying to get these tower swept under the zoning exception that the electrical utilities have for their poles. Lots of people are fighting this. What makes you assume that hams won't put a big central node station on the one high place they can find, like in the present repeater world? And even worse, you disregard the nearby ham running 1W of SS. > We hams need to start thinking about spectrum as a multi-dimensional > resource. Besides bandwidth, there's power and time. These trade off > against each other in nonlinear and often surprisingly nonintuitive > ways. In particular, spread systems have shown that you can often do > much better overall by controlling power instead of bandwidth. > > These ideas are not new. See "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio Amateur" > by John Costas, K2EN. He published in 1959! These statements are not germane to this discussion. We're talking about interference from SS to narrow-band modes. Costas was selling systems with statistics similar to SS. He considers their performance, and interference TO them, but not interference BY them to narrow-band systems. Costas only considers the **largest** number of stations that can use a given band of frequencies. He doesn't consider interference to the narrow band users trying to work DX on these frequencies. In fact Costas states, "Amateur band operation with broad-band systems will prove to be somewhat different in certain respects. There will be fewer stations with which contact may be made (SINCE WEAKER SIGNALS WHICH WERE FORMERLY HEARD INTERMITTENTLY WILL NOW NOT BE HEARD AT ALL) [my emphasis], but once contact is established the conversation can be expected to continue without interruption for a considerable period of time. Since the amateur is not normally concerned with communicating with a specific person [tell *that* to a DXer], the exchange of some freedom of choice of possible contacts for reliability of communications will probably be welcomed." And this is assuming all stations use his SS-equivalent mode, not considering interference to narrower modes. It is well known that SS systems are quite tolerant of narrow-band interference. But isn't it true that SS has problems when the interfering narrow carrier becomes roughly the spreading factor times the SS power; ie. a 1 MHz bit rate spread to 20 MHz might tolerate a carrier 13-16 dB above the SS total received power, at which point the SS error rate soars. Costas also shows in his equation 25, that without interfering stations, and with high duty cycle, narrow-band stations make very efficient use of bandwidth. This describes serious weak signal operation; camping on a DX station's frequency to get through the pileup or overcome weak signals, continuously calling to work meteors, ..... > Phil Sorry to always take issue, but our views of ham radio differ so greatly. I stand by my numbers as being representative (not exact) if SS grows the way I hope and expect. 73 de Bob w3otc From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Thu Mar 07 05:29:33 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id FAA16722 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 05:29:22 -0600 (CST) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA23546 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:28:43 +0200 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA065777873; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:24:33 +0200 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:27:03 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199603070150.RAA14783@servo.qualcomm.com> Subject: Hopelessly defeatest? Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org Hi all, Here's my 2 cents, for what 2 cents is worth these days. It seems to me (and I'm no wizard on these matters, I'm only trying to keep up with the play here) that Wide band and Narrow band modes are inherent incompatible. Sure, in theory, A SS system has resistance to narrow band signals, and conversly, the noise seen by a narrowband mode is almost insignificant at a distance, but there are limits, and the real world situation seems to have little regard for the different 'nice operating practices' dictated by the different philosphies of each mode. For a start, the only power control on narrow band modes is 400W pep! (UK) and the only bandwidth control on SS modes is the width of the allocated band. Each limitation is fine when dealing with another system of the same type, but a 400W narrow band signal in a SS band, would render SS useless, and even a 10mW SS TX 1 km away would render narrow band modes useless for all but local repeater work. The problems is that each mode deals with interference in incompatible ways. Say we have a 10mW SS transmitter spread over 1MHz, operating at 64kbps. (any less and its not worth bothering with). Lets say the reciever needs -100dbm total power, this seems realistic cf digital celular rx levels., allowing for 10dB fade margin. The max pathloss is -110dB, or free space loss over 20kM. This assumes we have a line of sight path, ie to/from a repeater/node on a hill/high building. Now suppose someone else 20km way, has a 1W narrowband transmitter (pretty likely). The SS system would need 20dB interference resistance, and would fall over, since processing gain would be only 12dB. It would then have to increase its power to 1W just to cope. Now if the narrow band station was only 200m away, the SS system needs 10 kilowatts! The noise floor at the narrowband reciever (10KHz bandwidth) 20km away is 20dB below what the SS system would see, ie -120dbm. No so bad, but then the SS system has to increase its power to 1W to cope with the 1W narrow band transmitter. So the noise floor is now -100dBm, that could seriously piss off a DXer. But the chances are that the 1W repeater user is much closer than 20kM, and quite regularly within 1km. The SS system will need to be at least 100W to cope, then every narrow band user within 100km would be out to get the SS operators head on a stake! It no longer looks like SS is resistant to narrow band users. Rather it appears that SS is extreemly sensitive to narrow band users due to their lack of power control. In a shared channel, most narrow band users could cope with a co-existing SS system (although they would get pissed off every time their neighbourly SS user powered up), but SS systems would just fall flat on their face. Now I'm a fan of SS, really I am, but I just can't see any possible way for both narrow and wideband modes to co-exist on the same band. All the benifits of SS go out the window as soon as anyone fires up their handheld. Therefore a SS system MUST have an exclusive SS allocation, where no narrow band modes are allowed. Only then can you get the benifits of CDMA, and the spectral efficency that SS promises. This suggestion is of course highly political, and is probably doomed to failure from the start. I can almost hear people saying 'more procecssing gain' but if the system cant do significantly more than 9600bps, forget it, the 21st century is almost upon us. But perhaps a 100MHz spead at 10GHz or higher is possible. This seems to be the only way of getting more resistance and causing less interference, but there's still the near-far problem with the narrow modes. Sorry to be such a spoil sport, but like most of you I'm sure, I too would very much like to see how this problem can be got around. But it seems pretty tricky to me. At least to me the major benifit of SS would be in creating an efficient high speed radio WAN, without the multi access problems of packet. Cheers, Rob, G0VTQ From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Thu Mar 07 09:41:44 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA28797 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:41:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA10758; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:40:09 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 13f03e80; Thu, 7 Mar 96 10:42:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:41:49 -0500 Message-Id: <13f03e80@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:113] Hopelessly defeatest? To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part If all of this is true, then why has the military been so successful in implementing SS? If it truely did cause the interference as stated here, why would SS be used for satellite communications for deep-space probes (at least that is what I was told) ?? There is a flaw in the agruement here. If SS operates in the noise floor of a typical CW/SSB transceiver, how is this going to cause interference to a neighbooring repeater or other operator? This point was not specificly brought out in the discussion below. I strongly disagree that a SS system with 10mW output would cause *significant* interference as to render anything but a repeater useless is absurd! 10mW is very little power! We need to educate the public as to EXACTLY what SS is, what it does, and how will (will not) affect other users of the frequency spectrum. And I thought the conservatives had it hard... 73s de KE4ATO Tony lanier.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:113] Hopelessly defeatest? Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/7/96 5:42 AM Hi all, Here's my 2 cents, for what 2 cents is worth these days. It seems to me (and I'm no wizard on these matters, I'm only trying to keep up with the play here) that Wide band and Narrow band modes are inherent incompatible. Sure, in theory, A SS system has resistance to narrow band signals, and conversly, the noise seen by a narrowband mode is almost insignificant at a distance, but there are limits, and the real world situation seems to have little regard for the different 'nice operating practices' dictated by the different philosphies of each mode. For a start, the only power control on narrow band modes is 400W pep! (UK) and the only bandwidth control on SS modes is the width of the allocated band. Each limitation is fine when dealing with another system of the same type, but a 400W narrow band signal in a SS band, would render SS useless, and even a 10mW SS TX 1 km away would render narrow band modes useless for all but local repeater work. The problems is that each mode deals with interference in incompatible ways. Say we have a 10mW SS transmitter spread over 1MHz, operating at 64kbps. (any less and its not worth bothering with). Lets say the reciever needs -100dbm total power, this seems realistic cf digital celular rx levels., allowing for 10dB fade margin. The max pathloss is -110dB, or free space loss over 20kM. This assumes we have a line of sight path, ie to/from a repeater/node on a hill/high building. Now suppose someone else 20km way, has a 1W narrowband transmitter (pretty likely). The SS system would need 20dB interference resistance, and would fall over, since processing gain would be only 12dB. It would then have to increase its power to 1W just to cope. Now if the narrow band station was only 200m away, the SS system needs 10 kilowatts! The noise floor at the narrowband reciever (10KHz bandwidth) 20km away is 20dB below what the SS system would see, ie -120dbm. No so bad, but then the SS system has to increase its power to 1W to cope with the 1W narrow band transmitter. So the noise floor is now -100dBm, that could seriously piss off a DXer. But the chances are that the 1W repeater user is much closer than 20kM, and quite regularly within 1km. The SS system will need to be at least 100W to cope, then every narrow band user within 100km would be out to get the SS operators head on a stake! It no longer looks like SS is resistant to narrow band users. Rather it appears that SS is extreemly sensitive to narrow band users due to their lack of power control. In a shared channel, most narrow band users could cope with a co-existing SS system (although they would get pissed off every time their neighbourly SS user powered up), but SS systems would just fall flat on their face. Now I'm a fan of SS, really I am, but I just can't see any possible way for both narrow and wideband modes to co-exist on the same band. All the benifits of SS go out the window as soon as anyone fires up their handheld. Therefore a SS system MUST have an exclusive SS allocation, where no narrow band modes are allowed. Only then can you get the benifits of CDMA, and the spectral efficency that SS promises. This suggestion is of course highly political, and is probably doomed to failure from the start. I can almost hear people saying 'more procecssing gain' but if the system cant do significantly more than 9600bps, forget it, the 21st century is almost upon us. But perhaps a 100MHz spead at 10GHz or higher is possible. This seems to be the only way of getting more resistance and causing less interference, but there's still the near-far problem with the narrow modes. Sorry to be such a spoil sport, but like most of you I'm sure, I too would very much like to see how this problem can be got around. But it seems pretty tricky to me. At least to me the major benifit of SS would be in creating an efficient high speed radio WAN, without the multi access problems of packet. Cheers, Rob, G0VTQ From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Thu Mar 07 10:04:48 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id KAA00783 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:04:31 -0600 (CST) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA16293 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:03:39 +0200 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA253564368; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:59:28 +0200 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 15:12:08 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: Hope after all? Sender: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com To: ss@tapr.org Hi again, I seem to have pretty much convinced myself that simple Direct Sequence SS is unworkable in an amateur enviroment (quite different from the nicely controlled and structured cellular enviroment), but... How about Frequency Hopping? At least interference to SS systems from narrow modes is limited to one time slot in N per narrow band user, regardless of narrow mode power. Also the hopping sequence could be dynamically adjusted so that it does not transmit on top of narrow band transmissions, or in DX segments of the band (eg only repeater input/output bands for example, ovoiding local repeater input frequencies). Then as the number of users increase you get problems with the number collisions, resulting in wipeouts or errors. I'm not too sure about this but it seems to me that you loose the gracefull degradation that makes SS so good at shareing channels. Perhaps Slow hopping combined with slow DSSS will provide a fast DSSS like system with much more control over where the interference goes. People working DX repeaters could have problems, but then you could just use the input frequencies of repeaters that are 20km away or greater, so we know we wont cause interference. A local SS hub could transmit data on go/no-go frequences in the area, and suitable hopping sequences to use. Even coordinate the cumulative knowledge of what frequencies are in use by narrow modes. And if a DX operator does get interference he can just pulse his TX (or take one over or CQ) on the frequency and the SS system will ovoid the frequency from then on. Been thunk of right? Comments? Rob G0VTQ From buaas@wireless.net Thu Mar 07 10:57:35 1996 Received: from wireless.net (wireless-gw.wireless.net [128.49.236.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id KAA04091 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:57:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from ir.wdc.net (ir.wdc.net [198.147.74.35]) by wireless.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA13165; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:55:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:55:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199603071655.IAA13165@wireless.net> X-Sender: buaas@hf.wdc.