| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 10.06.08 00:35l 367 Lines 12541 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 9191_CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 293
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<YU7R<HG8LXL<CX2SA
Sent: 080609/2227Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:9191 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:9191_CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. ao-51? (Doug Kuitula)
2. Re: ao-51? (Alan P. Biddle)
3. Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat (David B. Toth)
4. Re: Cubesat consideration (Giulio AB2VY)
5. Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat (Luc Leblanc)
6. Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat (Mark Vandewettering)
7. Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat (Mark Vandewettering)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:12:47 -0400
From: "Doug Kuitula" <ka8qcu(AT)pasty.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] ao-51?
To: <amsat-bb(AT)AMSAT.Org>
Message-ID: <000e01c8ca3a$e7c7bd00$fb72ead8(AT)net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all,
I was wondering if AO-51 is in mode V/S yet. Tried listening on the 13:40 utc
pass at EN-56 and heard nothing. This only my second time trying s-band so I
may have messed up.
73 de Doug KA8QCU
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:20:06 -0500
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE(AT)UNITED.NET>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ao-51?
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <E9839F8164A4499AA33863783ECE604E(AT)WA4SCA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Doug,
I also clearly heard nothing on the morning passes. My mode S test source
comes in well, so for now I will hold off on panicking. ;)
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:55:49 -0400
From: "David B. Toth" <ve3gyq(AT)amsat.org>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat
To: Mark Vandewettering <kf6kyi(AT)gmail.com>, David Donaldson
<wb7dru(AT)usfamily.net>
Cc: 'amsat bb' <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20080609114802.043a96e0(AT)pop3.wcoil.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:59 AM 6/9/2008, Mark Vandewettering wrote:
>Sadly, it's basically impossible to make a software version which
>interacts with D-Star because of the fact that the vocoder they chose
>to use is encumbered by patents. This is one of the principle
>reasons that I can't generate any enthusiasm for D-Star, despite
>having a number of interesting capabilities that would be useful for
>amateur radio.
Mark: I had raised some of the same concerns as you have, but let us
put this into perspective.
We (hams) needed something in the form of a chip to go into portable
radios. It already existed in the form of a chip that does AMBE, and
it IS cheap (less than $20) ...
Even if ham radio had waited for an Open Source Vocoder, we still
would not have it and certainly not in chip form.
Other manufacturers CAN get the chip, there is no lock on it. In
fact, Kenwood makes a D-STAR radio in Japan, like the ID-1 ...
That being said, I know that Bruce Perens is pushing for an Open
Source standard for HF and VHF (different ones if necessary) and I
agree we should work towards that goal. That does not mean that we
should categorically ignore D-STAR ... as others have pointed out,
almost EVERY development in radio was patented, and in comparison,
this is nothing. If I recall correctly, people had to pay royalties
to build regenerative receivers, and that didn't stop anyone.
Your mileage may vary ...
Dave
VE3GYQ/W8
Spencerville, OH
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:49:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: Giulio AB2VY <amprorg(AT)yahoo.it>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Cubesat consideration
To: amsat-bb(AT)AMSAT.Org
Message-ID: <115782.66433.qm(AT)web26501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hello Aldo, this
is the correct way to go and is especially a good news for the
interest that involving young students to taking
their amateur tickets
This is an example of positive interaction between hamradio and university
research
73 de Giulio AB2VY
------------------------------
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Cubesat consideration
To: AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <200806091533.49854.a.marchetto(AT)ise.cnr.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hello, Graham and Giulio
I'm not involved in any Cubesat activity,
but I saw that for the building of Swisssat
the local IARU society was contacted,
a common working group with the Universities formed,
and a number of young electronic student are taking
their amateur tickets and being introduced in the amateur activity
I personally think this interaction positive.
73 Aldo IZ1ANT
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 3, Issue 292
****************************************
___________________________________
Scopri il Blog di Yahoo! Mail: trucchi, novit?, consigli... e la tua opinione!
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:28:31 -0400
From: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat
To: amsat-bb(AT)AMSAT.Org
Message-ID: <484D05CF.29406.6FF2EF(AT)lucleblanc6.videotron.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 8 Jun 2008 at 9:51, ka3hsw(AT)att.net wrote:
> Successful D-Star contacts have been made on AO-27... see www.ao27.org
>
> 73,
>
> George, KA3HSW
>
>
I am just startiing to experiment with DSTAR protocol on VHF terrestrial
contact. Is it posssible to use satellite eg: AO-27 using UHF to
VHF downconverter to be able to received the "DSTAR" data UHF downlink this
way? It will not be possible to have full duplex but as far i
will be able to decoded the downlink it will be a first step.
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:46:19 -0700
From: Mark Vandewettering <kf6kyi(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat
To: "David B. Toth" <ve3gyq(AT)amsat.org>
Cc: 'amsat bb' <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <D2A1A43C-8763-4271-BC0B-89ECEBE76743(AT)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:55 AM, David B. Toth wrote:
One additional note that I forgot: the various DRM (digital radio
mondiale) like modes are using technology which is almost certainly
illegal in many countries. MELP based encoders are patent encumbered,
and hams typically have not acquired the rights to use them in free or
open source applications. As an example, consider FDMDV. If you go
to their website to download it:
http://n1su.com/fdmdv/download.html
You'll see that the download doesn't include the MELP.dll. Why?
