Date   

Re: Testing resources

ross@...
 

Hi Paul,

Get the transmitter to send a known pseudo-random bit sequence that has good autocorrelation properties (eg a maximal length sequence from a linear feed back shift register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_feedback_shift_register).

This is not encryption because the LFSR tap settings will be published and known to all (just like the "scrambler" used in K9NG/G3RUH 9k6 FSK modems).

Use a correlator at the receiver to demodulate this signal. The output of the correlator will tell you if you have any multipath echos (and what magnitude & delay they are, so that you can implement adaptive channel equalisation...). After channel equalisation, you can also use the correlator to determine S/N by measuring the difference between the correlation level and the noise level.
This technology has been around a long time eg every 2G GSM repeater sends repeated 64bit pseudorandom "training sequences" so that your mobile phone can sync to the repeater and adaptively equalise multipath and STANAG 4285 uses 80 symbols taken from a LSFR to achieve the same goal on HF. Adaptive channel equalisation is also absolutely vital for old fashioned dial up modems to operate 9k6 ~ 56k kb/sec in a 3 kHz voice channel. I ain't no patent lawyer, but I believe that there is plenty of published prior art from long enough ago for the relevant patents to have expired by now.


I have attached a spreadsheet (libre/open office .ods) and a few old screenshots. "channel equaliser.PNG" shows the TX bits, the raw RX bits, and the equalised RX bits. "impulse response1.PNG" shows the correlation function of the TX bits, and what comes out of the correlator at the simulated receiver. "impulse response2.PNG" shows the simulated receive correlator and what comes out of a correlator after the channel equaliser.

Basically, it sends the STANAG 4285 sequence over a bad channel (SNR is adjustable and the FIR is to simulate multipath), then it uses the autocorrelation properties of the received '4285 sequence to attempt to correct the channel impulse response (multipath). As you decrease the S/N, you will see that the channel equalisation is degraded.



73
Ross Whenmouth ZL2WRW


New Posting on NW Digital Radio Blog

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Turn your speakers on and listen to very weak signal CW running through the UDRX receiver.

http://nwdigitalradio.com/receiver-sensitivity


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  


Testing resources

ve7dhm@...
 

Looking for testing resources / testing methods for installed UDRs at remote sites.

- can the UDR be put into a loop back mode at the RF or modem stage remotely?

- constellation display application of RX data

- SNR / BER data for determining RF path quality

- anyone writing python code in support of UDR testing ?

In the PNW there will probably some long RF paths across water and it would certainly

help to have testing resources available to troubleshoot connection / data throughput

issues at initial UDR install and throughout the year as weather conditions change the

RF path.


Thanks for any feedback


Paul VE7DHM



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

u4gh@...
 

I wasn't suggesting derailing the current radio release or altering it any way. I was thinking of 'next steps after 70cm is going'.

As to "we will do it if the customer asks" - I work at a major producer of network gear (yes, that one! :-) ) and I hear that same message all of the time. Unfortunately, that means that you're asking your current customer base - who, ostensibly, bought your product because it fits their need - to direct your product development. You generally only get incremental changes rather than innovative/revolutionary product growth that way.

These aren't the people who you need to ask about expanding the product - it's the people who did *not* buy your product because it did *not* fit their need that you need to ask. I've worked with several product groups to extend their product well beyond what their current customers wanted (because, as an 'enterprise customer' myself, I do know what bigger enterprises require), and I've helped grow sales into large, enterprise-class customers who would never have considered the product in its original state. (No, they don't send me a cut! :-( )

I'm acting as one of those customers "who has a need outside the scope of the current product" (although I still want the current product too!), as I can see that it's going to be a tougher sell across a lot of the southern states that are hit by PAVE PAWS. 219-220 MHz would be a good target here, as it is allocated (at least in Northern California) to high speed digital use. I'd forgotten that the synthesizer deck was limited to 1 GHz, and raising that (or messing with transverters) would be a much bigger project than a 220 MHz RF deck (says he who isn't designing the RF deck :-)). I know that this doesn't help those outside North America, though. (Seems that maybe a transverter option would be worth pursuing there?)

