Well, one can have an opinion on whether or not there ought to be 300 baud packet...but one might just as well have an opinion on whether there ought to be PSK, or any other mode. The fact that it is legal and some hams want to use it should be enough to justify its existence. Gracious, we still have hams using AM, even through all the arguments of the 50s and 60s.
Yes, there are a LOT of repeats when the bands are poor. Signal strength is not the only criteria. I don't have a technical background to explain it or even understand it, but there are plenty of days when a signal of S7 will be solid copy..and other days when it will not. I just accept that as "the way it is" and we do the best we can. It's the same on any regular net. If the net is supposed to meet every day at noon, it does so whether conditions are good or not. If that requires lots of repeats, then "that's the way it is". I use MixW for HF packet, but most of our stations use a TNC. I have MultiPSK on the computer and have tried to use it a little bit, but have not been able to get it to perform as well as MixW. That may be just that I need to do some tweaking, but with MixW working so well here, there isn't much incentive to spend the time at it. And you are right that the stations should be on the same frequency, and we work at it, but most of the TNCs don't have a "tuning eye" so we end up with what everyone thinks is his best frequency. Our HF nets were an attempt to patch over the loss of the old hop hop hop system on VHF. In the less populated sections of the country we kept losing nodes to forward on VHF because of legal problems having to do with towers, so many of the technical minded hams moving on to the next "newest thing", etc. and we have huge gaps in the system. HF at least lets us move the messages longer distances to skip over the missing nodes. We are still tied to the old 300 baud system but as you note, there are some still working on improved system, and I think it won't be too long until we come up with something better. Pactor is obviously better, but requires a large investment that most hams are not wanting to make for that kind of an operation when it appears that it is a short term mode. Someone will come up with a sound card based system that will be close enough to pactor in usefulness and probably free or at least low cost. Yes, most of our stations also have VHF ports for users. The number of users is down overall, I think, but in some areas there is an upsurge in the number of hams wanting to use packet. It depends on the information that the local hams get. If there is activity, they will be interested in it...if there is not, they won't even think to try it. An educational effort on the part of the present packeteers will bring in new users. Enjoy. 73 Mark --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Rick W <mrf...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > From: Rick W <mrf...@frontiernet.net> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] HF packet > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 2:58 PM > Actually, I was getting the signals very well, but they were > not > decoding. I had an S1 noise level and some packets were S9. > Now on 20 > meters noise is S1 and packets are just above the noise and > not decoding > unless they get up to S5 or so from what it looks like. > Even though I > know that packet is usually not very effective on HF in > terms of the > protocol, I should have been able to decode the stronger > ones. I was > using Multipsk and maybe I have something set wrong. So I > downloaded > MixW, which is the only other sound card program that I am > aware of and > it is decoding at least some headers. > > I see a lot of repeats of things like: > > N6MAT-9>K7MCH>SABM>P > > also > > K7MCH>N9LYA>RR3>P > > But like most packet that I have copied, it seems that a > lot of it is > just headers retrying over and over until they time out:( > The concept of > packet is great, (time sharing, multiple connects, routing, > etc.) but it > requires signals that are not really possible for HF on a > consistent > basis. Even on VHF, packet requires pretty good signals, > well above zero > dB S/N and if only we had something that could provide the > BBS and > forwarding part with an improved HF practical mode. The > only thing that > is in the right direction is FAE400, but there does not > seem to be much > interest:( > > We have an 80 meter packet group in the state, I think > mostly in the > southern half. Not sure what they do but seems like it must > be friends > who keep in contact or have an interest in DX maybe, and > share info. > > When I first started setting up with my rig, I was thinking > 2125/2295, > HI, but then when I saw the waterfall, immediately realized > that it had > to be around 1700 center frequency with 200 Hz shift. I > have noticed a > great deal of variation when attempting to monitor packet > and it > surprises me that everyone is not within a few Hz since it > would make > the situation even worse! I have rigs that are mostly TCXO > controlled so > can be quite close. Even our ICOM IC-7000's have it. > > Is the purpose of your network to do RF forwarding and then > go into some > local VHF network? We used to have a very extensive system > here about a > decade ago but all of that is completely gone. Some nodes > are still > used, but were converted to APRS as I understand it. > > What software do you recommend to decode? Is this something > you use on > the fly or after you collect some data? Maybe there is no > sound card > based technology available? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > Mark Milburn wrote: > > Hi Rick... > > > > The bands were pretty awrful this morning so I > wasn't hearing a whole lot myself. It will get better > this afternoon and I'm thinking it will be much better > tomorrow. Wisconsin is always a tough haul from Iowa, it > seems, but you will be hearing everything better this > afternoon. > > > > The frequency I gave you is very approximate, since > radios seem to vary widely in their accuracy, and is based > on the most usual TNC setting of 1600-1800 HZ. Some TNCs > have different tones, but most are set at 1600-1800. > > > > One other caveat...since we are doing forwarding of > bulletins, the bulk of the transmission are in FBB > compatible compression, so unless you are using a BBS > program such as FBB or MSYS, you will be seeing compressed > characters with only some titles sent in clear English. > That may serve to get you what you want, or if you want to > dig in a little deeper, you may need to download and install > a program that decodes compressed packets. > > > > If I can be helpful, let me know how. > > > > 73 Mark KQ0I > > Des Moines, IA > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked > Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