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: buaas@wireless.net (Robert A. Buaas) Subject: Re: [SS:113] Hopelessly defeatest? Hello Rob-- [snip] >Say we have a 10mW SS transmitter spread over 1MHz, operating at 64kbps. [snip] > processing gain would be only 12dB. [large snip] >Rob, G0VTQ If I understand your assumptions correctly, you're hoping for error-free 1 bit/Hz from the modulation scheme, and spreading the 64 KHz NB signal by a factor of 16 gets you to 1 MHz width and 12 dB gain. I think the difficulty starts with your using the above assumption as part of your system design; frankly, I don't know of a radio system with this little amount of margin that isn't "hopelessly defeated" (as you so elegantly put it) from the start. But lets go even a litte further in the direction you're going: say you spread over 10 MHz, to push the gain up to 22 dB. Will the system work even then? Well, given the other assumptions about the channel (presence of NB emitters), probably not. To illustrate my point: your proposed system might actually work, but only UNTIL the first NB user wants to use any part of the spectrum. At that moment, both of you are out of luck. Major denial of service. More likely, you're completely out of luck and depending on the dynamics at the moment, he might be out of luck. What's happening here is what Richard Hamming once called "narrow thinking" in one of his lectures about Claude Shannon's work at Bell Labs. His thesis was, usually there is more than one way to approach any given problem. More specifically, Spread Spectrum can take many forms, not just the Direct Sequence model you've assumed. How well your system performs for you, and how much interference it causes other potential users, is very much a function of the set of criteria you use in defining your solution, and what weights you give those criteria. Let's recast your situation: let say, instead, you break up your 1 MHz into 16 "channels", and your radio is now frequency agile instead of code agile. (Yes, I know this is the classic Frequency Hopping SS model, but bear with me for a moment...) We still have only 12 dB of process gain, but let's see how well THIS model performs. You're dancing around the spectrum (not really required but say you are anyway), and that first NB user wants in. What happens? You have one packet in 16 blasted, and he looses out for one-SIXTEENTH of his transmission. I'm sure you can do the arithmetic for the 22 dB case. This model illustrates why FH is so popular. Just the same, as attractive as this is, you've given up some things you get with DS, and you should identify what they are and how they influence your performance and interference profiles. This is but one of many possible alternatives worth considering, both singly and in combination(s). I am purposefully stopping here. The point of my comments are: (a) things aren't as bleak as you imagined, and more importantly (b) good engineering practice, when it is practiced, DOES PREVAIL. I'm sure you are a good engineer; look back on what you learned in engineering school: it wasn't the particular solutions to the problems of the time that were important, it was the method you learned for approaching them. The solutions of that time are now obselete, yet we continue to move forward. Why is that? To move on, we need objectivity and openness. Think carefully before you leap, or speak. What you say tells a lot about your limitations. So much of what's happening with this thread is the result of narrow thinking, where the highest priority criteria in the system model is to maintain the status quo. I suggest that priority should be given to methods which simultaneously maximize throughput and minimize interference. These are, after all, the same goal. Successful examples of SS systems abound in other radio services. Why is that? Why are they so hard for us to recognize? One (of many) answers is that we compare apples (performance of these existing systems) and oranges (our requirements), and surprisingly, we come up with fruit salad instead of clarity. None of the existing systems were designed with our requirements in mind, so it shouldn't be too surprising that they wouldn't perform well for us. Maybe it's time for some original work on our part? just some food for thought... best regards/bob K6KGS From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Thu Mar 07 10:58:12 1996 Received: from relay.hp.com (relay.hp.com [15.255.152.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id KAA04127 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:58:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by relay.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA242457877; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:57:58 -0800 Received: from hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (n6gn.sr.hp.com) by srmail.sr.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA081127839; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:57:20 -0800 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA202167838; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:57:19 -0800 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199603071657.AA202167838@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:109] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org (LANIER.R.A-) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:57:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <13df0680@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> from "LANIER.R.A-" at Mar 6, 96 02:14:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony, KE4ATO writes: > Exactly HOW will SS not do what they are claiming it will do? I have a > very good idea, but I would like to hear what you have to say. It seems to me that blanket statements either condemning or defending SS as a potential interferer in an environment of non-SS users are, at best, suspect. The best answer to the question of whether or not interference will be encountered might be "It depends how well amateurs can work together". The repeater guys generally will start noticing when their C/N is degraded to the point of approaching FM threshold, perhaps 10-15 dB below their weakest usable signal level. The absolute level of their noise floor will be considerably higher than the weak signal guys but they are significantly wider to start with so offer a bigger target for QRN/QRM. Just for discussion we might consider each of these two types to experience a problem when interference from SS equals their noise floor, even though the repeater guys often operate with significant margin. If the repeater channels are 20 KHz wide and limited by KTB (T>=290 because their antennas are pointed at terra firma) we might estimate ~-130 dBm floor. The weak signal channels could be 200 Hz wide with noise around ~-150 dBm. A few EME types using antennas looking at cold sky might be a few dB below this, say -156 dBm in 100 Hz for the sake of argument. So, interference might be noticable when the SS offender produces at least -130 dBm in 20 KHz or -153 dBm in 200 Hz. These numbers represent similar spectral power densities. It seems like the problem can be divided into two parts, stating the necessary transmit power in the unwanted receiver's bandwidth and stating the coupling between that transmitter and receiver. If the potential interferer is thoroughly spread so that peak/average the SS signal is truly noise like and not coherent from the particular receiver's point of view, then trouble happens when: (Transmitter power - RF isolation), measured in nb-user's bw, is greater than the user's noise floor. or Po - Gp - 10*log(BWss/BWnb) - I >= -156 dBm for the weak signal guy with BWnb=100Hz and Po - Gp - 10*log(BWss/BWnb) - I >= -130 dBm for the repeater user with BWnb= 20 KHz with, P0 = Pout(dBm) Gp = processing gain BWss = SSuser's-BW BWnb = narrowband-user's BW I = RFisolation between transmitter and receiver Looking at the above, things that help minimize interference are o Antenna directivity, which reduces Po along with o Antenna directivity, which increases isolation due to lower sidelobes o power control (sets Po to minimum necessary), o Good path ( no obstructions) between SS user's which minimizes required Po o Small spacial separation between SS users o Bad path (obstructions) between SS user and NB user o Large spacial separation between NB and SS users o SS signal sufficiently spread (long enough PN or fast enough hopping) o low information rate for SS users (not a goal) o Small spacial separation between NB users (not under SS system's control) o Large Gp, spread as much as you can (or better yet,hop around nb user) Much of the above list deals with areas which imply system planning, coordination and cooperation and not technical issues isolated from the other users of the band. While the absolute interference levels on the right side of the equation may be fairly definable, the rest of the variables are just that, quite variable. It can be fairly easy to prove or disprove interference in any particular case based on different assumptions. Over a quality path, with a SS user thoroughly spread with a lot of processing gain and directional antennas with polarity isolation on the two different systems, the interfering power delivered to a particular narrowband user's receiver might be shown to be far below his noise floor. OTOH, if the same two systems try to share a site and common tower space, it might be extremely difficult to reduce the coupling enough to coexist. If paths are long and bad things can get still worse. It also occurs to me that built into the resolution of this SS/NB interference question is the need for a way of considering occupation which is different from that which amateurs are accustomed. Don't we all have to start thinking in terms of "The *band* is occupied in that direction, with such-and-such polarization in a particular time slot" rather than just "The channel is busy"? This is true for both SS and NB users. As such, it will require formerly less-coordinated users on either "side of the fence" to be more concerned with other's uses and success. This may be a difficult prospect for amateurs. There may be greater value in promoting SS in a way which helps every amateur recognize its value to him/her and therefor sets a climate of cooperation than in the best laid technical plans or system design. I'm convinced of the value of SS for high speed information transfer over radio but unless that notion becomes common enough to generate good will we may not see any widespread usage or acceptance. Glenn Elmore n6gn From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Thu Mar 07 11:53:03 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id LAA07005 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:52:49 -0600 (CST) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 12:20:20 UTC Message-Id: <9432@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:117] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! In-Reply-To: your message of Thu Mar 07 11:04:36 1996 <199603071657.AA202167838@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Hi, It seems to me that FH SS is a natural for the Ham Bands where FM activity exists. FM is designed to be tolerant of impulse noise. FH, properly implimented will appear as nothing but impulse noise to the FM Voice reciever. Apparent rules of thumb, that come to mind are these. The FH system must be a "fast" FH system. That is hop rate must be greater than and equal to the data signalling rate. Also, the data rate must be 10 times greater than the maximun audio BW. Or 30 KBaud in most cases. Hams today live with power line, car ignition and other forms of impulse noise in their everyday FM Voice operations. What makes FH any different than just some more impulse noise? At present technological FH limitations, FH seems ideal for the FM portions of 2 meters and 70 cm. bands. Sure, its not going to deliver on all the needed aspects of SS, but it does reuse frequencies. It does not key up repeaters, it does not cause any more interferance than already exists in the enviorment. Ooops, in the Rules-of-thumb paragraph, that should read "greater than and/or equal to the data signalling rate". 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%n0eir.ampr.org@hydra-gw.carleton.ca From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Thu Mar 07 12:15:41 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id MAA07952 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:15:19 -0600 (CST) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 12:34:21 UTC Message-Id: <9434@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:117] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! In-Reply-To: your message of Thu Mar 07 11:04:36 1996 <199603071657.AA202167838@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Hi, On DSSS systems. These do need to have their own spectrum on thebands below 1 Ghz. On the bands below 1 Ghz, antennas to sufficiently directionalise emissions are large and expensive, and impractical for all users. DSSS while not neccassarily linked to channel sharing, has to be on the bands below 1 Ghz. Consequently, the noise floor to a narrow band user cannot be controlled. 30 DSSS users is going to be quite a noise floor! And there is no way around this, but to use CDMA. So, we need SS reservations on these bands. We should be able to find a 1 or 2 Mhz contiguous SS reservation on 6 meters, i would hope. But I m not an expert on 6 meters. On 2 meters, i can t see any DSSS operation. On 440, the 420 to 431 and 433 to 435 could be made DSSS reservations. How individual groups would use these frequencies is yet to be deteremined. SS is not packet only pursuit. What about ATV in these spectrums? I think the writing has been on the wall for traditional ATV for many years now. Either it must find a way to share commercial broadcast spectrum, or it must Packetise and fit in with a data communications future. Will ATV turn into PTV ? That s really the whole crux of using or loosing the lower half of the 70 cm in the USA. Its been lost already in the rest of North America. A Canadian permission to allow DSSS in the U.S. protection zone would go along way to helping DSSS on 440 happen however. 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%n0eir.ampr.org@hydra-gw.carleton.ca From djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Thu Mar 07 13:30:43 1996 Received: from dirku.demon.co.uk (dirku.demon.co.uk [158.152.30.189]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id NAA11202 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:30:08 -0600 (CST) Received: (from djk@localhost) by dirku.demon.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.1) id TAA10541; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:35:20 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:35:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Dirk-Jan Koopman X-Sender: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk Reply-To: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:116] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? In-Reply-To: <199603071655.IAA13165@wireless.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Robert A. Buaas wrote: [snip snip snip] > What's happening here is what Richard Hamming once called "narrow > thinking" in one of his lectures about Claude Shannon's work at Bell > Labs. His thesis was, usually there is more than one way to approach any > given problem. More specifically, Spread Spectrum can take many > forms, not just the Direct Sequence model you've assumed. How well > your system performs for you, and how much interference it causes > other potential users, is very much a function of the set of criteria > you use in defining your solution, and what weights you give those > criteria. > Yup. Nobody on this SIG seems to have mentioned FEC in any of this. Are we ignoring this or simply assuming it is a waste of time? Apart from Phil KA9Q, I have yet to meet amateurs who are truely convinced of the merits of FEC / HAMMING / VITERBI / whoever codes for communications in amateur service. I am a programmer, not a theorist, and have always been deeply suspicious of the concept of 'wasting' bits - until I implimented a UK MPT1327 'codeword' system commercially (this is 6 bytes data, 2 bytes FEC giving 1 and mostly 2 bit error correction) [this is the system used on european trunked radio control channels and is the basis of the ETSI PMR data standard]. As I understand it, this isn't the world's greatest FEC system, but by heck it is a _lot_ better than vanilla HDLC and ax25. Surely if one is using a reasonably robust FEC system (such as the sequential decoding system proposed by Phil on his web site) using any SS system, then the presence of the NB signal isn't going to have that much effect. You also have the advantage of the coding gain given by the FEC system itself. Just to show my complete ignorance on SS matters, I have always thought that FH systems were inherently more appropriate for amateur use simply because the commercial people thought too difficult to implement succesfully (at a reasonable price) (oh and the fact that I don't, quite, understand how DS works has nothing to do with it at all, honest....) -- Dirk-Jan Koopman Tel/Fax: +44 1362 696076 Mobile: +44 973 333806 Computer Consultant Email: djk@dirku.demon.co.uk or G1TLH@GB7TLH.