Those of us in the SF Bay Area or on the coast may be able to operate low level stations on 70 cm for now thanks to the hills between us and Beale AFB (where the local PAVE PAWS site is located), but anyone more inland from here (Pleasaton, Livermore, Vacaville, Sacramento and the Central Valley) are likely to run afowl of PAVE PAWS, even at low elevations. The details of what constitutes 'interference' are classified, so it is difficult for anyone to operate within range of one of these sites to avoid interference that they don't know that they are creating, and the danger is that the government could shut down the entire 70 cm band in the whole state if they have to handle interference issues (apparently this has been brought up already).

A finger-in-the-air test would be: how many people in the PAVE PAWS affected areas have signed up for a unit?

Once the current unit is going, how much work is involved in getting a 220 MHz deck going? My previous comment not withstanding (I'm nowhere near the RF guy that Dennis is!), I would be willing to tackle a first-round 220 MHz deck as an experimental project. This would in no way derail the current deployment, as the only resources that I would need would be a 70cm unit (which I'm waiting eagerly for the release of) and maybe an occasional question answered on this forum. I believe that I already have sufficient RF test gear to make this successful (and an impetus to gather more if needed :-) ).

If others are willing to help, the more the merrier. If you happen to be in range of my south San Jose station - all the better, we can work together over-the-air!

- Richard VE7CVS


AW: AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Ok ok ... I justwas thinking out loud ...

Just thought with a different tuner chip it would be A LOT better

And now in these sdr days ... it should be an easy task (yes not as easy as
baking cakes ... but can be solved)

....

So we use the udr as "user digital radio" (70cm only) ... and next release
will be 3budr (or something like that) for "sysops" :-)

...

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von n0jy
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 22:07
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon
radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



I think if I were the car manufacturer I would say "lets design another
car around that new motor, and get this model out the door on schedule.
People have signed up for this model and are waiting for it! Some will
wait to buy the new model, others will like this model and then want a
second car."

The new motor may require a new transmission, a different drive train, a
smaller gas tank, different exhaust system, blah blah etc etc.
And a retooling of the assembly line to handle the installation of the new
motor.
So we would never have any new products, because the model keeps being
delayed to make it "better".

I'm not knocking your idea Siegfried, just looking at it from my
capitalist point of view. I'll buy a bigger and better one if I decide to
later! ;-)

Jerry
N0JY


On 5/2/2014 4:13 PM, siegfried jackstien wrote:




Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release
it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey
boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower
gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say
: man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new
model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that
more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate,
smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same
radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on
13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that
data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing)
about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil
Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-
Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>





Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Mark L Friedlander <marklfriedlander@...>
 

Sigi,

You asked what other group members think so I tell you what I think.

Your design suggestions may very well be good ones. I don't know, but the UDRX is a commercial product for sale by what appears to be a group of Ham radio operators who:

1) Are really interested in advancing the state of the art.

2) Have made substantial investments of time, effort and I imagine not an insignificant amount of $$$$ over an extended period of time

It seems to me that the UDRX is their vision to complete and it's pretty clear that your suggestions may be considered for future efforts but not for this one. You might want to give this topic a rest and let the UDR folks do what they set out to do.

73 Mark KV4I



On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...>
 

As an R&D lab manager, I frequently have to address questions like this and weigh the answers.  I'm not involved with the project itself, but from what I understand of where they're at in the process, and my understanding of similar projects, if I were the project manager, I'd have to say:

Not this release (it will continue as planned), but we will look at it for inclusion into the next release.

Its more than just a causal change of the tuner chip...They have already had protoypes made, extensive bench testing of the design, and are very near releasing it for manufacturing.  If this had been brought up 6 months ago, I'd give it a serious consideration.  But given the costs in labor, further release delays, further prototyping, and possible invalidation of any manufacturing contracts under negotiation, etc., its too late to make a change like this...At this phase, I would ONLY be allowing changes for "bug fixes", and this doesn't constitute a bug.  And they would have to be very small changes or very, very large bugs.

