--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually > fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure that > the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to > have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems > than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem > and other manufacturers. > Hi Rick,
Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other spectrum users! hi hi hi!!! As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. > For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with > BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW, AMTOR. > > Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my > digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a > complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor > mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. > They tried many software updates, but nothing improved. > Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in PACTOR 1 Rick. > Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise and > so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, > W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link > conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, > MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been fine as > signals were clearly copyable by ear. Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these systems, unless if this has changed by now. Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get on it very easily. That will not keep the anti semi-automatic guys happy, but such is life I'm afraid. This is one more reason for everybody to complain against RM-11392 petition to your FCC. Unless if you want to go back to the Medieval Times for Digital communications in the Ham bands. > 73, > > Rick, KV9U 73 de Demetre SV1UY
