>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of WD8ARZ
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:06 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect
Scamp busy detector "as used in Scamp at the time of the group testing" I
was part of, was NOT the end all of busy detectors.
>>>Correct. It was a first attempt somewhat reluctantly taken by the author
with encouragement from me and several others.
Finding a setting of the threshold was very difficult. Too sensitive and the
throughput operation of Scamp was poor due to being held up by the threshold
trigger. Not sensitive enough and it did not perform at times when you knew
it should have. What worked for one type of band condition for awhile, did
not work well during a different type of band condition.
>>>There were quite a few more positive reports from Scamp beta testers
posted on this forum at the time.
Personally witnessed operators that would intentionally come on frequency
and put out signals solely for the purpose of triggering the busy detector
to stop operations. When Scamp operations were not active, they didnt seem
to be active on the frequency. Start Scamp activity and some of the same
lids would start up again with just enough activity to activate the busy
detector.
>>>This hardly a good reason to not move forward with a mechanism that would
reduce the ill-will responsible for these actions.
End result was the agreement to not use it as it was not living up to
expectations .... and stayed that way through the shut down of the group by
the author.
>>>Scamp was terminated because the RDFT protocol on which it was based
performed poorly under typical band conditions. Rick KN6KB evidently reached
a different conclusion than you did regarding the efficacy of busy frequency
detection, as he included busy frequency detection in Winmor.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