#35.GBR.EU "The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation." --Oscar Wilde From gerry@cs.tamu.edu Thu Mar 07 14:34:27 1996 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id OAA14640 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:34:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from solar.cs.tamu.edu (2961@solar.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.132.1]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA02281 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:33:27 -0600 From: Gerald J Creager Received: (gerry@localhost) by solar.cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) id OAA08903 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:33:22 -0600 Message-Id: <199603072033.OAA08903@solar.cs.tamu.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:106] File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:33:22 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199603060422.UAA04182@ns1.culver.net> from "Mike Cheponis" at Mar 5, 96 10:27:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Cheponis sez: > > Basically, Brad (the Director) says that the comments against SS fall > predictably: > > 1) SS will screw up repeater inputs > > 2) Weak signal guys will be wiped out. > > > So, when you file your Reply Comments, please specifically answer why SS > won't cause problems for repeaters or weak signal guys. I guess I'd be interested in just how SS is, indeed, so polite, since most of the systems are using smaller, and finite PCodes, and from what I've seen, slow hoppers... While I've been lurking here, I'm not really up to speed on all the technology, so this is not just a slam, but more a request for information. If I understand things coorectly, a short pcode will tend to concentrate the signal about the central carrier frequency, while a slow hopping routine will result in fairly long (relatively speaking) dwell times on each stop. For the spectral density to be more evenly distributed over a band segment, effectively raising the noise floor, but not causing the appearance of periodic and detectable carriers, the pcode would have to be pretty long, and the hopping algorithm should be pretty fast. I'd appreciate a brief tutorial of where I went wrong (preferably without flames) so I have a better understanding and further, so I can take the data back to a group of frequency coordinators who have some concerns about his proposal and its impacts on the various repeater operations in the 420-450 range that already exist. Thanks & 73, Gerry gerry@cs.tamu.edu n5jxs@tamu.edu From gerry@cs.tamu.edu Thu Mar 07 15:25:25 1996 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id PAA17306 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:25:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from solar.cs.tamu.edu (2961@solar.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.132.1]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id PAA04294 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:24:22 -0600 From: Gerald J Creager Received: (gerry@localhost) by solar.cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) id PAA09940 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:24:17 -0600 Message-Id: <199603072124.PAA09940@solar.cs.tamu.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:115] Hope after all? To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:24:16 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com" at Mar 7, 96 10:23:41 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com sez: > > Hi again, > > I seem to have pretty much convinced myself that simple Direct Sequence > SS is unworkable in an amateur enviroment (quite different from the > nicely controlled and structured cellular enviroment), but... I've wondered about this and pretty well convinced myself of the same. > How about Frequency Hopping? > > At least interference to SS systems from narrow modes is limited to one > time slot in N per narrow band user, regardless of narrow mode power. > Also the hopping sequence could be dynamically adjusted so that it does > not transmit on top of narrow band transmissions, or in DX segments of > the band (eg only repeater input/output bands for example, ovoiding > local repeater input frequencies). One suggestion I've recently seen advanced by some of the more knowledgable narrowband folk is to intersperce the target channels for hopping between the primary repeater channels. Adduming a 25 khz channel spacing on 70 cm, there's some space right between them. Sidebands should be down far enough to meet the goal of not being heard by the narrowband systems, too. > Then as the number of users increase you get problems with the number > collisions, resulting in wipeouts or errors. I'm not too sure about this > but it seems to me that you loose the gracefull degradation that makes > SS so good at shareing channels. Perhaps Slow hopping combined with slow > DSSS will provide a fast DSSS like system with much more control over > where the interference goes. Wouldn't fast hopping make you more tolerant to collisions? Again, since I'm pretty new to this, what am I missing? 73, gerry n5jxs From gerry@cs.tamu.edu Thu Mar 07 15:37:43 1996 Received: from cs.tamu.edu (clavin.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.130.106]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id PAA18031 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:37:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from solar.cs.tamu.edu (2961@solar.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.132.1]) by cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) with ESMTP id PAA04859 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:36:44 -0600 From: Gerald J Creager Received: (gerry@localhost) by solar.cs.tamu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.4) id PAA10121 for ss@tapr.org; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:36:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199603072136.PAA10121@solar.cs.tamu.edu> Subject: Re: [SS:119] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:36:33 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <9434@wb9mjn.ampr.org> from "wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org" at Mar 7, 96 12:25:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org sez: > > Hi, > On DSSS systems. These do need to have their own spectrum on thebands below > 1 Ghz. > ... > On 440, the 420 to 431 and 433 to 435 could be made DSSS reservations. How > individual groups would use these frequencies is yet to be deteremined. SS is > not packet only pursuit. > > What about ATV in these spectrums? I think the writing has been on the wall > for traditional ATV for many years now. Either it must find a way to share > commercial broadcast spectrum, or it must Packetise and fit in with a data > communications future. Will ATV turn into PTV ? That s really the whole > crux of using or loosing the lower half of the 70 cm in the USA. Its been lost > already in the rest of North America. A Canadian permission to allow DSSS in > the U.S. protection zone would go along way to helping DSSS on 440 happen > however. Unfortunately, the amount of ATV, high-speed packet and narrow-band link activity on these subbands will yield a number of complaints if intererence starts cropping up, or if yet another group claims primacy without working with the folks already beating out an existance there. In Texas, for example, narrow band linking is widespread enough to require a coordinator to make sure the various linked systems don't see cross-talk or interference. There are enough ATV repeater operations to make it somewhat difficult to make these folks turn over their investments overnight, too. And the folks who've been building high-speed packet backbones? Most of their curent operation is narrowband. While they'd immediately see some _potential_ from SS on 70 cm, they'd have to shift paradigms AND hardware to get there. 73, Gerry N5JXS gerry@cs.tamu.edu From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Thu Mar 07 16:21:18 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA20840 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 16:21:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA19338; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:19:35 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 13f61830; Thu, 7 Mar 96 17:21:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:21:23 -0500 Message-Id: <13f61830@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:117] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >Tony, KE4ATO writes: >> Exactly HOW will SS not do what they are claiming it will do? I have >> a very good idea, but I would like to hear what you have to say. >It seems to me that blanket statements either condemning or defending >SS as a potential interferer in an environment of non-SS users are, >at best, suspect. >The best answer to the question of whether or not interference will be >encountered might be "It depends how well amateurs can work together". What I meant by this statement was I have been hearing alot of people condemning SS as a modulation scheme because it will raise the noise floor, cause repeaters to key inadvertantly, wreak havoc on weak signal guys, etc. I even read that SS will cause serious interference to radio astronomy (editorial in Astronomy magazine). I do not believe this to be true. I have read enough material to know that SS is a viable modulation scheme and will no doubt be the choice in the 21st century and beyond. I was simply asking for others to state their opinions and to back these up with facts, not a gut feeling. For the record, have any repeater owners conducted experiments to show that SS will cause harmful interference? Has anyone else done this? Has anyone conducted experiments to show that SS will cause harmful interference to weak signal users? Any real experiences would be a definite plus for this debate. 73s de Tony, KE4ATO lanier.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com From glenne@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com Fri Mar 08 11:38:39 1996 Received: from paloalto.access.hp.com (daemon@paloalto.access.hp.com [15.254.56.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id LAA17666 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:37:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from srmail.sr.hp.com by paloalto.access.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA145686670; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:37:50 -0800 Received: from hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (n6gn.sr.hp.com) by srmail.sr.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA183586669; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:37:50 -0800 Received: by hpsadr2.sr.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA191426669; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:37:49 -0800 From: Glenn Elmore Message-Id: <199603081737.AA191426669@hpsadr2.sr.hp.com> Subject: Re: [SS:124] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org (LANIER.R.A-) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <13f61830@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> from "LANIER.R.A-" at Mar 7, 96 04:38:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony, KE4ATO writes: > > What I meant by this statement was I have been hearing alot of people > condemning SS as a modulation scheme because it will raise the noise > floor, cause repeaters to key inadvertantly, wreak havoc on weak > signal guys, etc. I even read that SS will cause serious interference > to radio astronomy (editorial in Astronomy magazine). I do not believe > this to be true. I have read enough material to know that SS is a > viable modulation scheme and will no doubt be the choice in the 21st > century and beyond. I was simply asking for others to state their > opinions and to back these up with facts, not a gut feeling. Tony, Yes, that's what I've been hearing too and I certainly didn't mean anything derogatory or flamelike in my answer. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I posted as I did to try to make the point that although there are facts and equations which can predict a given outcome, and that although these facts point to some particular things that can be done to minimize or eliminate interference in any particular situation that the problem facing amateur radio is more than just a technical one. I neither view SS, per se, as inherently a totally non-interfering mode or a totally devastating mode with respect to current narrowband uses of the amateur bands. My response was aimed at any pat answers for what SS will or will not do. I too have heard the "it will raise the noise floor by 10 dB" type of quotes. I don't believe that this sort of statement even makes sense any more than more than "there will never be any problem with SS/narrowband interference" does. I believe that either interference or non-interference can be shown from the numbers for any particular assumption (power control, FEC, directional antennas, X amount of processing gain, etc etc) depending on what other assumptions are made. SS and narrowband operation are different and successful coexistence in an amateur context is going to require cooperation and mutual understanding. There is no technical "silver bullet". > For the record, have any repeater owners conducted experiments to show > that SS will cause harmful interference? Has anyone else done this? > Has anyone conducted experiments to show that SS will cause harmful > interference to weak signal users? Any real experiences would be a > definite plus for this debate. If you haven't already read them, you might want to look at the reports by K6KGS made as part of the STA experiments. These seem to be useful, real world measurements and experiences. However they do not, in my opinion, provide a blanket answer to all questions of interference and even if they did I don't believe that such technical answers solve the problem of fully adapting SS techniques in the general amateur context. You asked what is obviously a good question which has already generated considerable thought and discussion. Please accept my apologies if my previous response offended you. I didn't intend it that way. Glenn n6gn From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Fri Mar 08 13:01:34 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id NAA21105 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:00:50 -0600 (CST) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 13:07:56 UTC Message-Id: <9455@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:123] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! In-Reply-To: your message of Thu Mar 07 15:49:16 1996 <199603072136.PAA10121@solar.cs.tamu.edu> Hi Gerry, I don t see much problems for narrowband links. These links deal with TV right now. DSSS is worse than TV in most of the spectrum, since its has an approximately flat spectral density. Whereas TV has allot of power concentrated in its 3 carriers. As to why TV guys might want to shift paradigm's. YOU said it, ALL those NARROW BAND LINKs, hi. There are more links, today, than when TV started, and there will be even more next year. They are narrowbanded, and operate in spite of wideband activity around them. Narrow band links have two options. Reengineer the link budget for the higher noise floor, or go DSSS themselves. A little bit higher antenna, or power , or more directivity. But lets remember, that FM Voice has a threshold effect. Above the threshold, it takes a big change in RF S/N level to have a unit effect in demodulated S/N level. Most links have 20 or 30 dB link budgets, and will probably not even be operationally effected by DSSS. As far as packet links go, DSSS is better than FH. Impulse noise may not have much effect on Voice, but .5GFSK and MSK is a different matter. Each impulse, if stronger than the received signal makes one bit a 50/50 guess. In packet, that makes each packet that occurs during an impulse a 50/50 guess. Narrowband packet links that coexist with strong FH operations will need FEC. But, hey, those links will probably switch to SS anyway, over time. I personally did not have a real appreatiation for HOW MUCH IMPULSE noise is floating around the VHF spectrum (especially 220!) until installing .5GFSK links. U just don t hear the weaker impulse noise on a voice radio. But, put a spectrum analyzer on the antenna, there it is. It looks like its swishing all thru the spectrum on an anlyzer, but thats just an artifact of the spec- trum analyzer sweeping. High antennas in cornfields are really the only sites that are quiet. 