I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of unattended operations, if "wide" was eliminated from the discussion.
ANdy K3UK On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com> wrote: > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@eesti.ee] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission > "protection" > > Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is > myth. > > >>>One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A > busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it > could continuously reconfigure. > > >>>And as I said, "perfect is the enemy of good" (with apologies to > Voltaire). A busy detector that is "only" 80% effective would reduce QRM > rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: > > > > If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop > detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy > frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. > Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running > unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by > giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to > obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of > them. > > Appeasement never works. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradi <digitalradi> > o...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien > *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" > > > > Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view... > Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes > were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a > digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic > control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, > and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an > area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if > we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate > at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 > Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that > is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are > only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their > mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have > 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in > these segments would be secondary. > > Andy K3UK > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj <n9...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, >> Andy obrien <k3uka...@...> <k3uka...@...> wrote: >> >> > >> > Andy K3UK >> >> Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think >> of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its >> own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can >> reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which >> is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is >> why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I >> have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined >> frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The >> prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the >> suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for >> frequency conservation. >> >> Bill N9DSJ >> > >> >> > > -- > Kirjutas ja tervitab > Jaak Hohensee > > >
