Well stated, Bonnie. 73 de Stro KO4FR
----- Original Message ----- From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:17 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that the "protocol implementers" should change the protocol to add overhead to accept cheapo bogus hardware. In many cases, the excellent worldwide standards have already been set, and the proliferation of sub-standard interfaces on the market is not going to affect the protocols, like the tail wagging the dog. There simply is no need to purchase a poorly designed bogus interface that depends on VOX, that chops off the beginning of each transmission or received signal. It is up to operators themselves to select a proper interface that conforms to the standard of digital protocols they intend to operate. The trend is for more ARQ protocols being used in ham radio. There are many excellent interfaces on the market that function properly. Why bother with the junk ones? It is also very easy to homebrew an interface. I've built several of them in a few hours of work, and put the plans for them on the web: http://hflink.com/interface/ Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA > Rud Merriam" <k5rud > wrote: > > Or the protocol implementers need to recognize > the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX. > This would be analogous to the delay they provide for > transmitter keying. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3390 (20080826) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
