Dave,
The ONLY answer for your satisfaction would be to totally channalize the Ham bands and utilize free signalling. Since this is not a practical methodology, QRM is enherent, and will happen, regardless of my perception of the "hidden transmitter effect." To listen to you, Winlink 2000 is the only segement of the Amateur population that has the ability to QRM. I think not, but many do think that bandwidth segmentation will reduce the problem. I see a round robin thread taking place here with no end in site. I understand your reasoning, Winlink 2000 should have its own band segmentation, away from everything else. Now that is a smart move if I have ever heard one. Yup, let's push to regulate such a move so that when Winlink 2000 is no more due to whatever reasoning or circumstance, that segment of the band sits for years while someone figures out how to get rid of the static regulation. Good idea? That is what we have now. It does not work. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For non-realtime message delivery, you would choose a protocol that > QRMs ongoing QSOs over one that is slower but doesn't QRM ongoing > QSOs? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave: > > > > In my dreams the answer is yes. > > > > Rick who is writing the SCAMP code says that Pactor 3 is very > good...and would be hard to beat... > > > > I, personally, would love it if SCAMP could replace PACTOR > > > > ... but unfortunately, the real world creeps into my dreams.. > > > > ....we just have not yet been able to achieve the Speeds of Pactor > 3 with SCAMP... > > > > .. if and when we ever do, and there is not then a Pactor 4 mode > out there, then it is possible.. > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA > > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > > Formerly "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > "Krazy Yankee Six Loves America" > > Website: www.ky6la.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dave Bernstein > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:12 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Advice to the Winlink team > > > > > > > > Please explain why SCAMP would not totally displace Pactor as a > > transport protocol for Winlink. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below: > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >snip< > > > > > > > > > > >>> I would be surprised if the SCS modem has the horsepower > to > > > > implement multi-mode busy detection with a pure software > > upgrade, > > > > but lets assume for a moment that this is technically > feasible. > > SCS > > > > would expect to be compensated for the cost of developing, > > testing, > > > > and deploying this upgrade. Why would current SCS users > decide > > to > > > > invest more in a proprietary hardware solution when a free > > software > > > > solution - SCAMP - is imminent? Knowing the answer to this > > > question, why would SCS undertake the development? > > > > > > From k4cjx: Primarily because with Winlink 2000 alone, they > have > > > over 5,000 such modems in the hands of users. Secondly, SCAMP > is > > not > > > there to take the place of Pactor 3. Rather, it will > eventually be > > > another option, but not for several sectors of its population. > > > Lastly, I believe that if it is at all possible, SCS, who have > > always > > > responded positively to such requests for improvement, have > the > > know- > > > how to get this accomplished through firmware upgrades. In > other > > > words, why should they stop now? They never have. > > > > > > Best thing to do is ask them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All we can do is look for or develop additional data > transfer > > > > > protocols, and that is what we are doing. With control > over > > what > > > > > we do (SCAMP), I can assure you that we are deploying the > most > > > > > robust signal detection available to us. If you know of any > > > > > specific algorythms that are effective for such signal > > detection, > > > > > please come forward with them. Otherwise, we are going at > it > > the > > > > > best way we can, presently. > > > > > > > > >>>I am thrilled with the incorporation of busy detectors in > > SCAMP, > > > > and pleased that Winlink saw fit to make this investment; it > is > > the > > > > only viable solution to the hidden transmitter problem that > > allows > > > > semi-automatic operation to peacefully co-exist with person- > to- > > > > person operation. My relevant expertise is in system design > and > > > user > > > > interface design, not detection algorithms -- otherwise I > would > > be > > > > contributing more directly. > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT > telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > ----------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms > of Service. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