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org%hydra-gw.carleton.ca From ATVQ@aol.com Fri Mar 08 14:09:24 1996 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id OAA24462 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:09:15 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01778 for ss@tapr.org; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:08:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:08:36 -0500 Message-ID: <960308150835_345232686@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:126] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! Sorry to deflate your balloon. No ATV has told me they want to jump from NTSC to any other format. Understand we have put up with other signal iQRM for decades, and what we want to watch is NTSC because that is what you buy at your local TV appliance store, NTSC TV sets. So forget the pie inthe sky TV will go digital. No one in TV land has any interest in digital narrowband, slow scan, cruddy fuzzy pics, threshold effects, poor range, no DX, expensive digital converters, new rx/tx gear. We ar rock bound on NTSC and not moving. Sorry, but thats the euipment available today and the foreseeable future. We do not have an alternative. 73 Henry From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Fri Mar 08 16:17:26 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA00662 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 16:17:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA23278; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:15:52 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 140b1ff0; Fri, 8 Mar 96 17:17:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:16:25 -0500 Message-Id: <140b1ff0@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:125] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >If you haven't already read them, you might want to look at the >reports by K6KGS made as part of the STA experiments. These seem to be I've read some of these, but not all. I think they do point out though, that SS will not be a threat to existing amateur radio communications. I certainly do not see how SS will "raise the noise floor." I'm working on a good response to this statement. I think it is important to back up what one says by good, solid evidence. >useful, real world measurements and experiences. However they do not, >in my opinion, provide a blanket answer to all questions of >interference and even if they did I don't believe that such technical >answers solve >the problem of fully adapting SS techniques in the general amateur context. >You asked what is obviously a good question which has already generated >considerable thought and discussion. Please accept my apologies if my >previous response offended you. I didn't intend it that way. >Glenn n6gn No offense taken Glenn. I was just trying to clarify what I said, not respond to a flame :) I wanted to hear from other hams who felt the way I did and to back up what they said by hard facts, that's all. Let's keep the debate going!! Tony, KE4ATO lanier.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Fri Mar 08 16:28:52 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA01349 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 16:28:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA25146; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:26:57 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 140b4890; Fri, 8 Mar 96 17:28:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:26:15 -0500 Message-Id: <140b4890@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:115] Hope after all? To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part What made you come to the conclusion that DSSS is unworkable in an amateur environment? 73, Tony ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:115] Hope after all? Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/7/96 10:23 AM Hi again, I seem to have pretty much convinced myself that simple Direct Sequence SS is unworkable in an amateur enviroment (quite different from the nicely controlled and structured cellular enviroment), but... How about Frequency Hopping? At least interference to SS systems from narrow modes is limited to one time slot in N per narrow band user, regardless of narrow mode power. Also the hopping sequence could be dynamically adjusted so that it does not transmit on top of narrow band transmissions, or in DX segments of the band (eg only repeater input/output bands for example, ovoiding local repeater input frequencies). Then as the number of users increase you get problems with the number collisions, resulting in wipeouts or errors. I'm not too sure about this but it seems to me that you loose the gracefull degradation that makes SS so good at shareing channels. Perhaps Slow hopping combined with slow DSSS will provide a fast DSSS like system with much more control over where the interference goes. People working DX repeaters could have problems, but then you could just use the input frequencies of repeaters that are 20km away or greater, so we know we wont cause interference. A local SS hub could transmit data on go/no-go frequences in the area, and suitable hopping sequences to use. Even coordinate the cumulative knowledge of what frequencies are in use by narrow modes. And if a DX operator does get interference he can just pulse his TX (or take one over or CQ) on the frequency and the SS system will ovoid the frequency from then on. Been thunk of right? Comments? Rob G0VTQ From srbible@mindport.net Fri Mar 08 17:42:44 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id RAA04961 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:42:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-78.mindport.net [205.219.167.137]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA28196 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:42:36 -0500 Posted-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:42:36 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960308233821.006a6f48@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 18:38:21 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: Re: [SS:127] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! You mean... there are no experimenters, dreamers, explorers, tinkerers, researchers, visonarys, courious, inquisitive, or entrepreneur people of digital TV in amateur radio? I am saddened that Amateur radio has relegated itself to a group of appliance operators, and that NTSC, or any other modes, are the only modes I am allowed to operate because that's all I can buy. I enjoy Amateur Radio because of its pioneering nature. I enjoy talking to other Amateurs who try new things because it's fun. They are not afraid to put two pieces together that have never been put together before and see how it works. It may work, and it may not. - Steve N7HPR At 02:13 PM 3/8/96 -0600, you wrote: >Sorry to deflate your balloon. No ATV has told me they want to jump from >NTSC to any other format. Understand we have put up with other signal iQRM >for decades, and what we want to watch is NTSC because that is what you buy >at your local TV appliance store, NTSC TV sets. So forget the pie inthe sky >TV will go digital. No one in TV land has any interest in digital >narrowband, slow scan, cruddy fuzzy pics, threshold effects, poor range, no >DX, expensive digital converters, new rx/tx gear. We ar rock bound on NTSC >and not moving. Sorry, but thats the euipment available today and the >foreseeable future. We do not have an alternative. 73 Henry Experience What is the good of drawing conclusions from experience? I don't deny we sometimes draw the right conclusions, but don't we just as often draw the wrong ones? G. C. Lichtenberg (1742-99), German physicist, philosopher. Aphorisms, "Notebook F," aph. 123 (written 1765-99; tr. by R. J. Hollingdale, 1990). - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From jerryn@ici.net Fri Mar 08 23:26:07 1996 Received: from tiny.sprintlink.net (tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.55.90]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id XAA22524 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 23:26:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tiny.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA08196 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:26:00 -0500 Received: from innovative.tech.com (dialupS246.ici.net) by ici.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23551; Sat, 9 Mar 96 00:27:18 EST Sender: root@ici.net Message-Id: <31411D7C.D83D8A3@ici.net> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 00:56:12 -0500 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:130] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! References: <1.5.4b11.32.19960308233821.006a6f48@mindport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steven R. Bible wrote: > > You mean... there are no experimenters, dreamers, explorers, tinkerers, > researchers, visonarys, courious, inquisitive, or entrepreneur people of > digital TV in amateur radio? > > I am saddened that Amateur radio has relegated itself to a group of > appliance operators, and that NTSC, or any other modes, are the only modes I > am allowed to operate because that's all I can buy. > > I enjoy Amateur Radio because of its pioneering nature. I enjoy talking to > other Amateurs who try new things because it's fun. They are not afraid to > put two pieces together that have never been put together before and see how > it works. It may work, and it may not. > > - Steve N7HPR > > At 02:13 PM 3/8/96 -0600, you wrote: > >Sorry to deflate your balloon. No ATV has told me they want to jump from > >NTSC to any other format. Understand we have put up with other signal iQRM > >for decades, and what we want to watch is NTSC because that is what you buy > >at your local TV appliance store, NTSC TV sets. So forget the pie inthe sky > >TV will go digital. No one in TV land has any interest in digital > >narrowband, slow scan, cruddy fuzzy pics, threshold effects, poor range, no > >DX, expensive digital converters, new rx/tx gear. We ar rock bound on NTSC > >and not moving. Sorry, but thats the euipment available today and the > >foreseeable future. We do not have an alternative. 73 Henry > > Experience > > What is the good of drawing conclusions from experience? I don't deny we > sometimes draw the right conclusions, but don't we just as often draw the > wrong ones? > > G. C. Lichtenberg (1742-99), German physicist, philosopher. Aphorisms, > "Notebook F," aph. 123 (written 1765-99; tr. by R. J. Hollingdale, 1990). > > - Steve, N7HPR > > srbible@mindport.net > n7hpr@amsat.org > n7hpr@tapr.org Hi, Now you know why I never bothered getting my ticket! I too prefer going with a digital video stream. The camera to do it is a Connectix Video Camera. This camera attaches to the parallel port of a PC computer... you can use any computer that has a parallel port... as long as you can make sense of the C code and convert it. It should'nt be a problem. The advantage of going digital video is that you do not have to digitize a NTSC or PAL signal... it comes out of the CCD camera in digital!!!!! The IDEA to use Digital Video is an excellent one !!! You can make your own CCD camera... it's not too difficult. I have the CCD camera cookbook by Berry / Kanto / Munger , it's a peice of cake or you can buy the connectix cam for $95.00.... I think the $95 dollar solution is cheaper. Building the CCD camera on the TI CCD chip looks like it can cost $325 or so. From bdm@fenrir.demon.co.uk Sat Mar 09 00:33:58 1996 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id AAA02363 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:33:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ae20400; 9 Mar 96 6:19 GMT Received: from fenrir.demon.co.uk ([158.152.145.157]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04927; 9 Mar 96 6:16 GMT To: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer (Green Edition Ver 1.05c) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 06:16:35 GMT From: Brian Morrison Reply-To: Brian Morrison Subject: Re: [SS:93] Re: Spread Spectrum in the UK Message-ID: <826352197.4927.0@fenrir.demon.co.uk> ** Reply to note from Dirk-Jan Koopman 03/03/96 03:47am -0600 > It may be of interest that Harris as currently sampling a 2400 Mhz five chip > SS set which takes binary in one end and chucks SS out the other and vice > versa to at least part 15 rf levels and up to 2Mbps. > Apparently the 'volume' price for the Prism chipset is about $50-55, quantity about 100k pieces. I don't know what <10 piece prices would be, but assume about 3:1, then that's $150 just for the chipset. Not sure about the exact cost of the additional bits to finish the radio, but you need a custom SAW filter and a few other bits, so at least $200 for the parts for small volumes. -- Brian Morrison bdm@fenrir.demon.co.uk Hubert Rawlinson, in his mid-forties and still unusual..- Viv Stanshall From strohs@halcyon.com Sat Mar 09 09:56:30 1996 Received: from halcyon.com (coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA22448 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 09:56:26 -0600 (CST) Received: by halcyon.com id AA15513 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ss@tapr.org); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 07:56:14 -0800 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 07:56:13 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Stroh To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Digital video In-Reply-To: <960308150835_345232686@mail06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sorry for the off-topic reply... On Fri, 8 Mar 1996 ATVQ@aol.com wrote: > Sorry to deflate your balloon. No ATV has told me they want to jump from > NTSC to any other format. Perhaps not. But I suspect that there are a LOT of hams that would enjoy running digital video as just another part of running digital over radio. Our network in Seattle (multiple 9600 repeaters) runs TCP/IP. It's simple to add video as yet another protocol running over TCP/IP, like the Internet's CUCMe. Granted- 9600 isn't nearly fast enough (although 56K would be, and only 100 KHz BW), and TCP/IP isn't the ideal protocol for real time data such as video. But, it works, and well enough, and lets other "modes" (file transfers, e-mail, keyboard-to-keyboard, digital voice, etc.) use the channel also. Understand we have put up with other signal iQRM > for decades, and what we want to watch is NTSC because that is what you buy > at your local TV appliance store, NTSC TV sets. So forget the pie inthe sky > TV will go digital. No one in TV land has any interest in digital > narrowband, slow scan, cruddy fuzzy pics, threshold effects, poor range, no > DX, expensive digital converters, new rx/tx gear. We ar rock bound on NTSC > and not moving. Sorry, but thats the euipment available today and the > foreseeable future. We do not have an alternative. 73 Henry But there are LOTS of potential participants that own a decent multimedia PC that with the addition of a $100 Connectix QuickCam, a little software, and a 9600 (maybe) or a 56K radio that could be doing "ATV". Steve N8GNJ -- Steve Stroh N8GNJ strohs@halcyon.com | 1996 ARRL & TAPR Dig. Comm. Amateur Radio TCP/IP n8gnj@sw.n8gnj.ampr.org | Conf. in Seattle Sep. 20-22 From ATVQ@aol.com Sat Mar 09 10:14:42 1996 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id KAA23194 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:14:38 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04549 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:15:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:15:25 -0500 Message-ID: <960309111524_345999025@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:130] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! Yes that is the sorry state of ham radio. All appliance operators and no tinkerers. The only tinkering is in Europe, and what SS folks a a very small handfull of others are willing to do. It has gotten to expensive, most of us have to work longer hours so we have less time to tinker and amuse our selves with Rice Paddy specials from Kenwood Icom, Yaesu etc, from 160 to 1296. Except for my 440, 900, 1200, 2400 MHz equipment, which is hand built, everything else is out of the box. On the other hand, my video editing equipment (over $40,000) does more than I could ever build because it has chips I cannot buy, let alone design around. Technology has made most home brewing efforts more effort than reward. Except for self satisfaction there is little you can build that cant be bought for less or does much more for a lot less. Try building your own cell phone and make it work as well as Motorola and make it smaller than their flip phone. Go ahead.... Get the point? hats off to those who sweat over the soldering iron. But there are darn few left. Thats why Heathkit went out of business. The world has changed by the computer. 