Modeling and reality
george fremin iii
geoiii at bga.com
Thu Aug 24 13:55:01 EDT 1995
: > What happened in 1988? We moved the repaired Telrex to the top of a 190'
: > foot tower. Wow! Awesome! Gordon's "Siberian Express" gave new meaning to
: > 20M in Texas. Trey (KKN) did some single op CW tests and mentioned it was
: > THE antenna to use whenever possible. Short or long haul, it was always
: > better!! Must be all the lobes.
: And on paths that traditionally seem like high-angle paths, like West
: Africa at 2200Z on 20. Giant pileup for J52US (non-contest), so we
: point every beam at him and do a side-by-side-by-side comparison. We
: can't crack the pileup with any antenna but the high one, which gets
: through on the first call.
And to add fuel to the fire -- I was suprised to find it to
be the best antenna for the W6/7s in ss. I built switch boxes
that allowed us to run *any* two antennas on each of the top
bands. In SS I would point the 4 ele quad @ 80' to the east
coast and the 100' 5ele, 200' 5ele, 70' 204 all at the
west coast - it was amazing how much of the time
the 200' antenna as the best.
Oh - and KM9P is right on 15m - a yagi at 175 feet or so is
a great joy - we had one of those too.
--
George Fremin III
Austin, Texas C.K.U.
WB5VZL
512/416-0140
geoiii at bga.com
>From Ingemar.Fogelberg at CEC.Comm.SE (Ingemar Fogelberg) Thu Aug 24 12:41:30 1995
From: Ingemar.Fogelberg at CEC.Comm.SE (Ingemar Fogelberg) (Ingemar Fogelberg)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:41:30 +0200
Subject: Contest software/VOX
Message-ID: <199508241141.AA22462 at nic.comm.se>
Another soloution to the problem is using full-break in (QSK).
If you haven't tried QSK yet, do it! It's really nice to hear
what's happening on the frequency when you are transmitting. And
you will not get into all these confusions when the caller is
calling you againg while you're already starting to give out
your number.
Almost any PA is easily converted to QSK. I've done
it on L4B and Clipperton-L.
73 de Ingo
>Amen to W3LPL's wish for contest software that would provide
>a way to get around the -terrible- problem of missed dits (and
>sometimes even dahs!) because rigs are slow to pick up in the
>TX mode. W's become M's, A's become T's, N's become I's, etc.
>(Wonder if it would work to put a couple of spaces before each
>canned message ... i.e. __599 MT TU?
>
>Next time you have your rig running with software CW, take a
>listen to it (NOT via the sidetone) ... you might be surprised
>at what you're really sending ....
>
>73! de Ken Kopp/K0PP
>k0pp at mcimail.com
>
>
>
Ingemar Fogelberg if at cec.comm.se
Communicator CEC AB Phone: +46-8-764 41 94
Box 1310, S-171 25 Solna, Sweden Fax: +46-8-764 45 70
>From sm3bdz at pobox.com (Lars Harlin) Thu Aug 24 19:03:09 1995
From: sm3bdz at pobox.com (Lars Harlin) (Lars Harlin)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 20:03:09 +0200
Subject: TS-850 ALC
Message-ID: <199508241803.UAA19100 at www.itz.se>
Have been using the Kenwood TS-850 for a couple of years. On the whole, I am
very happy with the machine. However, I=B4ve found that the ALC-regulation=
varies
a lot with different bands, i.e. To get the proper ALC deflection on the=
meter,
I have to adjust mic-gain when I change bands. On 160 I=B4ve to use max=
mic-gain
to reach the ALC-zone. On 80m, 9 o clock is enough....
I=B4ve tried to adjust the ALC following the alignment procedure in the=
service-
manual, but no success.
Anyone of you guys have the same experience? Ideas? Mods?
