Actually I think that MT63 would actually work well. While it may not be the most robust mode, and during a hurricane if you are "in the storm" your noise level is quite high...I've see 20-30 over S9 more than once so not matter the mode, most likely you will be QRO. The 10-15 watts output of MT63 on a 100 watt transceiver can well be amplified by a 500-1500 watt linear.
The real key is to be able to send the complete data package in a shorter time than the data is being developed. For example, when you are tracking a tornado bearing down on a large city, you don't want radar updated every 10 minutes...you would want them every minute or so. And its not just location of the tornado, weather guys want the strength of the radar return and phase shifts, height of the formation, etc. The problem is not so much transmitting the data...even reading it off but having to manually input the data into you storm tracking program to develop the output. If you are getting information at 200-300 WPM, and you can only type 60 WPM...you can never hope to have real-time information also, you need to be near error free...99.9% perhaps. But hurricanes are only one example. Fire fighters use a multitude of remote data bases in their business...getting data from a server many miles away (across the country) is tantamount to the success of their life-saving business. Additionally, managing evacuation routes is another instance where high speed HF data can benefit those in public service. When I think back to my early days in aeromedical evacuation, we got by with sending the name rank and general patient condition along with the patients destination to a evacuation control center. Today in IRAQ and Afghanistan, medical personnel send pages of medical information and almost minute to minute medical evaluations to the receiving hospital of wounded. Norway's military medical system sends the individuals medical telemetry by HF from their evacuation site to the receiving/destination hospital. I would hate to think how much data would need to be carried on HF between power grids to keep them interlocked and sharing loads if their internet connectivity went away. At one time all major the power generating plants had HF radios and their own frequencies. But they abandoned this as their voice communications wouldn't provide adequate information. Too bad they never tried high speed data communications...they threw away their radios before 9/11. Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:33 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 16QPSK Modulation and Baud Packet COULD have been a solution, but had a modulation format unable to do the job. As a MultiPSK user, I think that PSK31 is inadequate, maybe PSKFEC could perform better, but I would try PAX. It has some long keying delays I don't like from the moment you press the ENTER key, but is an ARQ mode capable of providing error less reception. I did not evaluate it in depth, but I did like the results I saw. So, if the need is to transfer a file and comment it afterwards, maybe that's one solution already at hand that should be evaluated. Jose, CO2JA --- DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill, > > In the past the HF communications between the NWS > offices via amateur radio has been voice because > there was not a reliable data mode available to > them. In exercises they have tried PSK31 but were > not satisfied with the results. They have not tried > MT63 thus far. I because none of the operators are > familiar with it and they based their use on PSK31 > on the advice of the ARRL Section Emergency > Coordinator and Section Manager. They also > considered using Pactor III but for some reason the > NWS didn't buy into it. > > The NWS wants DATA and Voice on the same > channel...send data and then discuss the data. > > The same is true for HAZMAT teams wanting to talk to > state, federal and other HAZMAT experts about an > existing condition. The data they want to send is > also very large and after the parties have the data, > they want to discuss it via voice communications. > > I've seen the same scenario many times when a two > doctors are looking at the same X-Ray, MRI or > CAT-scan and are discussion it on the telephone. > This is the world we live in and when it comes to > decisions that the NWS or HAZMAT team make can save > or cause the loss of many lives, they want what they > want and nothing is going to change that. > > If we can't help out in this area, then we need to > flat out say we can't and only try to produce new HF > data techniques that meet our amateur radio of > personal needs. > > Walt/K5YFW > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