73 Henry From ATVQ@aol.com Sat Mar 09 10:24:06 1996 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id KAA23677 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:24:02 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18576 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:23:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:23:30 -0500 Message-ID: <960309112329_346005451@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:131] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! Great the digital camera is now in the computer file. Now what? How are you going to transmit real time color pictures with sound from your computer? Where on the 440 band are you going to DX that digital camera signal that no one else can receive? How you gonna carry that digital camera and your 486-66 tower computer and a mile of expension cord to fit in your RC airplane, RC submarine or lap top it in your car? Why do I need a $1000 computer for a $100 camera and still have no transmitter/antenna, when I can use a $25 camera, a $99 transmitter and a $1 antenna with a TV set I already own and have a complete two way video station for under $150. Get real! Hey computer video, fun toy, too big, too expensive, for us common working folks. Do I have computer video? I have 2 486-66, with total of 64 meg RAM, 4 Gigbyte in 5 drives, cd roms, tape drives, modems, super VGA's, accelerator boards, a HP scanner and 3 color/laser printers. It doesnt have one wire to my $20,000 ham TV station because its crappy video and doesnt add anything to what I can do in analog for less. Maybe I'll connect a graphic port out to do titles, something I can do for $99 in analog land (so why tie up $8,000 computer stations for that?) Want digital editing? I can do that on one station, a non-linear audio/video editing system...$14,000 in software/hardware to almost equal the pictures I can do on my $5,000 sony EVO9700 analog hi-8 dual deck editor. Digital isnt there yet, and few hams are going to spend the tens of thousands I have spent to even begin to do it. Want to do it on a TOaster? Its atill about $5,000 for a basic system. You still need a camera, monitors, transmitter, receiver etc. We are not interested in 64 x 128 resolution either. Slow scan is great for stills, we send LIVE action color video. 73 Henry From jerryn@ici.net Sat Mar 09 18:07:37 1996 Received: from tiny.sprintlink.net (tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.55.90]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id SAA18008 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:07:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tiny.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA29847 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:07:30 -0500 Received: from innovative.tech.com (dialupS161.ici.net) by ici.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01270; Sat, 9 Mar 96 19:08:48 EST Sender: root@ici.net Message-Id: <31422459.48A10CE4@ici.net> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 19:37:45 -0500 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:135] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! References: <960309112329_346005451@mail06.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ATVQ@aol.com wrote: > > Great the digital camera is now in the computer file. Now what? How are you > going to transmit real time color pictures with sound from your computer? > Where on the 440 band are you going to DX that digital camera signal that no > one else can receive? How you gonna carry that digital camera and your > 486-66 tower computer and a mile of expension cord to fit in your RC > airplane, RC submarine or lap top it in your car? > Why do I need a $1000 computer for a $100 camera and still have no > transmitter/antenna, when I can use a $25 camera, a $99 transmitter and a $1 > antenna with a TV set I already own and have a complete two way video station > for under $150. > Get real! Hey computer video, fun toy, too big, too expensive, for us > common working folks. > Do I have computer video? I have 2 486-66, with total of 64 meg RAM, 4 > Gigbyte in 5 drives, cd roms, tape drives, modems, super VGA's, accelerator > boards, a HP scanner and 3 color/laser printers. It doesnt have one wire to > my $20,000 ham TV station because its crappy video and doesnt add anything to > what I can do in analog for less. > Maybe I'll connect a graphic port out to do titles, something I can do for > $99 in analog land (so why tie up $8,000 computer stations for that?) Want > digital editing? I can do that on one station, a non-linear audio/video > editing system...$14,000 in software/hardware to almost equal the pictures I > can do on my $5,000 sony EVO9700 analog hi-8 dual deck editor. > Digital isnt there yet, and few hams are going to spend the tens of > thousands I have spent to even begin to do it. Want to do it on a TOaster? > Its atill about $5,000 for a basic system. You still need a camera, > monitors, transmitter, receiver etc. > We are not interested in 64 x 128 resolution either. Slow scan is great > for stills, we send LIVE action color video. > 73 Henry > Man I guess your not keeping current with the latest packet transcievers. There are now kits for 56k, 384k, 1.5M / Sec. Use YAHOO and check out Wireless Modems. To transmit Digital Video it takes less overhead than to transmit NTSC , digitize it and then convert it to video again. Digital Video is possible on 28.8k modems.... we do it all the time with CuSeeMe... on Linux it works the best and I get 12fps. On windows you only get 8fps... On the Mac... similar. Unix is just better suited. Plus I have my setup set to pipe the digized imaged to cjpeg... each B&W is only 2k This technology isn't thousands of dollars dude. The Connectix camera is only 90 bucks.... the computer... well I f you want to run Linux (free) on a 486DX266 w/8MB of RAM it will run... the camera hoooks into the parallel port. I tranmit video through my 19.2k spread spectrum modems all the time. I run at 902-926Mhz. I used the Proxim Modules and an amp from HyperLink. From jerryn@ici.net Sat Mar 09 18:18:22 1996 Received: from tiny.sprintlink.net (tiny.sprintlink.net [199.0.55.90]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id SAA18321 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:18:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from ici.net (kirk.ici.net [204.97.252.10]) by tiny.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00179 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:18:15 -0500 Received: from innovative.tech.com (dialupS161.ici.net) by ici.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01558; Sat, 9 Mar 96 19:19:32 EST Sender: root@ici.net Message-Id: <314226DE.6E4B296D@ici.net> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 19:48:30 -0500 From: Jerry Normandin Organization: Innovative Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i486) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:134] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! References: <960309111524_345999025@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ATVQ@aol.com wrote: > > Yes that is the sorry state of ham radio. All appliance operators and no > tinkerers. The only tinkering is in Europe, and what SS folks a a very small > handfull of others are willing to do. It has gotten to expensive, most of us > have to work longer hours so we have less time to tinker and amuse our selves > with Rice Paddy specials from Kenwood Icom, Yaesu etc, from 160 to 1296. > Except for my 440, 900, 1200, 2400 MHz equipment, which is hand built, > everything else is out of the box. On the other hand, my video editing > equipment (over $40,000) does more than I could ever build because it has > chips I cannot buy, let alone design around. > Technology has made most home brewing efforts more effort than reward. > Except for self satisfaction there is little you can build that cant be > bought for less or does much more for a lot less. Try building your own > cell phone and make it work as well as Motorola and make it smaller than > their flip phone. Go ahead.... > Get the point? > hats off to those who sweat over the soldering iron. But there are darn few > left. Thats why Heathkit went out of business. The world has changed by > the computer. > 73 Henry I tinker. I also don't have my ticket because Amatuer Radio has lost it's spirit. THANK the ARRL for that. MAN... when I was thinking about getting my ticket people were only interested in DXing..... getting numbers. BIG DEAL... Plus If I put up a repeater w/autopatch I couldn't use it to order a pizza or use it as a business phone. You could thank MA BELL for that. Well I say too bad. I still experiment. I don't watch much television. I build up projects based on the 8051 microcontroller, I build up homebrew robots and also homebew transcievers. I have also built a LW Radio Beacon. I think there's an oppurtunity for another company like heathkit. I am thinking about selling some of my kits online. My oldest sone who is 10 years old loves to build projects with me.... all my projects have been wirewrapped. The key word is atrophy I think. Too many of us have become lazy. I run my own computer consulting business, I put in over 80 hours per week, plus I play with my kids, spend time with the wife, and still have time to "tinker" I ownly watch the tube when we rent a decent movie. Too many of us want everything now. Instea of building that 2Meter Radio or Building that packet modem we want to buy it allready made, we don't want to know hat makes it tick..... well sorry I am not like that I want to know what makes a device tick. From srbible@mindport.net Sat Mar 09 21:38:25 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id VAA28771 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:38:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-50.mindport.net [205.219.167.69]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA26531 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 22:38:18 -0500 Posted-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 22:38:18 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960310033435.0068e938@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 22:34:35 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: RM-8737 Comments Posted to WWW.TAPR.ORG Comments to RM-8737, Ammendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Amateur Radio Service to Facilitate Spread Spectrum Communications are being posted to http://www.tapr.org/ss The following comments are presently posted: Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA), 2/23/96 TAPR Comments 2/26/96 Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 2/26/96 National Communications System, 2/26/96 The Indiana Repeater Council, 2/28/96 Henry Ruh, KB9FO, Publisher, Amateur Television Quarterly, 2/28/96 Charles M. Albert, Jr. KC6UFM, 3/4/96 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/4/96 Comments from the following will be posted as time permits: Nels Harvey, WA9JOB, 2/20/96 Witt Brown, WB0CJX, Frequency Coordination Chairman of the Mid-America Coordination Council, Inc., 2/26/96 George Isely, WD9GIG, President of the Mid-America Coordination Council, Inc., 2/26/96 The San Bernardino Microwave Society, 2/20/96 SouthEastern Repeater Association, Inc., 2/23/96 John Mock, KD6PAG, 2/27/96 From cbuttsch@slonet.org Sun Mar 10 12:22:31 1996 Received: from biggulp.callamer.com (cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com [199.74.141.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id MAA12838 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 12:22:28 -0600 (CST) Received: (from cbuttsch@localhost) by biggulp.callamer.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id KAA09854; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:22:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:22:20 -0800 (PST) From: Clifford Buttschardt X-Sender: cbuttsch@biggulp.callamer.com To: "LANIER.R.A-" cc: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:124] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! In-Reply-To: <13f61830@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Tony, of course the repeater owners that use FM simply do not realize that the first twenty db of any FM signal is a dead band of little value. Until some quieting occurs, there is little if any intellegence, BUT the weak signal guys have a very valid concern. Let's listen to them and simply forget the FM guys until they realize they will never be hurt! Cliff Buttschardt W6HDO From mac@ns1.culver.net Sun Mar 10 16:09:25 1996 Received: from ns1.culver.net (mac@ns1.culver.net [206.13.40.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA22668 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:09:21 -0600 (CST) Received: (from mac@localhost) by ns1.culver.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21724; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:14:26 -0800 From: Mike Cheponis Message-Id: <199603102214.OAA21724@ns1.culver.net> Subject: Re: [SS:139] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:14:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Clifford Buttschardt" at Mar 10, 96 12:26:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Clifford Buttschardt says: >Tony, of course the repeater owners that use FM simply do not realize >that the first twenty db of any FM signal is a dead band of little value. >Until some quieting occurs, there is little if any intelligence, BUT the >weak signal guys have a very valid concern. Let's listen to them and >simply forget the FM guys until they realize they will never be hurt! >Cliff Buttschardt W6HDO I think Cliff is right-on. The issue of SS with weak-signal can be approached by not putting SS sideband energy into weak-signal subbands when people are trying to work weak-signal. (We'll ignore for the moment how SS may actually help weak-signal guys.) This has always been handled by "Gentleman's Agreement". We have places on our bands for various mutually exclusive modes. Remember when that "packet racket" first burned up 145.01 around the country? And then started expanding to more and more FM simplex frequencies? What happened was existing modes accommodated packet into their bandplans. The other thing I'm noticing in this discussion is that we seem to be attacking each other. When it comes to frequencies, "United we stand, divided we fall!" I also enjoy wideband ATV, with its high fidelity video, and I also like computer video. I'm eager to watch AHDTV video transmitted in a 6 MHz channel. I like VHF/UHF weak-signal, packet, and - gosh! - SS. I think it would be best for us all if we worked together so that everybody can enjoy the hobby to the fullest. This I think means accommodating all modes. I would also like to point out that SS is - right now! - legal on the ham bands. What the ARRL petition is asking, among other things, is allowing other spreading codes. SS is here to stay! -Mike K3MC From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Mar 11 09:27:40 1996 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA12593 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:27:38 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07928 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:27:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:27:07 -0500 Message-ID: <960311102706_443414478@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:133] Digital video I invite you to write a story about this for our readers. The next two deadlines are March 20 and June 15. QTH: -mail ATVQ2AOL.COM, or ATVQ, 3 N. Court St., Crown Point, IN 46307 From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Mar 11 09:30:34 1996 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA12786 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:30:30 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07838 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:29:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:29:50 -0500 Message-ID: <960311102950_443416315@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:136] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! OK, You are farther ahead, how about letting the video people know by writing an article for us on the subject, maybe get more SS converts, ATVQ@AOL.COM or ATVQ, 3 N. Court St., Crown Point, IN 46307 73 Henry From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Mar 11 09:33:12 1996 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA13019 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:33:10 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14363 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:32:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:32:38 -0500 Message-ID: <960311103238_443418226@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:137] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! well there is mor to hm than HF DX. I got over that many yearas ago, and have been mostly tinkering on VHF-UHF and microwave. 