Whatever modes are currently available should be tested to a standard set of tests.
If we as a community of experimenters can settle on specific test, then some sort of comparative evaluation can be made. I agree that a programmer should not spend a great deal of time woking on improving the user interface until the mode is througly tested and gains acceptance by a large group as desirable. Any programmer who develops a mode should have the expetation that users/testers test it to a standard set of tests and report them back to the programmer/creator of the mode. This is invaluable to the creator of the mode as well as to amateur radio in general. Rein, what are your ideas on what standard test should be used on pskmail for proper evaluation? I would recommend that a standard power level be used (or perhaps a standard EIRP be used) and a test text of some length be used and a stardard for identifying errors on the received text. Also date/time, band conditions, location of stations doing the test, band and other type information should be evaluated by the creator and perhaps others who would volunteer to be collectors of the test reports. How does this sound? Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:14 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] PSKmail OK Walt, of course you are right... It is nice to have an arq mode available also for keyboarding. But I would prepare a complete document with the editor before sending it:) The pskmail k-to-k mode has not been tested properly, and should be regarded as experimental. But first tests have shown that it matches PSK31 typing speed, and will deliver the text unmutilated. Unless AMTOR ARQ, which did not have a 0% error guarantee. Pskmail uses a CRC-16 for each segment. It is nice to have to type your text only once even if the QSO is being jammed... I will not put time into jazzing up the user interface until people start using it (which may take a lot of time as nobody likes stuff that is free). Rein PA0R On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 10:25 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote: > Rein, you wrote..."But of course you don't need the 0% error arq for k-to-k > mode" > > Why is this? The conditions I operate under, when I use a data "chat" mode, > I need 100% or near 100% error transmissions because of the nature of the > information I am sending. If it is not received correctly, schedules could > be missed causing loss of evacuation or instructions could be missed causing > loss of life. > > While, as you say, normally ham radio traffic doesn't need to be error free, > there are instances when it does. Therefore I would think that we would want > to build modes that were 100% error free if possible so that they could be > used in a worst-case scenario. > > Walt/K5YFW > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