73=B4s de SM3BDZ, Lars, sm3bdz at pobox.com =20
>From ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) Thu Aug 24 20:08:35 1995
From: ke7gh at primenet.com (Brian Short) (Brian Short)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:08:35 +0000
Subject: Contest Software (Update)
Message-ID: <199508241909.MAA07134 at mailhost.primenet.com>
Hi,
I guess Aug 24 will go down in infamy. I was anxious to read manuals to
determine if Win95 will run my CONTEST software, but the product did not
show up. This was one of those get before 10:00 am Aug 24 (what year).
The vendor says they had "a lot of orders" and "maybe it'll show up on
tomorrow." Isn't this fun?
THANKS FOR BANDWIDTH, PLEASE RESPOND PRIVATELY
73 de Brian
>From robert <w5robert at blkbox.COM> Thu Aug 24 20:37:37 1995
From: robert <w5robert at blkbox.COM> (robert)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:37:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
Message-ID: <9508241437.aa20038 at blkbox.COM>
> Didn't this so-called "thread" start
> as a joke? It was, of course, Seems
> some of you don't get it. Please
> end this.
>
> Jim Cain, K1TN
Actually, Jim it's no joke, but very serious. Those grading the
logs or running the show also place in the top 10 most years.
Well, at least in the CQ contests.
I have heard more than my share of comments on PJ1B and their fb
operations. Ever heard of a race car driver that got first on a
race being the judge at a photo finish?? This appears to be the
only SPORT were this is allowed that I recall.
Again, I'm for the guys at CQ playing the game, but it is a
serious issue for some.
--
73 Robert WB5CRG w5robert at blkbox.com
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Thu Aug 24 20:48:13 1995
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:48:13 -0500
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
>Actually, Jim it's no joke, but very serious. Those grading
>the logs or running the show also place in the top 10 most
>years. Well, at least in the CQ contests.
Who organizes the SprINT? and who usually wins it? (hi Tree)
And what about the GridLoc contest? Who was one of the prime movers
and who won it? (hi Robert) And what about all them furriners as
wins all the furren contests? It's a conspiracy, folks.
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
>From Jim Hollenback" <jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com Thu Aug 24 21:05:13 1995
From: Jim Hollenback" <jholly at hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 13:05:13 -0700
Subject: contest writeup; no play rule
References: <199508241952.MAA00406 at onet2.cup.hp.com>
Message-ID: <9508241305.ZM1861 at hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>
On Aug 24, 2:48pm, Derek Wills wrote:
> Subject: Re: contest writeup; no play rule
> >Actually, Jim it's no joke, but very serious. Those grading
> >the logs or running the show also place in the top 10 most
> >years. Well, at least in the CQ contests.
>
> Who organizes the SprINT? and who usually wins it? (hi Tree)
> And what about the GridLoc contest? Who was one of the prime movers
> and who won it? (hi Robert) And what about all them furriners as
> wins all the furren contests? It's a conspiracy, folks.
>
>
You mean THAT is why I don't win? Dam, I thought it was my crappy station.
Anyone got a good book on basket weaving?
73, Jim, WA6SDM
jholly at cup.hp.com
>From Assarabowski, Richard" <AssaraR at utrc.utc.com Thu Aug 24 21:01:00 1995
From: Assarabowski, Richard" <AssaraR at utrc.utc.com (Assarabowski, Richard)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: TS-870 dual receive?
Message-ID: <303CDAC5 at msgate.res.utc.com>
Just saw a photograph of the TS-870, noticeably lacking from a CONTEST'ers
point of view was a tuning knob for the second receiver, just one big main
knob. The fax wasn't very clear but I could read enough to see that there
was not even a small knob for the second receiver! Unless they've come up
with something very clever (or I'm missing something), but there doesn't
appear to be dual receive in this radio. Incidentally, the metering is
digital, it's just made to simulate an analog meter in appearance.
-- Rich K1CC
assarar at utrc.utc.com
>From Assarabowski, Richard" <AssaraR at utrc.utc.com Thu Aug 24 21:09:00 1995
From: Assarabowski, Richard" <AssaraR at utrc.utc.com (Assarabowski, Richard)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 16:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: TS-870 dual receive?