73 Henry From ATVQ@aol.com Mon Mar 11 09:36:42 1996 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id JAA13484 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:36:41 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10381 for ss@tapr.org; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:36:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:36:02 -0500 Message-ID: <960311103559_443420535@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:139] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! 12 db SINAD is good enough, but most FM rpts are aligators anyway. 73 Henry From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Mar 11 11:12:01 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id LAA18169 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:11:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA30748; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:09:37 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 1445e960; Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:10:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:10:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1445e960@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:134] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part You make a good point, Henry. I think this attitude is pervasive through America as well. I don't think the point is make a better cell phone, although I'm sure some are trying. The point is to have some personal satification in building it yourself. At least it is with me. Why would someone want to fix his own car? A mechanic has all the tools and experience, so why do it yourself. Becasue you want to! I disagree that hams cannot do as good or better job than what is on the market. With the right knowledge, you can build just about most anything. It may take more parts and an increase in input current, etc, but at least YOU built it, not some assembly line worker. Hams have had a long history of tinkering and some have even made important discoveries. Lets not forget about that. Tony, KE4ATO lanier.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:134] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/9/96 10:24 AM Yes that is the sorry state of ham radio. All appliance operators and no tinkerers. The only tinkering is in Europe, and what SS folks a a very small handfull of others are willing to do. It has gotten to expensive, most of us have to work longer hours so we have less time to tinker and amuse our selves with Rice Paddy specials from Kenwood Icom, Yaesu etc, from 160 to 1296. Except for my 440, 900, 1200, 2400 MHz equipment, which is hand built, everything else is out of the box. On the other hand, my video editing equipment (over $40,000) does more than I could ever build because it has chips I cannot buy, let alone design around. Technology has made most home brewing efforts more effort than reward. Except for self satisfaction there is little you can build that cant be bought for less or does much more for a lot less. Try building your own cell phone and make it work as well as Motorola and make it smaller than their flip phone. Go ahead.... Get the point? hats off to those who sweat over the soldering iron. But there are darn few left. Thats why Heathkit went out of business. The world has changed by the computer. 73 Henry From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Mar 11 11:38:01 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id LAA19554 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:37:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA18498; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:36:07 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 14464fb0; Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:38:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:36:45 -0500 Message-Id: <14464fb0@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:140] Re: File your comments in RM-8737! To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part >The issue of SS with weak-signal can be approached by not putting SS >sideband energy into weak-signal subbands when people are trying to work >weak-signal. (We'll ignore for the moment how SS may actually help >weak-signal guys.) I'd like to know how SS can help weak-signal guys. I have an idea, but I want to hear yours. >This has always been handled by "Gentleman's Agreement". We have places on >our bands for various mutually exclusive modes. >Remember when that "packet racket" first burned up 145.01 around the country? >And then started expanding to more and more FM simplex frequencies? What >happened was existing modes accommodated packet into their bandplans. Good point! Its funny how packet, QRP, DXing, etc all thrive together. >The other thing I'm noticing in this discussion is that we seem to be >attacking each other. When it comes to frequencies, "United we stand, >divided we fall!" >I also enjoy wideband ATV, with its high fidelity video, and I also like >computer video. I'm eager to watch AHDTV video transmitted in a 6 MHz >channel. I like VHF/UHF weak-signal, packet, and - gosh! - SS. >I think it would be best for us all if we worked together so that everybody >can enjoy the hobby to the fullest. This I think means accommodating all >modes. Amen to that! One interesting thing about SS is that it will not *directly* interfere with other users, although weak-signal guys might see a little. >I would also like to point out that SS is - right now! - legal on the ham >bands. What the ARRL petition is asking, among other things, is allowing >other spreading codes. >SS is here to stay! >-Mike K3MC From srbible@mindport.net Mon Mar 11 11:41:18 1996 Received: from polaris.mindport.net (root@polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id LAA19662; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:41:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from default (synapse-53.mindport.net [205.219.167.72]) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01205; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:41:08 -0500 Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:41:08 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960311173453.00692140@mindport.net> X-Sender: srbible@mindport.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:34:53 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org, netsig@tapr.org, tcp-group@ucsd.edu, amsat-bb@amsat.org From: "Steven R. Bible" Subject: RM-8737 Comments Posted to WWW.TAPR.ORG Comments and reply comments to RM-8737, Ammendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Amateur Radio Service to Facilitate Spread Spectrum Communications are being posted to http://www.tapr.org/ss/rule_changes.html TAPR will endeavor to keep the page current. The following comments are presently posted: Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 2/23/96 Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA), 2/23/96 TAPR Comments 2/26/96 National Communications System, 2/26/96 George Isely, WD9GIG, President, Mid-America Coordination Council, Inc., 2/26/96 Whit Brown, WB0CJX, Frequency Coordination Chairman, Mid-America Coordination Council, Inc., 2/26/96 The Indiana Repeater Council, 2/28/96 Henry Ruh, KB9FO, Publisher, Amateur Television Quarterly, 2/28/96 Charles M. Albert, Jr. KC6UFM, 3/4/96 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/4/96 Reply Comments from: Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/6/96 Bill Tynan, W3XO 3/11/96 Comments from the following will be posted as time permits: Nels Harvey, WA9JOB, 2/20/96 The San Bernardino Microwave Society, 2/20/96 SouthEastern Repeater Association, Inc., 2/23/96 John Mock, KD6PAG, 2/27/96 - Steve, N7HPR srbible@mindport.net n7hpr@amsat.org n7hpr@tapr.org From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Mon Mar 11 12:02:02 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id MAA20743 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:01:59 -0600 (CST) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA27414 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:00:53 +0200 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA293796994; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 19:56:34 +0200 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:58:37 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Hopelessly defeatest? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="Re:" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony, KE4ATO (lanier.r.a@nort.bwi.wec.com) writes: >If all of this is true, then why has the military been so successful = >in implementing SS? If it truely did cause the interference as stated = >here, why would SS be used for satellite communications for deep-space = = >probes (at least that is what I was told) ?? There are a number of reasons. Systems like GPS have MASSIVE processing gains, and cellular systems operate in a well controlled and structured enviroment. Never heard of SS being used for space probes, PSK is the norm there as far as I know, but again with lots of bandwidth and potentialy massive processing gains the situation is quite different. Also high gain antennas reduce terestial noise floor problems etc etc. Other systems (900MHz) only transmit over a few hundred meters making them more tolerant since the SS TX is closer than anything else, with very low power. These are all luxuries we dont have as amateurs.... at least below 1 GHz, but I think things may be different in the microwave bands. Looking at the UK allocations, there is a band around 3.5GHz what would= be ideal. These days 3.5GHz, especially at only a few mW, is easier than= 70cm was 10 years ago, even more so with a wideband mode. DSSS would be quite nice up there, for everyone. You'd want a dish though, but there's= heaps of cheap satilite TV surplus stuff arround, same goes for HEMT's etc etc. Same goes for cellular. Microwave bands are in the consumer domain now. With spinoffs for hams, ie lots of cheap surplus devices. >There is a flaw in the agruement here. If SS operates in the noise = >floor of a typical CW/SSB transceiver, how is this going to cause = Unfortunatly it doesn't. Maybe if we could spread to 100MHz or 1GHz things would be different, or if we would put up with 1200 baud. But this is not the case. >interference to a neighbooring repeater or other operator? This point = >was not specificly brought out in the discussion below. I strongly = >disagree that a SS system with 10mW output would cause *significant* = >interference as to render anything but a repeater useless is absurd! = >10mW is very little power! We need to educate the public as to EXACTLY = = >what SS is, what it does, and how will (will not) affect other users = >of the frequency spectrum. Unfortunatly the numbers speak for themselves. 10mW is the figure I used, and showed that there was significant interference. There seems to= be some agreement on this one. Narrow band modes and Direct sequence SS apparanetly cannot coexist, at least on the VHF/UHF amateur bands. If this is not the case, what's wrong with my numbers? I though they were very conservative, only one 1W narrowband user 20km away! And SS with good FEC. Sure the processing gain isn't much, but thats what were stuck with on the low bands. Put simply, if the SS station is 10mW, and another user, narrow or wideband, is 1W then the 1W user represents 100 SS stations at the same distance. Its purely a capacity problem, the classic near-far/power control problem. While there are techniques for getting around this, they assumes all users in the band abide by the same rules, namely power control. It also requires everyone to talk to the nearest base station, it excludes DX specifically, not even to the next base station! DSSS is a highly cooperative mode, where anyone can unwittingly ruin it. My concern is not so much what SS will do to narrow band guys, I think we can be a bit more selective about what frequencies we use, but more what THEY CAN DO TO SS. We must get away from them for SS to work properly. We cannot (and shouldn't try to) exersize enough control over narrow band modes to make the two compatible. The only hope for DSSS (which seems by far the simplest) is to go for microwave bands. Which I reckon is easier than it might at first appear to be. Up there we have little competition, massive band widths, and a level playing feild (even narrow band modes/ATV etc use mW of power and dishes. We might even get an 'exclusive'! (SS allocation) Has anyone done a 3.5GHz (or whatever) upconverter/downconverter kit? Cheers, Rob, G0VTQ From Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Mon Mar 11 12:15:32 1996 Received: from noknic.nokia.com (noknic.nokia.com [131.228.6.10]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id MAA21521 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:15:28 -0600 (CST) From: Robert.Glassey@nmp.nokia.com Received: from samail01.nmp.nokia.com (samail01.nmp.nokia.com [131.228.240.6]) by noknic.nokia.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA28112 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:14:55 +0200 Received: from by samail01.nmp.nokia.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA299067836; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:10:36 +0200 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 18:12:33 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Subject: [SS:120] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="[SS:120]" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Nobody on this SIG seems to have mentioned FEC in any of this. Are we = >ignoring this or simply assuming it is a waste of time? = >Surely if one is using a reasonably robust FEC system (such as the = >sequential decoding system proposed by Phil on his web site) using any >SS system, then the presence of the NB signal isn't going to have that = = >much effect. You also have the advantage of the coding gain given by >the FEC system itself. >Apart from Phil KA9Q, I have yet to meet amateurs who are truely >convinced of the merits of FEC / HAMMING / VITERBI / whoever codes for I am 100% convinced of the advantages of FEC. Buts it gets a little tricky to fully understand so its tough to talk inteligently about the posibilities here. Of course, FEC isn't magic, it only allows you to get closer to the shannon limit. It cannot provide enough gain to overcome the problems of= DSSS I mentioned in my original post, (which actaully assumes good FEC).= DSSS problems aside, how about this? FEC-SS One way of thinking of DSSS is that it reduces interference by applying a sort of convolutional code to the data with massive redundancy then using simple multplication and averaging to perform crude error correcting decoding. Can we get smart here? Can we combine high performance FEC with spreading? Say a rate 9/10? code (9 redundent bits in every 10, is this rate 9/10?) This would also= be a type of spread spectrum. We could have multiple users, all with different convolutional codes, all on the same channel. Is this possible? I suspect the decoding gets very tricky but some combination of averaging and trellis coding may give good performance. Would this be= better than just applying FEC after despreading? Perhaps despread to twice your data rate then error-correct to get the original data rate. Much better than just despreading back to the original data rate I would= have thought. How far can we go? It seems the extra bandwidth for extra FEC bits comes free with spread spectrum. OFDM-SS Can we go on from this and combine this with multi carrier techniques, so that we can control where our energy goes, and thus interference both= to and from narrow band systems. OFDM techniques like Clover II bears some similarities to frequency hopping systems. High speed, wideband (Digital TV) OFDM systems exist. Can we apply massive redundancy FEC systems to this to create a multi access spread spectrum system with near shannon limit performance, while at the same time ovioding narrow band user problems? How many square inches of silicon would be required?