Dave Bernstein wrote: > +++more AA6YQ comments below > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>> Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why >>>> then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a >>>> remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme >>>> clearly fails in a hidden station scenario? > > If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier > detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO. > > +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that > PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard > software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running > Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that > all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect > themselves from Winlink QRM?
It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector. It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of "could be but did not get to be"... > What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors. > That is something else. > > +++I am demanding that PMBOs not transmit on a busy frequency. > Winlink's system design is flawed -- it ignores the hidden > transmitter effect. They should either correct the design, or QRT. A > multi-mode busy frequency detector is one solution -- and one the > Winlink team itself has developed and demonstrated. Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ? I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is available: the same stuff. Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network. Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not. > I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with > APLINK or Winlink Classic. > > +++The fact that someone got away with poor engineering in the past > is no excuse for poor engineering in the present. Soundcard software > has dramatically expanded the number of digital mode users on the > bands, so the impact of poorly engineered station management software > is much greater. Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has changed. >>>> Your argument seems to be "because there can be hidden >>>> stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them". > > No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth. > > +++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden > transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM > generated by PMBOs? No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact (hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable technology (SCAMP). So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is merely daydreaming. That goes beyond the scope of winlink, pactor and ham communications. >>>> Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate >>>> operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible. > I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K > evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never > disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were > used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode. > > +++I'm not familiar with this "previous techology" Jose, but if it > involved an unattended station relying on a remote initiator to > ensure a clear frequency, then its design was flawed. I'm guessing > that the timeframe preceded the explosion of digital mode usage > stimulated by soundcard software, which would mean that there were > far fewer operators around to be QRM'd. No, I am referring to the ages when Internet transfer was not the norm, and automated stations called each other. Nowadays, the "big bellies" have Internet, Internet2 and such stuff. The "barefoot" have even less, and the digital divide is actually growing. > The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick > Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his > work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even > more attacks. It is really sad. > >>>> Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that > QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem, > but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad. So a question is in order. Why, beyond what has been discussed here and all know, it was not deployed? Do you have any inside info we don't? >>>> There are no such obvious markers on frequencies in which >>>> unattended operation is permitted, the frequencies available for >>>> unattended operation vary from region to region, and these >>>> frequencies are not exclusively allocated to unattended >>>> operation. No unattended station can QRM a pre-existing QSO on >>>> the grounds that it "owns the right-of-way". > > There is a window opening in 2009, with new ham bands limits. It > seems that there is more harmonizing work to be done by IARU. > > +++That's great, Jose. So Winlink should either QRT until we have > these harmonized worldwide "unattended only" band segments, or it > should correct its design so that other amateurs aren't QRM'd. That's another extra task for you. >>>> There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector; >>>> Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well >>>> it worked. > > Rick has proved to be really brilliant. > > Is then such a source or algorithm already in the public domain ? > If it is so, why isn't it already known and widely available? > Can you elaborate on this? Can you provide a link to it? > > +++The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose. Rick is a > member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing stopping the > Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs. Would you force Rick to act against his will? If his design is really as irrelevant as you state, it means that you have all the facts to substitute it. Then it is not necessary to go against anyone's will, just come forward with your own design. So, you have two choices: either shut them up or make it better. Which of those choices is easier for you? >>>> Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team; >>>> he could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to >>>> include the SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink >>>> organization interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost >>>> would be an additional soundcard for each PMBO. > > You are here again demanding them to please you. > > +++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing > amateur radio Please illuminate us not governed by Part 97. Where does it state so ? >>>> There has been not one report of failure by any developer >>>> attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in >>>> unattended stations. > > Why? Because it works perfectly well, or because nobody has achieved > it entirely? > > +++ The SCAMP busy detector worked perfectly well; were it deployed > in Winlink, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So, your point is that is Rick's sin is proving it is feasible, but not deploying it is his fault. Is really this a valid way of encouraging the advancement of the art of communications? Telling the community that if you let us know "something better than the wheel", you will be harrassed in the future because of it? >>>> The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency >>>> detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not >>>> been deployed. > > Well, we are reaching a point where people will be afraid of > publishing their findings, because their ideas can be used in more > ways than what they foresaw, and with opposite ends. > > +++That's not even remotely true, Jose. In developing the SCAMP busy > detector, Rick set out explictly to eliminate the design flaw > exmplified by the reliance of Winlink PMBOs on remote initiators to > verify a clear frequency. He accomplished this goal, and was lauded > for it. Both the Winlink organization and the ARRL cited the SCAMP > busy detector as proof that unattended operation coult be expanded to > more frequencies without risk of QRM from the hidden transmitter > effect. The criticism is not that Rick developed this busy frequency > detecor, but rather that Winlink refuses to deploy it. A chicken and egg situation. Is SCAMP available? No, it isn't. How to deploy something inexistent? >>>> I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to >>>> be made -- or when someone demonstrates that they aren't >>>> fallacious. > > So we arrive to a new definition of fallacious: whatever does not fit > your own mental scheme. > > +++ That's a convenient statement for you to make, Jose; I challenge > you to substantiate it. That's not hard to do. It just requires browsing this list. You have been overly recursive about all this, for a long time. > Certainly, we can see all you are attempting to do is exhausting > those who disagree with you...but that by itself still does not solve > the problem you have been heralding. > > +++ Where I disagree with your position, I have have provided an > objective counter-argument. If you see a flaw in my counter-argument, > then please illuminate it. It is not my intent to exhaust you or > anyone else -- only to respond to statements I believe to be false. > Demetre's "People hate Winlink because they're jealous" (my > paraphrase) is the relevant case in point. Dave, I see your position as wishful thinking. Today, there is no SCAMP or alike available to the public. The beta testers have already told that their copies expired. Seemingly noone, besides Rick himself can revive SCAMP. And he refuses. Is there a possibility to circumvent that? None that I can identify. On that basis, which are the possibilities of materializing it? > We need something more than mere words about multimode activity > detectors. > > +++ Winlink already has a multimode activity detector. They need to > deploy it, or find another way of avoiding the QRM they generate, or > QRT. No, it is not that way, as far as I know. Winlink does not have it. It has not spread. The only facts are Rick's papers on the Digital Conference, and the expired software copies. You have still a large task in front of you. But I would advise to review your tactics, because so far, all that we have is a big stir and no solutions. 73, Jose, CO2JA __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