Message-ID: <303CDCFF at msgate.res.utc.com>
Just saw a photograph of the TS-870, noticeably lacking from a CONTEST'ers
point of view was a tuning knob for the second receiver, just one big main
knob. The fax wasn't very clear but I could read enough to see that there
was not even a small knob for the second receiver! Unless they've come up
with something very clever (or I'm missing something), there doesn't appear
to be dual receive in this radio. Incidentally, the metering is digital,
it's just made to simulate an analog meter in appearance.
-- Rich K1CC
assarar at utrc.utc.com
>From K9VV - Fred Kleber <0006636049 at mcimail.com> Thu Aug 24 21:58:00 1995
From: K9VV - Fred Kleber <0006636049 at mcimail.com> (K9VV - Fred Kleber)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 15:58 EST
Subject: Muy High 20M Antennas
Message-ID: <91950824205819/0006636049PK3EM at MCIMAIL.COM>
I too have had the same experience as Trey on 20M from stateside. From
the other end of the pond, these are the big guns (insert yer favoriate
calls) who you work during "non-traditional" openings. I jokingly
refer to these as "muscle Qs". Not because of power, but because it
often takes alot of patience when pulling out the 100w station who
doesn't understand why you can't hear his mighty dipole.
Oh yes, these conditions are especially prevalent during CONTESTS! Phew,
now I don't feel guilty.
73,
Fred "Moving to Indy" Fubar, K9VV
>From aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Thu Aug 24 22:24:00 1995
From: aa4lr at radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 17:24:00 -0400
Subject: Future Radio (inside the computer!)
Message-ID: <v01520d05ac62931e0142@[205.160.29.40]>
>On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, David Robbins KY1H wrote:
>
>on another line, someone commented about doing dsp in a host computer.
That was me. I think it is a good idea, and I can back it up.
>that is probably not a good idea. dedicated dsp processors are streamlined
>for doing exactly what is needed for dsp, and even a cheap one has a much
>better throughput than a general purpose processor like an 80x86 or pentium.
You're right, of course. Dedicated DSP processors are streamlined for doing
exactly what is needed for DSP. And cheap ones do have better throughput
than some general purpose processors. But what are these processors
streamlined to do? Those dual harvard architecture processing engines are
fine-tuned to do nothing more than multiply-accumulate operations on a
small set of data.
However, I wasn't speaking of 80x86 processors. They are to damn slow for
DSP. Multiplies take forever. Pentiums are almost fast enough. High-speed
Pentiums would work. P6's should definitely do it. But Intel processors
didn't start me thinking this way.
I was talking RISC - specifically the PowerPC family. Floating point
performance is quite good. A 601 processor can do a single-precision
multiply with a latency of 4 clocks. There's even a set of special
instructions for multiply-accumulate operations. They also have a latency
of 4 clocks (5 for double-precision). Those instructions are designed for
DSP computations.
>besides, the host will be busy doing all those fancy graphics, tracking
>propagation, dynamically optimizing antenna characteristics, and keeping
>the operator busy with multi-media summaries of how well the contest is
>going compared to operators around the world (normalized for propagation
>differences of course).
You're joking, but this stuff has already been done. You're no doubt aware
of people running RTTY or Packet using Sound card DSPs. Allow me to digress
a minute. In 1993, Apple introduced Macs with audio and video features. The
audio portion involved a built-in ATT floating-point DSP chip. Since the
DSP was now part of the machine, it sorta made sense to try putting a modem
on it.
They came up with something called the Telcom Adaptor. It's nothing more
than CODEC (A/D D/A), telephone hybrid and off-hook relay in a box. All
parts of the modem are implemented in the DSP and 68040 in the Mac. Does
V.32bis (14,400 bps), plus V.42 (error-correction) and V.42bis
(compression) all without slowing down the Mac terribly. This is a bit more
than your typical RTTY or Packet stuff, but it is really the same
principle.