= Apparently there are a number of cunning tricks that make this technique= practical, at least for TV, and combining it with high redundancy may relax the hardware/software requirements even more. There might be a phD= in this for someone? Perhaps this is getting a little complex for amateur use. Anyway, just a few more ideas. Rob, G0VTQ From wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Mon Mar 11 13:14:49 1996 Received: from wb9mjn.ampr.org (wb9mjn.ampr.org [44.72.98.19]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id NAA25103 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:14:24 -0600 (CST) From: wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:40:47 UTC Message-Id: <9502@wb9mjn.ampr.org> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:149] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? In-Reply-To: your message of Mon Mar 11 12:34:00 1996 Hi Rob, Your comments are very thought provoking! I m not sure if this is what u said, or what occured to me, when u said what u said. Impulse noise on UHF/VHF data is a big problem. How does SS effect this? My understanding is a bit shakey, here, but here goes. The Impulse occurs over the whole BW. It takes out one DSSS chip bit. So, that represents an impulse in the despread output, right? So, DSSS does not cure Impulse noise. FEC does cure Impulse noise effects. An isolated bit error , or 2 or 3 seperated isolated bit errors can be corrected with the proper FEC. How about making the spreading code FEC? Instead of FEC that s twice as many bits, or whatever, make it 10 or 20 redundant bits for each data bit!? That way, we spread, and FEC in the same process! It solves Impulse noise, say on 6 meters, but it also solves multipath, say like on 1.2 Ghz, or around airports. Is this really practical now? Can FEC be decoded at Chip rates? Maybe this technigue would be good for HF? As with a multitone modem. And for low baseband data rates (voice) spread over a few hundred Kilohertz? 73, Don. Mailbox : WB9MJN @ N9HSI.IL.USA.NA AMPRNet : wb9mjn@wb9mjn.ampr.org[44.72.98.19] Internet: wb9mjn%wb9mjn.ampr.org%hydra-gw.carleton.ca From LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com Mon Mar 11 16:23:42 1996 Received: from tron.bwi.wec.com (tron.bwi.wec.com [129.228.4.1]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id QAA05237 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:23:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from smtpgty.bwi.wec.com by tron.bwi.wec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/31May95-0229PM) id AA25364; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:21:59 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 144a7bc0; Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:22:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:56:46 -0500 Message-Id: <144a7bc0@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com> From: LANIER.R.A-@smtpgty.bwi.wec.com (LANIER.R.A-) Subject: Re: [SS:149] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? To: ss@tapr.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part In any high speed link, error correction invaribly pops up. Unless you have a perfect system and I don't know of one yet. This is a complicated science, if it is done well. A simple start bit/stop bit is OK, but real error correction goes way beyond this. No, I don't think this subject is too complicated for amateur use! We have a perfect medium in which to experiment these types of ideas. I think there isn't enough interest in this area. Am I wrong in assuming that the majority of hams just want to ragchew and not experiment? Tony ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [SS:149] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? Author: ss@tapr.org at BALT.SMTP Date: 3/11/96 12:34 PM >Nobody on this SIG seems to have mentioned FEC in any of this. Are we = >ignoring this or simply assuming it is a waste of time? = >Surely if one is using a reasonably robust FEC system (such as the = >sequential decoding system proposed by Phil on his web site) using any >SS system, then the presence of the NB signal isn't going to have that = = >much effect. You also have the advantage of the coding gain given by >the FEC system itself. >Apart from Phil KA9Q, I have yet to meet amateurs who are truely >convinced of the merits of FEC / HAMMING / VITERBI / whoever codes for I am 100% convinced of the advantages of FEC. Buts it gets a little tricky to fully understand so its tough to talk inteligently about the posibilities here. Of course, FEC isn't magic, it only allows you to get closer to the shannon limit. It cannot provide enough gain to overcome the problems of= DSSS I mentioned in my original post, (which actaully assumes good FEC).= DSSS problems aside, how about this? FEC-SS One way of thinking of DSSS is that it reduces interference by applying a sort of convolutional code to the data with massive redundancy then using simple multplication and averaging to perform crude error correcting decoding. Can we get smart here? Can we combine high performance FEC with spreading? Say a rate 9/10? code (9 redundent bits in every 10, is this rate 9/10?) This would also= be a type of spread spectrum. We could have multiple users, all with different convolutional codes, all on the same channel. Is this possible? I suspect the decoding gets very tricky but some combination of averaging and trellis coding may give good performance. Would this be= better than just applying FEC after despreading? Perhaps despread to twice your data rate then error-correct to get the original data rate. Much better than just despreading back to the original data rate I would= have thought. How far can we go? It seems the extra bandwidth for extra FEC bits comes free with spread spectrum. OFDM-SS Can we go on from this and combine this with multi carrier techniques, so that we can control where our energy goes, and thus interference both= to and from narrow band systems. OFDM techniques like Clover II bears some similarities to frequency hopping systems. High speed, wideband (Digital TV) OFDM systems exist. Can we apply massive redundancy FEC systems to this to create a multi access spread spectrum system with near shannon limit performance, while at the same time ovioding narrow band user problems? How many square inches of silicon would be required?= Apparently there are a number of cunning tricks that make this technique= practical, at least for TV, and combining it with high redundancy may relax the hardware/software requirements even more. There might be a phD= in this for someone? Perhaps this is getting a little complex for amateur use. Anyway, just a few more ideas. Rob, G0VTQ From ignacio@ix.netcom.com Mon Mar 11 22:24:47 1996 Received: from ix.ix.netcom.com (ix.ix.netcom.com [199.182.120.2]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id WAA23674 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 22:24:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from ple-ca8-08.ix.netcom.com by ix.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id UAA26279; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:23:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:23:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199603120423.UAA26279@ix.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: ignacio@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ss@tapr.org From: Ignacio Huerta Subject: Re: [SS:141] Re: Digital video Do you publish an ATV journal? I'm looking for any ham efforts related to digital video. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Tnx es 73 de Ignacio AC6NY At 09:45 AM 3/11/96 -0600, you wrote: >I invite you to write a story about this for our readers. The next two >deadlines are March 20 and June 15. QTH: -mail ATVQ2AOL.COM, or ATVQ, 3 >N. Court St., Crown Point, IN 46307 > > > From c-three@telepost.no Tue Mar 12 04:14:24 1996 Received: from netto.telepost.no (netto.telepost.no [193.212.1.11]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id EAA13975 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 04:14:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from c-three.telepost.no by netto.telepost.no with SMTP (8.6.13/nms1.1) id for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:14:05 +0100 Message-Id: <199603121014.12568.telepost.no@telepost.no> X-Sender: c-three@telepost.no X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:14:05 +0100 To: ss@tapr.org From: Per-Tore Subject: Subscribre SUBSCRIBE Please add me to your mailing list. Regards Per-Tore LA7NO ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- | Per-Tore Aasestrand | E-mail : c-three@telepost.no | | C-Three Systems AS | Fax : + 47 - 55 23 18 88 | | P.O. Box 1708 | Voice : + 47 - 55 32 67 67 | | N-5024 Bergen, Norway | Mobile : + 47 - 92 04 44 76 | ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- From ATVQ@aol.com Tue Mar 12 10:58:58 1996 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id KAA01202 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:58:56 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07796 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:58:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: <960312115816_244109838@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:148] Re: Hopelessly defeatest? 3.5 ghz is not that diffidult. You can "turn around" a TVRO LNB so rather than converting to 900-1300, from 3.6-4.2 GHz, you inject at 900-1300 and come out at 3.5 Ghz (pick your frequency and LO to get where you want). A TVRO dish will offer a lot of gain, but is a wind load. A simple Yagi has enough gain (up to 20 dBi) and is very small at this frequency. It was published in the Central States VHF conference notes several years ago. A lot of us microwave banders use the 2 foot "snow coaster" as a parabolic reflector with the perverbial Campbell's Soup can probe at the focal. This has been published everywhere many times. There are also some European commercial 3.5 Ghz units that workin the US 3.5 and 5.5 Ghz ham bands. he easiet route is the reverse LNB process since you get gain enough to drive it with a direct synthesis chip or PLL in a reasonably stable 1.2 GHz frequency (doubles as a 1.2 Ghz ttransmitter too!) and will give up to 30 dB power gain (up to 27 dBm) more than enough to splattter on the dish (another 20 dB) or feed tothe yagi dipole (also 20 dB) or go all out with a 10 foot Winegard mesh TVRO dish for 36 dB gain! (about 42 dB on 5.5 GHz!) THis has worked on DX in SSB/FM mode on openings for 300 miles in the midwest, and up to 100 miles under normal band conditions. 73 Henry KB9FO. From ATVQ@aol.com Tue Mar 12 10:59:14 1996 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id KAA01225 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:59:11 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04891 for ss@tapr.org; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:58:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:58:26 -0500 Message-ID: <960312115825_244109946@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:152] Re: Digital video Yes, I publish ATVQ (Amateur Television Quarterly). There has been very little on digital TV. I am trying to get a translation of a German article now to republish. Looking for input! 73 Henry KB9FO From wd5ivd@tapr.org Tue Mar 12 20:07:24 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) id UAA00168; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:07:22 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603130207.UAA00168@tapr.org> Subject: TAPR Reply Comments on RM-8737 To: tapr-bb@tapr.org (TAPR-BB mailing) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:07:21 -0600 (CST) Cc: ss@tapr.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the ) RM-8737 Commissions Rules Governing ) the Amateur Radio Service to ) Facilitate Spread Spectrum ) Communications ) To: The Commission REPLY COMMENTS OF TUCSON AMATEUR PACKET RADIO CORPORATION The Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation ("TAPR") submits the following reply comments regarding the Petition for Rulemaking (the "Petition") filed by the American Radio Relay League ("ARRL"), which proposed certain changes in the rules governing spread spectrum operation in the Amateur Radio Service ("ARS"). I. PERMITTING MORE WIDESPREAD SPREAD SPECTRUM OPERATION IN THE ARS WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. A number of the comments recognized the benefits that could be provided by more widespread use of spread spectrum technologies in the ARS (1). In addition to those that would accrue to ARS operators, as described in the Petition, increased use of spread spectrum in the ARS would contribute to the overall development of spread spectrum communications (2) and, as a result, would provide benefits indirectly to commercial users as well. Expanded use of spread spectrum in the ARS also would further the Commission's objective of promoting efficient spectrum use. At the FCC's March 5, 1996 en banc hearing on spectrum policy, Paul Barens, the "father" of one of the technologies that forms the basis of the Internet, made the following statement: "What do we see today if we tune a spectrum analyzer or a radio receiver across most of the scarce spectrum bands? Mostly nothing. Dead air. This strongly suggests that most of our limited spectrum space is not being fully utilized and is going to waste. Specifically, with digital technology, spectrum bands can be more efficiently packed without interfering with existing services." By increasing the ability of ARS operators to use spread spectrum technologies, the Commission would enhance their ability to use digital technologies to enhance spectrum efficiency, as recommended in the above passage. In turn, the Commission also would make it possible for the ARS better to accommodate the many new users seeking to use ARS bands, which are already congested due to the widespread use of non-digital equipment. Although spread spectrum is not a panacea, it offers the promise of increased spectrum efficiency, reduced interference, and improved communication performance without adversely affecting other spectrum users. As a result, the Commission's rules governing spread spectrum operation should be modified to enable these technologies to flourish within the amateur service community. II. EXPANDED SPREAD SPECTRUM OPERATIONS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT OTHER ARS OPERATIONS. Several repeater coordinating organizations, who are responsible for the coordination of repeater operations in their regional areas of activity, filed comments opposing to the Petition. These entities generally alleged that adoption of ARRL's proposals would cause widespread interference to, and disruption of, existing operations. The fears and concerns expressed in these comments defy the proven ability of properly designed and implemented spread spectrum systems to operate in harmony with other spectrum users, are based upon "worst-case" scenarios, and reflect a desire to maintain the status quo even at the cost of stifling new technologies and services. As a result, they should not be permitted to prevent the development of spread spectrum in the ARS. First, as discussed by Robert Buaas, claims that spread spectrum operation will raise the noise floor ignore the fact that few real systems operate near the noise floor, and those that do would profit from applying spread spectrum technology (3). Second, in the ten years since the Commission first allowed limited spread spectrum operation in the ARS, a great deal of work has been done to address concerns that more flexible spread spectrum operation would adversely affect other types of ARS operations. In particular, the 1991 Buaas spread spectrum STA has made it possible for experimenters to engage in widespread use of spread spectrum technologies in the amateur band allocations below 450 MHz. Notably, operation under the existing spread spectrum rules and experimentation under the spread spectrum STA have not generated substantiated claims of objectionable interference (4). Finally, the successful operation of Part 15 spread spectrum systems provide substantial evidence of the ability of these devices to co-exist with other users. Today, millions of spread spectrum devices operating under Section 15.247 of the Commission's rules are being used to support end-user solutions in areas such as cordless phones, location monitoring devices, and local and metropolitan-area networking. These devices have been deployed across the United States without any local coordination and without any licensing by the Commission. Yet despite this flexibility and extensive use, spread spectrum Part 15 devices have almost universally operated without causing objectionable interference to other Part 15 devices or to others operating in shared spectrum (5). This success story provides ample proof that when spread spectrum devices are properly designed, manufactured, and deployed, they can coexist successfully with many diverse applications and, in addition, can facilitate frequency reuse. In light of this history of successful, non-interfering operation, the Commission should not permit unsubstantiated claims of potential interference to thwart the introduction and use of new spread spectrum technologies in the ARS (6). III. SECTION 