Because it is illegal for the author of FDMDV to distribute the DLL,
and he doesn't want to get sued. So, he's basically transferring any
liability he might have for using patented technology without
appropriate licensing to you. In short, it's a dodge. While I
disagree with many aspects of intellectual property law, the law _is_
fairly clear, and I think it is very dangerous for us as hams to
flaunt the laws of our respective countries in this manner.
Mark KF6KYI
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:35:15 -0700
From: Mark Vandewettering <kf6kyi(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat
To: "David B. Toth" <ve3gyq(AT)amsat.org>
Cc: 'amsat bb' <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <8A43B786-53D1-438E-B4B7-F1248C2D160F(AT)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:55 AM, David B. Toth wrote:
> At 01:59 AM 6/9/2008, Mark Vandewettering wrote:
>
>
>> Sadly, it's basically impossible to make a software version which
>> interacts with D-Star because of the fact that the vocoder they chose
>> to use is encumbered by patents. This is one of the principle
>> reasons that I can't generate any enthusiasm for D-Star, despite
>> having a number of interesting capabilities that would be useful for
>> amateur radio.
>
> Mark: I had raised some of the same concerns as you have, but let us
> put this into perspective.
> We (hams) needed something in the form of a chip to go into portable
> radios. It already existed in the form of a chip that does AMBE, and
> it IS cheap (less than $20) ...
Yes, I understand. It's not a miserable state of affairs, but it's
not great either. I'll expound more at the end.
> Even if ham radio had waited for an Open Source Vocoder, we still
> would not have it and certainly not in chip form.
>
> Other manufacturers CAN get the chip, there is no lock on it. In
> fact, Kenwood makes a D-STAR radio in Japan, like the ID-1 ...
It is my understanding that it is simple a relabeled Icom radio. If
it really weren't an issue for other manufacturers, one might
reasonably ask why we aren't seeing D-Star radios from other
manufacturers. Granted, there could be other reasons, but something
is apparently keeping other manufacturers from building these radios.
This means that essentially we are in a single source situation, where
we can expect D-Star to remain fairly expensive. Indeed, the codec
chip costs $20, but we see the price differential for these radios to
be well over $100, even on an HT which is fairly expensive to begin
with. That's a pretty high markup. (IC-91AD is $524, IC-91A is $408
at universal radio). The UT-118 to do an upgrade is $189. The DV-
Dongle is $200.
> That being said, I know that Bruce Perens is pushing for an Open
> Source standard for HF and VHF (different ones if necessary) and I
> agree we should work towards that goal. That does not mean that we
> should categorically ignore D-STAR ... as others have pointed out,
> almost EVERY development in radio was patented, and in comparison,
> this is nothing. If I recall correctly, people had to pay royalties
> to build regenerative receivers, and that didn't stop anyone.
I don't think I actually said we should ignore D-Star. I merely said
that it didn't capture my own enthusiasm. If it captures yours, by
all means, do whatever you desire to advance it. There is little
doubt that if, say, your own reason for being in amateur radio is
EMCOMM, that D-Star gives you some nifty capabilities at a reasonable
cost and with reduced bandwidth requirements, and we shouldn't be
especially afraid of these radios.
But I do think there are reasons to be less than fully happy.
1. We have committed ourselves to building a system with parts from a
single manufacturer. On this list, we have heard that Kenwood is
unable to build new TH-D7As because they can't get a part which is
single sourced, only 10 years into its lifetime. It doesn't seem to
me to be good engineering to design our repeater systems around such a
part, given our expected longevity for repeaters. I admit, this
concern is largely paranoia, but paranoia pays off occasionally.
2. We are denying ourselves an opportunity: the opportunity to
understand, modify, and create new digital voice systems. If we go to
using AMBE, we are stuck: stuck with a technology that we can't extend
or expand because of IP property law. Indeed, we will have invested
considerable sums of money in such a system, which will present a
serious impediment to future developments, since we will have so much
money already invested in the old system.
3. Gadgets like the DV-Dongle cost $200, and you hook them to your
PC. Your PC could do _everything_ that the DV-Dongle does in software
(obviously, since the AMBE chip is just a low end TI DSP, mask
programmed with the AMBE decoder). Imagine how much higher the
deployment of D-Star would be if we could have a freely available open
source application that people could run on their Windows, Mac and
Linux machines for _zero cost_. As Gordon Bell once said
(paraphrasing from memory) "the cheapest part of a computer are the
parts that aren't there". Replacing a $20 with, well, nothing but
electrons is a big deal.
Bruce echos most of these issues on his page:
http://codec2.org/
Mark KF6KYI
>
>
> Your mileage may vary ...
>
> Dave
>
> VE3GYQ/W8
> Spencerville, OH
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 3, Issue 293
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
