I finally got the Provisional Patent filed for
my BPL work-around, Virtual Spectrum (tm).
Server is up and running and everything is ready.
Next step- some friends will
help with tests- one in Europe, one in
Australia and two in the U.S.
There will be a low bandwidth and
a high-bandwidth trail. First will
stream a few KCs of 40 meters and include
several CW messages at various frequencies,
including a couple close together so we
can figure the best levels without cross-talk.
Next will be a high-bandwidth trial with
CW, SSB, FM and some other mode yet
to be decided, streaming about 40 KC of
the band. Then, a live, continuous
stream of the bottom 40 KC of 20 meters
from my location, which will run for a few days.
I hope they don't put BPL here in the mean time.

After these tests are concluded,
the next step will be configuring for
2-way QSOs, which is just a matter of
setting up the software and T/R switching.
I ain't had this much fun with a radio project
since I was a novice. :-).

73 Dave Stinson AB5S

In article 9iGWd.56695$uc.51711@trnddc03,
David Stinson wrote:

| I finally got the Provisional Patent filed for
| my BPL work-around, Virtual Spectrum (tm).
| Server is up and running and everything is ready.

Judging from the name, the `BPL workaround' and `server', this is an
Internet thing, right?

Sort of like Echolink, but you mirror the spectrum itself rather than
just doing VoIP? If so, it sounds clever, but it's no more a
replacement for HF (you call it a `BPL workaround', after all) than
Echolink is.

Sounds like you ought to get a few of these boards --

http://comsec.com/wiki?UniversalSoftwareRadioPeripheral

(more on it here)

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/

given enough Internet bandwidth, you could put large chunks of the ham
bands online for people to listen to, using any modulation form that
they want, with filters and such defined in software, etc. You could
also let them transmit, but that's a can of worms you may not want to
open.

These boards look way cool. I'm so tempted to get one ...

(Of course, you may already have something similar. Sounds like it
might be right up your alley.)

--
Doug McLaren,
"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't
like and just give her a house." -Steven Seagal

Doug McLaren wrote:
Judging from the name, the `BPL workaround' and `server', this is an
Internet thing, right?
Sort of like Echolink, but you mirror the spectrum itself rather than
just doing VoIP? If so, it sounds clever, but it's no more a
replacement for HF (you call it a `BPL workaround', after all) than
Echolink is.

I disagree. You are on HF- the front-end of
your receiver is just in a different, more "RF-friendly" place.
Since your receiver can't go to a place with clean spectrum,
VS brings clean spectrum to you.

Unlike Echolink, with which you use someone else's radio
(and which to me is little more than an internet chat room)
I want to use *my* radios.
If I can't hear because of BPL or any other noise,
VS will allow me to operate.
The point is to make reception (and transmission, as well)
possible in places and with modes that would not otherwise be available.
For example- last night, I set up for a "worst case" test
in the worst noise location imaginable- my communications shop.
A large telephone switch, multiple computers, microwave and
T-1 multiplexes etc. make this place a solid wall of radio noise
and "birdies" from DC to daylight,
and there is no possibility of an external antenna.
using a bad internet connection running at about 22 kBs,
my receiver sat on my desk and copied a nice, quite stretch
of 75 meters with multiple, tunable SSB QSOs
all night without a hitch; I didn't hear one "birdie."
Had I been listening to CW or digital modes,
there was enough bandwidth for hearing a dozen or
more individual QSOs, tuning between them in a normal manner.
With a better connection,
large portions of HF bands can be streamed in real time
to multiple receivers.

Sounds like you ought to get a few of these boards --

These appear to be just software-definable radios.
If they are in a "noise hole," they're no better off
than any other receiver. And they cost $450+.
The interface I built uses less than a couple of
dozen parts and costs about $20 if you buy them new.

73 OM DE Dave Stinson AB5S