[digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Rud Merriam K5RUD Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware. Hi Rud, There's no problem with the computer hardware, simply a problem with the commercially made interface between the computer and the radio. Any interface that deletes part of the transmit waveform on every transmission, and possibly deletes part of every received transmission, is a faulty design. Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
The article mentions WinLink developer Rick Muething. Rick Muething installed the WinLink HF and VHF stuff in our area. That was when we first noticed the new packet node with no callsign and the alias OFF. - Illegal as you can get. The OFF node cleverly screws up TheNet nodes so that the NODES list will not display for users. After some investigation, it was discovered that it was the TELPAC node Rick Muething so kindly set up for us that was disrupting thePacket network in our area. Anybody here think that it was all just a slight oversight, an error? - Or does it sound more like something deliberate? After a public exposure followed by a few private threats, the OFF node went off the air and Packet users here were once again able to enjoy the network we built here. Yesterday while node surfing about 150 miles north of my location, I saw a node list that had OFF listed on it - and the nodes to the north of that one were mysteriously missing from the NODE list. Apparently there are potential legal issues about using more than one node-hop in order to access and utilize a TELPAC station - so we'll just eliminate those nasty Packet networks with their multiple node-hops, eh? Benito Mussolini would be proud! Hiram Percy Maxim, on the other hand, would be sad and disgusted to see such behavior by amateurs. If you see a no-callsign OFF or DISABLE node in your area and can't access a NODES list, now you know the who, what and why of it. Heads up. 73 DE Charles, N5PVL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Bonnie, 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. Bonnie wrote: 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. The ARQ specification by K9PS clearly states that all SOH in a preamble are ignored except one, so in order to make it possible to use MFSK16, with its rather high latency, with ARQ for NBEMS, we simply added 10 SOH to each transmission to compensate for the latency. This also made it possible to use MT63-2000 with ARQ. It works, and the additional overhead is so small that the slowdown in throughput is insignificant, especially since MFSK16 is so good, that whole blocks that might ordinarily have to be repeated using a lesser mode are not, which is much more significant to throughput than the time it takes to send 10 SOH characters. The K9PS specification has not been deviated from and the NBEMS system also works perfectly with either SignaLink digital VOX or SSB rig VOX. You should clairfy your overly broad statement that the SignaLink will not work with ARQ modes, to say it may not work with traditional PC ALE or AMTOR, but is fine to use with other soundcard modes, so you do not continue to mislead others. I think you owe Rud Merriam a personal apology for calling him ridiculous. It is YOU who are in the wrong, not he... 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Hello Rud, In asynchronous ARQ mode, in all cases, it is necessary to bit synchronize the receiver as the receiver does not know when teh next frame is going to be transmitted (reversely, in synchronous ARQ mode this is not necessary as the RX knows exactly the time of the reception of the next frame). For bit synchronization, it is necessary to send previously a sequence of symbols (which solves this problem of VOX even if it was not done for this...). For example, here is an extract of the ARQ FAE protocol. 28 symbols to synchronize can seem much but the S/N can be very low (down to -13 dB). As you see in ARQ FAE in ALE400, there is a delay of 0.56 second before transmitting any useful symbol. 73 Patrick ARQ FAE synchronization sequence In 125 bauds Before each FAE frame, it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.224 second (28/125 s). This is aimed: * to cover the necessary delay to switch the transceiver (128 ms maximum, with a standard delay of about 40 ms), * to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception (96 ms). - In 50 bauds It is also transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on the lowest frequency and then on the highest frequency, so for a duration of about 0.56 second (28/50 s). This is also aimed to: * to cover the necessary delay to switch the transceiver (128 ms maximum, with a standard delay of about 40 ms), * to permit the symbol synchronization just before the frame reception (432 ms). - Original Message - From: Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:25 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes 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. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes Sholto Fisher wrote: I can't believe it makes any significant difference at least for ALE400 FAE. Hi Sholto, Whether you believe it or not, that's up to you. But the math doesn't lie, and neither does the oscilloscope. IMHO, any interface that chops off part of your transmission, for whatever mode, should be returned to the manufacturer for refund :) 73 Bonnie VR2/KQ6XA Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Check our other Yahoo Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