97.119(B)(5) OF THE RULES SHOULD BE DELETED, AS SUGGESTED BY NCS. TAPR supports the suggestion made by the Manager of the National Communications System ("NCS") to delete Part 97.119 (b)(5), which deals with the requirement for CW identification. TAPR agrees that no currently available commercial equipment implements such a function, and that deletion of this requirement will act to speed the rapid adoption of this equipment into use in the ARS. CONCLUSION TAPR congratulates the ARRL for its forward-looking proposal to liberalize the spread spectrum rules in the ARS. ARRL's proposal, if adopted, could provide a variety of benefits to both members of the amateur service community and to the wider public. Proposals to modify the status quo often generate opposition by those who are adequately served by it. Like the turmoil that occurred in the ARS during the transition from AM to SSB, the growing use of spread spectrum in the service will not be without incidents of disagreement and misunderstanding. For this reason, TAPR intends to use its resources during the rulemaking process to educate the ARS community on the theory, application, and practice of spread spectrum technology. Yet while fear and opposition are understandable, they should not be permitted to stifle new developments. In light of spread spectrum's strong track record and proven benefits, unsubstantiated claims of potential interference should be discounted and the Commission should act promptly to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to implement the changes sought by ARRL, modified as discussed in TAPR's earlier comments. Respectfully submitted, THE TUCSON AMATEUR PACKET RADIO CORPORATION By: Dewayne Hendricks Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation 8987-309 E Tanque Verde Rd #337 Tucson, Arizona 85749-9399 (817) 383-0000 ----- (1) See, e.g., Comments of Robert A. Buaas (RBuaas CommentsS); Comments of the Manager of the National Communications System (RNCS CommentsS); Comments of John Mock; Comments of Henry B. Ruh; see also ARRL Petition. (2) See NCS Comments at p. 3. (3) Buaas Comments at p. 2. (4) Buaas Comments at p. 3. (5) See Comments of the Part 15 Coalition, PR Docket No. 93-61 (1995). (6) TAPR believes that a program of continuing education to the ARS community on the merits and benefits of spread spectrum technology coupled with a wider use and deployment of equipment by amateurs in various applications will go a long way towards resolving the concerns of many of the commenters who have filed in opposition. TAPR intends to use its resources to perform this function and service for the amateur radio community in much the same fashion that it helped start the packet radio revolution in the ARS during the mid-1980Us. From jeff@mich.com Tue Mar 12 22:26:29 1996 Received: from server2.mich.com (root@server2.mich.com [198.108.16.3]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id WAA06839 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:26:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from gw-aerodata.mich.com by server2.mich.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0twiBp-0009vyC; Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:29 EST Message-Id: <1.5.4b11.32.19960313043322.00695da4@mich.com> X-Sender: jeff@mich.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b11 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:33:22 -0500 To: ss@tapr.org From: Jeff King Subject: Equipment report/ AMI Was wondering who on this list is using SS for a internet link and/or a full time data link. I'm using some FreeWave units here (I'm gw-aerodata.mich.com) to link to my ISP, who is about 1.7 miles from me. I have a yagi (9 element) at 30 feet and the ISP has a omni also at about 30 feet. (I do demos in the area and also multipoint). I've had good luck with a 'rubber duck' to about a mile and in the vehicle (a cell antenna) to about 3-4 miles. We are in the Detroit area and it is flat to hilly with heavy trees. The FreeWave is a 115kbaud frequency hopping radio in the 902-928mhz band. Throughput using a PPP link is about 8.2kbytes/sec on a FTP. I've also used corner reflectors and helical antennas with the units as well. By and large, I'm fairly happy with the units. Are there any other low cost units out there that are of interest to the experimenters? Anyone using any of them? On a (un?)related topic, has anyone any experince with the AMI S20043 direct sequence spread spectrum transciever IC? I've got some prerelease data sheets from a year ago but haven't heard anything else about it. Best regards, -Jeff King WB8WKA From wd5ivd@tapr.org Thu Mar 14 02:11:58 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) id CAA06013; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 02:11:57 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603140811.CAA06013@tapr.org> Subject: RM-8737 on SS Issues Updated To: ss@tapr.org, tapr-bb@tapr.org (TAPR-BB mailing), amsat-bb@amsat.org (AMSAT BB Mail Group) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 02:11:57 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text The web page on RM-8737 concerning SS Amateur Rule Changes has been updated. Additional comments and reply comments will be added as time allows. It contains the following as of March 13th, 1996: The Initial Filing, assigned as RM-8737 ARRL Petition for Rulemaking, filed December 12th, 1995. Comments to RM-8737 San Bernardino Microwave Society 2/20/96 Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 2/23/96 Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA), 2/23/96 SouthEastern Repeater Association, Inc 2/23/96 TAPR Comments 2/26/96 National Communications System, 2/26/96 George Isely, WD9GIG, President, MACC, 2/26/96 Whit Brown, WB0CJX, Frequency Coordination Chairman, MACC, 2/26/96 The Indiana Repeater Council, 2/28/96 Henry Ruh, KB9FO, Publisher, Amateur Television Quarterly, 2/28/96 Charles M. Albert, Jr. KC6UFM, 3/4/96 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/4/96 Reply Comments to RM-8737 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/6/96 Bill Tynan, W3XO 3/11/96 AMSAT 3/11/96 TAPR 3/11/96 Phil Karn 3/11/96 Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 3/11/96 Steven Bible, N7HPR 3/11/96 Naval Postgraduate School 3/11/96 Charles M. (Marty) Albert, Jr. KC6UFM 3/13/96 To review these, you can check http://www.tapr.org/ss From wd5ivd@tapr.org Sun Mar 17 19:49:03 1996 Received: (from wd5ivd@localhost) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) id TAA26205; Sun, 17 Mar 1996 19:49:02 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Jones Message-Id: <199603180149.TAA26205@tapr.org> Subject: RM-8737 Update To: ss@tapr.org, regional_freq@tapr.org Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 19:49:01 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text The web page on RM-8737 concerning SS Amateur Rule Changes has been updated. Additional comments and reply comments will be added as time allows. It contains the following as of March 17th, 1996: The Initial Filing, assigned as RM-8737 Date Added ARRL Petition for Rulemaking, filed December 12th, 1995. 3/4/96 Comments to RM-8737 Nels Harvey, WA9JOB 2/20/96 3/17/96 San Bernardino Microwave Society 2/20/96 3/13/96 Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 2/23/96 3/3/96 Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA), 2/23/96 3/11/96 SouthEastern Repeater Association, Inc 2/23/96 3/13/96 TAPR Comments 2/26/96 2/27/96 National Communications System, 2/26/96 3/4/96 George Isely, WD9GIG, President, MACC, 2/26/96 3/11/96 Whit Brown, WB0CJX, Frequency Coordination Chairman, MACC, 2/26/96 3/11/96 John Mock KD6PAG 2/27/96 3/17/96 The Indiana Repeater Council, 2/28/96 3/11/96 Henry Ruh, KB9FO, Publisher, Amateur Television Quarterly, 2/28/96 3/11/96 Charles M. Albert, Jr. KC6UFM, 3/4/96 3/3/96 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/4/96 3/6/96 Reply Comments to RM-8737 Mike Cheponis, K3MC 3/6/96 3/6/96 Bill Tynan, W3XO 3/11/96 3/11/96 AMSAT 3/11/96 3/12/96 TAPR 3/11/96 3/12/96 Phil Karn 3/11/96 3/11/96 Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS 3/11/96 3/13/96 Steven Bible, N7HPR 3/11/96 3/13/96 Naval Postgraduate School 3/11/96 3/13/96 National Communications System, 3/11/96 3/17/96 Charles M. (Marty) Albert, Jr. KC6UFM 3/13/96 3/14/96 To review these, you can check http://www.tapr.org/ss From dewayne@warpspeed.com Fri Mar 22 12:22:53 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (WA8DZP@odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with ESMTP id MAA27938 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:22:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from [204.118.182.22] by warpspeed.com with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1b11); Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:21:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:21:48 -0800 To: ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) Subject: LEAGUE RESPONDS TO COMMENTS IN SPREAD SPECTRUM PETITION LEAGUE RESPONDS TO COMMENTS IN SPREAD SPECTRUM PETITION The ARRL says its petition to relax spread spectrum rules seeks to address a lack of SS experimentation by hams, not too much spread spectrum. Responding to comments filed in response to its December rule making petition, RM-8737, the League emphasized that Amateur Radio--as an experimental service--requires flexible rules and "some trust of the licensees carrying out experiments." Noting that some commenters called for tighter rules on SS, the League sought to dispel fears that relaxing the rules on spread spectrum would lead to an increase in the noise floor in bands used by narrowband modes. The League said most opposing commenters "ignore the fact that some amateur bands already are occupied by Part 15 spread spectrum devices," many near ham stations. Additional constraints would hinder hams from keeping up with spread spectrum developments and prevent maximizing spectrum efficiency, the League's filing asserted. The ARRL said its petition "suggests only a modest deregulatory effort." The League's Petition for Rule Making seeks relaxed restrictions on spreading sequences and greater flexibility in spreading modulation. The spread spectrum technique, which distributes information among several synchronized frequencies within a band at the transmitter and reassembles the information at the receiver, was first approved for Amateur Radio in 1985 for bands above 225 MHz, and there has been some experimental amateur operation since then. The petition proposes that the FCC permit brief spread-spectrum test transmissions and allow international spread-spectrum communication between amateurs in the US and those in countries that permit hams to use spread-spectrum techniques. The current rules allow only domestic communication. The petition also asks for automatic power-control provisions to insure use of minimum necessary power to conduct spread-spectrum communication and limit the potential for interference to narrowband modes. The petition does not ask for any changes in frequency restrictions on SS emissions, the 100-W power limit or logging and identification requirements. The League calls the proposals "the minimum necessary changes in order to foster SS experimentation in the Amateur Service." Those filing comments supportive of spread spectrum included the Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation (TAPR); Robert A. Buaas, K6KGS, and John Mock, KD6PAG. Commenting in opposition were the Indiana Repeater Council; Henry B. Ruh, KB9FO; the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters; the Mid-America Coordination Council Inc; the Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association; the San Bernardino Microwave Society and the Southeastern Repeater Association Inc. From ATVQ@aol.com Sat Mar 23 21:37:02 1996 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.8) with SMTP id VAA14855 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:36:59 -0600 (CST) From: ATVQ@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04837 for ss@tapr.org; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:36:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 22:36:28 -0500 Message-ID: <960323223626_453342741@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: ss@tapr.org Subject: Re: [SS:160] LEAGUE RESPONDS TO COMMENTS IN SPREAD SPECTRUM PETITION Kindly note that the comments I filed were in SUPPORT of more SS, but were not in support of specific areas of the ARRL petition. I have been, and continue to be in support of experimentation and new technologies and the use of other than FM VHF and SSB HF operations. Our main concern, which is shared by the Indiana repeater council, has been the interference potential to existing band users from inadvertant use of frequencies where other modes exist. With planning we can all share the bands and have fun. SS has certainly earned a place and we welcome the technical efforts and good will generated by the SS community. I am also infavor of SS having access to the packet only 219-220 band where it would work nicely, and in favor of unrestricted communications with non domestic stations and in expanding the number of spreading code schemes. We also need to encourage operations on the vacant 220, 900 and 1240 mhz bands and SS operations there would be ideal. I would also like to see a lot more SS on 6 meters where some exciting digital DX could be had. The league has never formulated, and now it would disrupt most operations if they tried, a cohesive uniform VHF-UHF band plan. Their lack of leadership has been filled by local plans, many of which bear little resemblance from area to area. Each mode has simply moved to the vacant spot on the band at the time it emerged or grew to a critical mass. It wuld be nice to be able to plan the inclusion of SS in the bands in such a way as to make sure SS can exist and grow effectivly. There is likely so little general knowledge about SS that even if there is QRM, few would be likely to know that is what they see. As for part 15 devices, there are so few hams on 900 MHz that the chances of intercept are nil. You could operate with a KW in SS on 900 and likely not get noticed except for the vehicle locating people. I hope that clears up our position. 73 Henry Ruh, KB9FO, Amateur Television Magazine From dewayne@warpspeed.com Fri Mar 29 10:34:57 1996 Received: from warpspeed.com (WA8DZP@odo.warpspeed.com [204.118.182.20]) by tapr.org (8.7.5/8.7.3/1.9) with ESMTP id KAA23863 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:34:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from [204.118.182.22] by warpspeed.com with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1b11); Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:34:29 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:34:29 -0800 To: pcs@tapr.org (TAPR PCS Mailing List), ss@tapr.org (TAPR SS Mailing List) From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) Subject: FCC APPROVES REALLOCATION PLAN FOR 185 MHz OF SPECTRUM FCC APPROVES REALLOCATION PLAN FOR 185 MHz OF SPECTRUM The FCC has approved a plan to reallocate 185 MHz of spectrum transferred from the Federal Government to the private sector. The Commission also established the scope and timing of future rule-making proceedings to assign the reallocated spectrum. Last March, the Secretary of Commerce identified 235 MHz of Federal Government spectrum for private-sector use, 50 MHz of which had been released earlier. The FCC allocated that spectrum space to general, commercial fixed and mobile uses and unlicensed services. The remaining 185 MHz is to be allocated and assigned gradually over a 10-year period, and a significant portion will be held "in reserve" until that period ends. The Commission says it intends to "consider all options for the appropriate use of the remaining 185 MHz, including, but not limited to, those addressed in allocating the first 50 MHz." Among the services that will be considered is public safety. The Budget Act requires that the FCC study public safety spectrum needs and develop a plan to ensure adequate spectrum through the year 2010. The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee--chartered by the FCC and the NTIA--will advise later this year on the operational, technical and spectrum requirements of Federal, state and local public safety entities.--FCC -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dewayne Hendricks, WA8DZP ! CIS: 75210,10 AppleLink: D6547 Warp Speed Imagineering ! Internet: dewayne@warpspeed.com 43730 Vista Del Mar ! Packet Radio: WA8DZP @ K3MC.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM Fremont, CA 94539-3204 ! AOL: HENDRICKS Fax: (510) 770-9854 ! WWW: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~