If you do want to see the tuner chip replaced, I'd say help make this release a success (lots of purchased radios), and have as many of the BUYERS request that feature so that it becomes a priority for the next version.  It just doesn't make sense to delay an initial release further after all that has already been delayed in this one....

--Jim, K7LL


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:13 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?



Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar

> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>



Re: AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

n0jy <n0jy@...>
 

I think if I were the car manufacturer I would say "lets design another car around that new motor, and get this model out the door on schedule.  People have signed up for this model and are waiting for it!  Some will wait to buy the new model, others will like this model and then want a second car."

The new motor may require a new transmission, a different drive train, a smaller gas tank, different exhaust system, blah blah etc etc.
And a retooling of the assembly line to handle the installation of the new motor.
So we would never have any new products, because the model keeps being delayed to make it "better".

I'm not knocking your idea Siegfried, just looking at it from my capitalist point of view.  I'll buy a bigger and better one if I decide to later!   ;-)

Jerry
N0JY

On 5/2/2014 4:13 PM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> ."
>
>



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
 

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???
Yes - of course!

But.....

I want a basic single band single feature (data!!!) radio yesterday!
We can get more bands and more features with product updates..
Changes add months to the release cycle and we (Ham radio) can't
afford to wait... One step at a time...

Bill, WA7NWP

PS. I was very happy to have Argent Data release their low power UHF
data radio even though there was a major issue with the receiver.
That release means we all can be working with different aspects of the
new technology and not waiting...


AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
- shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)





On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:




Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."


Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Mathison Ott <mathisono@...>
 

LOL!


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Phil Frost <indigo@...> wrote:
 


On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful."



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Phil Frost <indigo@...>
 


On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful."


AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?

There are so nice chips that go 300-3 gig ... so then we would "loose" 2m
(but that is not good for wideband data anyway) ... but we would GAIN 23cm
and 13 cm (also useable maybe then for 2.4 gig wlan nets with high power
long range)

... yes I know you have a design ready ... but changing "only" the tuner
should not be that difficult ... and as seen above ... it seems worth it

Here in Europe no 220megs band ... so for "us" here it is nothing more then
a single band radio

And with different tuner you would boost it up to a 3 band radio

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Bryan Hoyer
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 14:39
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

We use the CMX991 IQ Transceiver which can operate from 100MHz to 1GHz,
but that doesn't mean the whole radio design works over that range.

The most likely next band will be 220MHz but as John says, we'll have to
see how sales/revenue go.

Bryan K7UDR

On May 1, 2014, at 11:52 PM, siegfried jackstien
<siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:


Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...m] Im Auftrag von John D.
Hays
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies
in
the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



________________________________

John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:







Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able
to
operate this radio?





I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70
cm
band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!





We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote
US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>


image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Federal Communications Commission
View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/>
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Preview by Yahoo




Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).




(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
high speed digital QRP? :-)




- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)




_



Re: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
 

We use the CMX991 IQ Transceiver which can operate from 100MHz to 1GHz, but that doesn't mean the whole radio design works over that range.

The most likely next band will be 220MHz but as John says, we'll have to see how sales/revenue go.

Bryan K7UDR


On May 1, 2014, at 11:52 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:

Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von John D. Hays
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
> shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
> 
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.
> 
> The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in
> the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
> but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
> sell) before approaching other bands.
> 
> The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
> to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
> mountain top, radar footprint nodes.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
> PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to
> operate this radio?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
> radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm
> band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
> populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
> limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
> reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
> radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
> prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
> be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
> <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> 
> 
> image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
> <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> Federal Communications Commission
> View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> Preview by Yahoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
> future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
> high speed digital QRP? :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 



AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von John D. Hays
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in
the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



________________________________

John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:







Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to
operate this radio?





I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm
band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!





We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>


image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Federal Communications Commission
View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Preview by Yahoo




Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).




