Steve, I was thinking more along the lines that the Pactor 3 signal has 8 tones and is a wide mode. Pactor 3 is a more complicated waveform and can adapt to conditions and are likely raised cosine shapes.
When Kantronics developed G-Tor I understood it to come from the space program's Golay code that gives the "G" to the name. Because it was yet another proprietary code, it never became popular. The one "local" ham who had it was not that impressed with it from his experiences, not that it was a bad mode. It was able to switch between 300, 200 and 100 baud, but there were no lower speeds and I think if they had included a 50 baud speed, it might have had a chance at becoming more practical. I am familiar with the ARRL references, and I recall reading them years ago (or trying to read them) but the information was not very easy to understand for me. Written in a governmentese kind of way. The fact that things have moved very little in some many years tells you that it is not that compelling to most radio amateurs. In fact, I would be surprised if an article like this would make it to QST anymore. It would probably be in QEX:) What kind of S/N ratio do you think this waveform could go down to? And what is the thruput? 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: >Hi Rick, > >No. > >The only similarity between PACTOR would be PACTOR I and that would >be that both are FSK, actually 2FSK vs. 8FSK and that is about it. > >The similarities between ALE, particularly DBM ARQ and GTOR are much >more, its a still a 2FSK vs. 8FSK in that regard, but the development >of GTOR was greatly influenced by the standards for ALE and DBM ARQ, >read the following: > >http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/it/tptt.html > >GTOR in my opinion is far superior to PACTOR I. > >Here are ALE documentation links for you: > >http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/ale.html > >http://www.armymars.net/ArmyMARS/HF-Email/resources/188-141B.pdf > >http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/it/tptt.html > > >/s/ Steve, N2CKH > > >
