What I think is that we cannot measure both the speed and the roll of a screwball...When there are too many variables playing, it is hard to discern, at least, quickly.
Pactor III is undoubtely better thought, but not much different in performance at low SNR's. Having no adventages, P II may do as well. At high SNR's, Pactor 3 is hard to beat in 2.4 kHz bandwidth. There is a compromise between speed and reliability, which, using FEC and ARQ, adds latency. Compromises are speed, reliability, bandwidth and low power. You just cannot have it all. I did not mention cost, but undoubtely, is also a factor. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Bill McLaughlin wrote: > Hi Bonnie, > > I think PactorII is better than PactorIII in terms of being > efficient; it is why Winlink systems revert to PactorII when > conditions become tough (for an example of my subjectivity). > > But it all depends on how one defines "better", as I said in an > earlier post....alot of factors involved in "best"...speed, > bandwidth, robustness (not a real word), sensitivitity, legality, > availability, popularity, lack of popularity, impact on other hams, > price....the list goes on. > > For an obscure example: what is better for meteor scatter on 6 > meters, FSK441 or JT6M? Easy to answer, "It depends". > > Probably interesting questions with few answers....or Andy was just > trolling us all.... > > 73, > > Bill N9DSJ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Best for HF email PSKmail >> Sorry. >> Pactor3 or 188-110, 5066 etc are way better. >> >> Bonnie KQ6XA __________________________________________ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
