Dave seems to have the high ground on this discussion. Some of Jose's comments lately seem to be very specious, which surprises me since he has normally been fairly logical in his comments. I am concerned that Jose is claiming that Dave does not accept the hidden transmitter issue, which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very least an apology is in order for deliberately misconstruing Dave's actual viewpoints.
If Winlink 2000 proponents claimed that there is no hidden transmitter problem, then they are on denial of basic physics. There can even be non reciprocal two way transmissions where one signal is much stronger in one direction than the other. Arguing about who is operates on the air the most is completely specious and tells me that the person arguing that point realizes they are unable to support their position. I am not sure if I have ever worked Dave or Jose but does it really have anything to do with the topic? Of course it does not. An SWL can see what is going on. The only reason that the busy signal detector was not further developed for use by the automatic stations in the Winlink 2000 system is a decision made by the owners of the system. Not because it did not work, since it worked very well. Steve, K4CJX and Rick, KN6KB have said repeatedly over the years, that they welcome additional programmer assistance but they claim that no one who has agreed to work with them will follow through and they gave up on them. They used to make this claim about Linux support as well. Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP? Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 2000? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > > Dave said: > *** Actually, Jose, I recruited Bob N4HY and Peter G3PLX to work with > me on developing a soundcard-based protocol that would replace Pactor > as the transport for Winlink. But the WinLink guys made it clear that > they would never use it, so we stopped. > > > Jose said: > Your repeated postings about this anti Winlink stuff, as I > understood, denying the existence of the hidden station effect. If > you finally admit it DOES exist, that's OK with me. > >