(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
high speed digital QRP? :-)




- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)




_


Re: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice) but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:
 

Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to operate this radio?


I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!


We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7

OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
Federal Communications Commission
Preview by Yahoo


Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).


(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with high speed digital QRP? :-)


- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)

_


PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

u4gh@...
 

Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to operate this radio?


I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!


We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7


Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).


(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with high speed digital QRP? :-)


- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)


Re: Yaesu Digital support / Codec2 support

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Vaughn,

NW Digital Radio doesn't have any current project plans to implement either Fusion or Codec-2 on the UDRX-440.

That being said, here are some thoughts for someone who would like to support them.

Yaesu has prepared a document which describes the protocol in detail here. The DV3000 card we have developed should be able to encode and decode the Fusion AMBE stream, both half rate and full rate, and one would need to implement the protocol stack.  Also a C4FM modem would need to be written for the UDRX (preferably in fixed point math).  We would be willing to give integration guidance to a developer wishing to implement the modem using our I/Q interface so that it has a socket interface like our GMSK, MSK, and other modems. (This would allow re-use for other protocol stacks, for example the D-STAR spec is not limited to GMSK or it might be used for Codec-2.)

A DV3000 card and Raspberry Pi would allow someone to start work on the protocol stack ahead of the creation of the modem and release of the UDRX.  

We have been following Codec-2 development and there are a couple of ways to implement it.  Currently, Codec-2 has not defined a VHF/UHF repeater and networking protocol or modulation, the work has been primarily focused on HF to this point.  The digital stream for the vocoder and protocol stack could be run in 3 different ways:
  1. Using an external computer and sending/receiving through the UDRX via a network socket.
  2. Implement it directly on the UDRX.  We are not confident that this will be possible without rewriting the vocoder in fixed point as the UDRX does not have a floating point processor.  It may be possible as some work has been done in Belgium using the Raspberry Pi, but we beleive it has been built using the hardware FP, rather than the software implementation.
  3. Do what DVSI does with the AMBE vocoder and put in on a specialized DSP processor and mate it with the UDRX interface for the DV3000 card. . 
So it should be possible to support these modes on the UDRX, if someone wishes to pursue development.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  






On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Vaughn Phillips <vaughn.w0ulf@...> wrote:
 

Hello all,

Silly question: is anyone out there aware of whether there will be any available Codec2 or Yaesu digital support (From the team or from the community at large) for these formats on the UDRX-440?

I tried searching the group for anything about these and only ran across some side conversations about these protocols: nothing directly related to whether they'll be "available" for this platform. Please don't shoot me if I missed this somewhere else - but a link to it would be greatly appreciated if I did.

I know we've got a little while before the hardware ships out, so I suppose there's still a chance for this to happen if someone hasn't already made it reality. And no, I'm not volunteering to learn to program well enough to get this done any time soon :P

Thanks!

-Vaughn Phillips
W0ULF
Albany, Oregon, USA

__


Yaesu Digital support / Codec2 support

Vaughn Phillips <vaughn.w0ulf@...>
 

Hello all,

Silly question: is anyone out there aware of whether there will be any available Codec2 or Yaesu digital support (From the team or from the community at large) for these formats on the UDRX-440?

I tried searching the group for anything about these and only ran across some side conversations about these protocols: nothing directly related to whether they'll be "available" for this platform. Please don't shoot me if I missed this somewhere else - but a link to it would be greatly appreciated if I did.

I know we've got a little while before the hardware ships out, so I suppose there's still a chance for this to happen if someone hasn't already made it reality. And no, I'm not volunteering to learn to program well enough to get this done any time soon :P

Thanks!

-Vaughn Phillips
W0ULF
Albany, Oregon, USA


G4KLX at Dayton

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX -- developer of the open source D-STAR suite of software and contributor to the Linux AX.25 stack will be coming to Dayton Hamvention this year.

He will be spending some time as a guest of NW Digital Radio in our booth at EH0515.

Please come by to thank him for all of his hard work.

More details to follow.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223