Rick, You have a point. I did not stop to think about the possibility of "multicast fills".
73, Jose, CO2JA -- Rick W wrote: > Hi Jose, > > The advantage of using manual ARQ fills after the transmission of the > data, is that it can be used as a one to many transmission. If any > stations did not receive the data perfectly, they can send a request to > repair defective portions. This is not possible with a handshaking type > connection. Ideally, you would be able to do it either way. > > The main advantage of Pactor, Clover II and Gtor were the ability to > make some changes in the speed and modulation in order to more closely > match the path conditions. SCAMP could do this within a narrow limit, > but it was not capable of working down to the weak signal level that the > developer had expected, which was around zero dB SNR. Instead, it was > closer to perhaps ~ +8 dB and needed to have a slower (more robust) mode > to compete at all with Pactor. > > It is hard to believe that 4 years have gone by since we started beta > testing SCAMP, but better something late than never. In the meantime, no > one else was able to come up with an adaptive mode suitable for amateur > use, so this could be the next big thing ... > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Jose A. Amador wrote: >> I can understand that procedure in sake of simplicity, but hardly an >> efficient one. Obviously, ARQ should be automatic. >> VI Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética 9 - 12 de Junio 2009, Palacio de las Convenciones ...Por una cultura energética sustentable www.ciercuba.com
