>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
*** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing
QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then
what was your intention?
I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything as you so
quickly imagined.
If you own one PTC, you could have told that before I did, instead of
making people believe, by omission, that PMBO's operate with no
activity detection at all.
>>> My oft-stated position is that Winlink PMBOs rely on the remote
initiator to verify that that the frequency is clear -- an approach
that is unreliable due to the hidden transmitter effect. The fact
that PMBOs can detect Pactor signals indeed means that keyboard-to-
keyboard Pactor QSOs are protected from PMBO QRM. Keyboard-to-
keyboard Pactor QSOs represent a very small percentage of overall
keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs, so the fact that PMBOs don't QRM them is
of no consequence to anyone except that small minority using Pactor
for their keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs.
> <SNIP>
*** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the
assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the
frequency is clear before activating a PMBO.
Yes, the same assumption made for the previously existent RTTY
mailboxes, APLINK, etc.
People once assumed the world was flat. Does that mean its okay to
design navigation systems based on that assumption?
This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter
effect.
This is the one you cooked up, seemingly, in a late reduction to
absurd scheme. You have been very convincing, indeed.
>>> The truth is usually pretty convincing once you clean off all the
spin people hang on it. If you disagree, then please explain how the
assumption can be true given that there is a hidden transmitter
effect.
Very capable persons indeed. Why then did your quest for the poor
guys access to improved digital communications vanish so easily?
>>> Why do you assume it vanished "so easily"? Were you there?
Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.
So far, as all can see, after a lot of words, the situation remains
exactly the same, and I foresee no real solutions this way. It is a
pity that the increasingly contorted exchange has just been a loss of
time.
>>> You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated
none of them. You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon
which my opposition to system designs like Winlink's has rested for
years. You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because
its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the
Winlink team and remains in their possession.
>>> The only conclusion I can reach is that you personally like using
Winlink, and will say anything to rationalize your continued use of a
system that QRMs other amateur radio operators.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
