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
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
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
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
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] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Sholto Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bonnie,
Does it really make that much difference?
73 Sholto.
Yes, it really does make a difference :)
Please see my previous explanation where I
detailed
Sorry to harp on about this but ALE400 has a baud rate of 50 (20ms
length) and the VOX PTT is 28ms plus allowing for say a 12ms delay from
a modern rig that is only 40ms total delay on transmit, just 2 symbols.
From MultiPSK's help file:
In ALE400 it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately on
PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:26 PM
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
: 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
radios are still locking their PLL's up...
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
, 2008 11:17 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