Now the interesting part. When Apple introduced the PowerPC Macs in 1994,
they imbedded the audio features (with the video being an option). However,
there IS *NO* DSP chip. The host processor performs all the functions of
the DSP.
Now before you skeptics run off and claim that this would be terribly slow,
let me assure you that it is not. (Well, sorta -- the Telcom Adaptor modem
does slow the machine down somewhat. But the DSP code isn't the problem --
it is the V.42 and V.42bis code that runs as emulated 680x0 instructions!)
In the future, Apple plans to upgrade the Telcom Adaptor modem to 28,800
(V.34) capability with only a software upgrade! None of the hardware will
change.
(Intel recognized the significance of this as well, hence their Native
Signal Processing (NSP) initiative starting last year)
Which brings me to my original thought: If there's enough processing power
in desktop computers (PowerPCs, fast Pentiums) to run a 14400 or 28800 kbps
modems without slowing things to a crawl, certainly there's enough power to
run the low-frequency stages of a radio. (eg 20 kHz IF, signal detector,
audio processing, AGC, etc)
Couple this with the discussion of DSP processing inside the radio (at IF
stages) has led me to the conclusion that the RadioCard would make possible
types of radio operation not before possible.
Consider the following possibilities of using a RadioCard in your computer
(even with an external DSP):
* Automatic computer control of all features.
* Placing two or three cards for dual or triple radio operation with
on-the-fly mixing of audio.
* All the fancy DSP filtering options being now touted
If you remove the dependancy on the audio DSP in the sound card, this opens
up possibilities for other features:
* Panadaptor decoding of the IF bandwidth. (See where the signals are --
without spending $5k on a ICOM 781)
* DSP decoding of CW, RTTY, AMTOR, PACKET, SSB (Ok, that will take a P6 or
a 604)
* PARALLEL decoding of CW, RTTY, AMTOR, PACKET, SSB (several signals
decoded similtaneously) -- that way you could know who's horning in on your
run frequency.
* Use of several IF and detection methods similtaneously: Panadaptor
display around the recieved audio frequency - plus the receiver audo and
parallel detection of signals nearby.
And when you start thinking about TACO (Totally Automated Contest
Operation), and TACO-Assisted modes with several Radio Cards:
* Have one card scanning 10m and building a histogram of activity, so you
can catch that opening.
* Or perhaps tune the bands with parallel decoding looking for that rare
VE8 or Delaware station in SS.
* Automated computer operators could control a card looking for multiplers
on other bands, clear frequencies, S & P, all while you maintain your
high-speed run on 20m. (Sort of a single-operator packetcluster!)
* Completely automated S & P on all bands at once, with no problem
maintaining a single transmitted signal. (Computers are very patient)
The key advantages of using host CPU DSP involve the power and malleability
of the computer user interface. The display, mouse and keyboard offer an
interface bandwidth that is extremely expensive to place in a dedicated
radio.
Moreover, a RadioCard could be cheap to build, since only the RF stages,
DDS mixer and a wide-band IF stages would be included.
The host desktop benefits from the low-cost of high-volume production that
isn't possible with a dedicated radio design. Besides, all good contest
stations (and many ragchewers, Packet, RTTY, AMTOR and SSTV ops) have
shacks with computers. The computer isn't necessarily an added cost. (And
when the radio isn't in use, the host CPU is good for other tasks as well)
The only disadvantages from a radio card would be the QRP nature of the
transmitter and the lack of conventional controls. I insist that an
external RF amplifier (read brick) could be used to raise the output power
to something conventional, and that the only real controls needed are a
tuning knob and perhaps a volume control. Either of these could easily be
supplied as a remote device. (A la the TenTec remote knob)
Finally, as desktop CPU performance continues to climb, there's really no
limit to what could be done. All that is needed is the interface to the
radio spectrum.
So, who's going to do it? Comer has taken the first step....
(Gosh, that's long - almost worth an NCJ article)
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr at radio.org
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -- Steve
Hackett
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list