What is the connection to the Winmor protocol here?? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Charles Brabham wrote: The article mentions WinLink developer Rick Muething. Rick Muething installed the WinLink HF and VHF stuff in our area. That was when we first noticed the new packet node with no callsign and the alias OFF. - Illegal as you can get. The OFF node cleverly screws up TheNet nodes so that the NODES list will not display for users. After some investigation, it was discovered that it was the TELPAC node Rick Muething so kindly set up for us that was disrupting thePacket network in our area. Anybody here think that it was all just a slight oversight, an error? - Or does it sound more like something deliberate? After a public exposure followed by a few private threats, the OFF node went off the air and Packet users here were once again able to enjoy the network we built here. Yesterday while node surfing about 150 miles north of my location, I saw a node list that had OFF listed on it - and the nodes to the north of that one were mysteriously missing from the NODE list. Apparently there are potential legal issues about using more than one node-hop in order to access and utilize a TELPAC station - so we'll just eliminate those nasty Packet networks with their multiple node-hops, eh? Benito Mussolini would be proud! Hiram Percy Maxim, on the other hand, would be sad and disgusted to see such behavior by amateurs. If you see a no-callsign OFF or DISABLE node in your area and can't access a NODES list, now you know the who, what and why of it. Heads up. 73 DE Charles, N5PVL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 27.08.2008 07:01
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
I agree with Skip on this Bonnie, the Signalink interface is a very good digital interface and to write it off as a P.O.S is misinformed, disingenuous, just plain wrong and potentially damaging to a small US ham radio oriented company who manufacture quality products. Just to reiterate I have use it successfully with ALE/141, ALE400, Packet (HF 300 and VHF 1200 baud) and PAX without noticing any problems. Of course I use MultiPSK so your results may not be as good if using other software. 73, Sholto KE7HPV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
Just to add my two cents. I do have a SL-1 that is used only for MT63 and HELL. Having said that I have found no problem with it. Of course they are not ARQ modes. I do use ARQ modes a lot but also have the hardware to operate it. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Moderator Intervention: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
I will consider this topic completed at this time. The comment summary is that the product is good hardware device for most common digital modes but may not work with ALE and AMTOR . Please refrain from any personal attacks associated with this thread. Andy K3UK Owner. On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:00 PM, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to add my two cents. I do have a SL-1 that is used only for MT63 and HELL. Having said that I have found no problem with it. Of course they are not ARQ modes. I do use ARQ modes a lot but also have the hardware to operate it. John, W0JAB -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
Steinar, I do not know the individuals concerned, they are probably good hams. The undercurrent however, is the view of some, that the SCAMP, WINLINK, AIRMAIL , TELPAC, system is not as open as radio amateurs usually desire. When when one contrasts the openness of PSK31, MMTTY, NEMBS, MT63, Olivia, APRS, MFSK16, etc, etc, with the aformentioned system, the control of the system appears to be unfortunately the opposite of what we are used to. This is not based on any facts I have, just a general sense from reading past posts on the topic. The people behind the WINMOR project may have nothing to do with this, they may be the greatest hams in the world. My question about how much will it cost, may be based on ignorance, because the AIRMAIL/WINLINK system has always been free. The nature of the ARRL release made me wonder if they are building a layer of proprietary protectiion or the basis for a license fee, but I have no basis for my thoughts other than a hunch Andy On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the connection to the Winmor protocol here?? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Charles Brabham wrote: The article mentions WinLink developer Rick Muething. Rick Muething installed the WinLink HF and VHF stuff in our area. That was when we first noticed the new packet node with no callsign and the alias OFF. - Illegal as you can get. The OFF node cleverly screws up TheNet nodes so that the NODES list will not display for users. After some investigation, it was discovered that it was the TELPAC node Rick Muething so kindly set up for us that was disrupting thePacket network in our area. Anybody here think that it was all just a slight oversight, an error? - Or does it sound more like something deliberate? After a public exposure followed by a few private threats, the OFF node went off the air and Packet users here were once again able to enjoy the network we built here. Yesterday while node surfing about 150 miles north of my location, I saw a node list that had OFF listed on it - and the nodes to the north of that one were mysteriously missing from the NODE list. Apparently there are potential legal issues about using more than one node-hop in order to access and utilize a TELPAC station - so we'll just eliminate those nasty Packet networks with their multiple node-hops, eh? Benito Mussolini would be proud! Hiram Percy Maxim, on the other hand, would be sad and disgusted to see such behavior by amateurs. If you see a no-callsign OFF or DISABLE node in your area and can't access a NODES list, now you know the who, what and why of it. Heads up. 73 DE Charles, N5PVL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 27.08.2008 07:01 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
Andy, I may have misread something in the original notice. That being the proceedings of TAPR DC will be offered for sale by ARRL. I don't remember a mention that the software would be for sale. Been completely wrong before (and often). Don KA5DON Steinar, I do not know the individuals concerned, they are probably good hams. The undercurrent however, is the view of some, that the SCAMP, WINLINK, AIRMAIL , TELPAC, system is not as open as radio amateurs usually desire. When when one contrasts the openness of PSK31, MMTTY, NEMBS, MT63, Olivia, APRS, MFSK16, etc, etc, with the aformentioned system, the control of the system appears to be unfortunately the opposite of what we are used to. This is not based on any facts I have, just a general sense from reading past posts on the topic. The people behind the WINMOR project may have nothing to do with this, they may be the greatest hams in the world. My question about how much will it cost, may be based on ignorance, because the AIRMAIL/WINLINK system has always been free. The nature of the ARRL release made me wonder if they are building a layer of proprietary protectiion or the basis for a license fee, but I have no basis for my thoughts other than a hunch Andy On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the connection to the Winmor protocol here?? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Charles Brabham wrote: The article mentions WinLink developer Rick Muething. Rick Muething installed the WinLink HF and VHF stuff in our area. That was when we first noticed the new packet node with no callsign and the alias OFF. - Illegal as you can get. The OFF node cleverly screws up TheNet nodes so that the NODES list will not display for users. After some investigation, it was discovered that it was the TELPAC node Rick Muething so kindly set up for us that was disrupting thePacket network in our area. Anybody here think that it was all just a slight oversight, an error? - Or does it sound more like something deliberate? After a public exposure followed by a few private threats, the OFF node went off the air and Packet users here were once again able to enjoy the network we built here. Yesterday while node surfing about 150 miles north of my location, I saw a node list that had OFF listed on it - and the nodes to the north of that one were mysteriously missing from the NODE list. Apparently there are potential legal issues about using more than one node-hop in order to access and utilize a TELPAC station - so we'll just eliminate those nasty Packet networks with their multiple node-hops, eh? Benito Mussolini would be proud! Hiram Percy Maxim, on the other hand, would be sad and disgusted to see such behavior by amateurs. If you see a no-callsign OFF or DISABLE node in your area and can't access a NODES list, now you know the who, what and why of it. Heads up. 73 DE Charles, N5PVL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 27.08.2008 07:01 -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] New Digital Mode Winmor
Hello all, For the curious the winlink web site has a snapshot of the program running: http://www.winlink.org/node/341 There are other tidbits that have surfaced in the winlink forums Very little hard data has surfaced, just some tidbits in the winlink forums. Based on past comments, I'd expect it to be similar to P1/2 in some aspects. (Symbol rate, turnaround time, etc). But that's just me reading between the lines. But I'll keep my RTS/CTS keying, AMTOR is not the only mode that needs that! My gut sense is that if there is a license fee it will be reasonable. They are looking for penetration and a viable alternative to the largest criticism of the current system. (expensive, sole source modems) I would not expect it to be reusable as a DLL, but we can hope! That would be the best case. I've found some of the developers to be open to interoperation reuse. Others view any thing that could compete with WL2K/P3 as a threat. My belief is that ham radio in general benefits the more we collaborate and design for interoperability. Have fun, Alan km4ba
