oogroups.com
> > Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
>
>
>
> > Rein,
> >
> > I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink
> > 2000. I am not sure what it really is other than a compression
> > scheme to nearly double pl
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: 13.01.07 02:36:52
> An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
>
> Rein,
>
> I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Win
Rick,
This is certainly lost on the Pactor III group.
73,
Mark N5RFX
>having many small bandwidth users means more throughput for more
>users than one large bandwidth user at a time.
KV9U wrote:
> If it is the same protocol as B1F, was the reason for developing it,
> that the B1F did not have the needed exchange to work with Winlink 2000?
I'm not really sure what that means, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say
B2F is the same protocol as B1F. Only the compression is the same.
There is already a degree of Huffman-type compression in PSK31 via the
Varicode, where the number of bits per symbol depends on symbol
frequency.
Compression that depends on the text that went before it could be more
efficient, but would lead to total loss of the following text in the
ecent of
If it is the same protocol as B1F, was the reason for developing it,
that the B1F did not have the needed exchange to work with Winlink 2000?
So it is basically an extended version to do more "things" that they
need to have it do?
I don't think that I am fully understanding what your code is be
The Winlink 2000 promoter brings up B2F from time to time with the claim
that this is what makes their system have the extra efficiency. But
apparently this is a bit overstated.
Is it possible to use more compression in the current keyboard modes or
is Varicode about as good as can be expected?
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> But why stop there, as you say? I'm reasonably sure someone's already
> done this (from the scores I see in the contest logs) but it should be
> possible to totally automate the RTTY contests. With wide-band SDR
> receivers (and transmitters for that matter) it oug
Not bad...but quite a few DXpeditions and less luck people cannot rely
on full time Internet.
This is ham radio...
Jose CO2JA
Dave Bernstein wrote:
>
> Why stop there, Leigh? With the use of QRZ.com and weather.com to
> independently determine name, QTH, and weather conditions, you coul
I am afraid it is as Rein says.
FBB, which uses B1F compression (hope I remember right) does not
compress the sysop keyboard, but just the BBS traffic.
JNOS has a compressed ttylink mode that uses LZW and has never worked
for me (compile errors), but which might provide an edge.
PTC-II boxes
ot; and the RX modem can expand this into "Your RST is
> >> 599." And if you send "^STATION ^BRAG" the RX program can just
> >>
> > print
> >
> >> "OM sent you a big list of his computer equipment."
> >>
> >> This
ipment."
>>
>> This might also eliminate a lot of the uppercase text as well...
>>
>> Leigh/WA5ZNU
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 1:02 pm, Rein Couperus wrote:
>>
>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>>> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>
KV9U wrote:
> I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink 2000. I
> am not sure what it really is other than a compression scheme to nearly
> double plain text throughput and is some kind of adaptation to the
> protocols that were adopted by FBB such as B1F.
"B2F compressi
Rein,
I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink 2000. I
am not sure what it really is other than a compression scheme to nearly
double plain text throughput and is some kind of adaptation to the
protocols that were adopted by FBB such as B1F.
Shouldn't this work with eve
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: 12.01.07 22:24:49
> An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
>
> Here's a modest proposal: compress most of the QSO the way the
> mo
list of his computer equipment."
This might also eliminate a lot of the uppercase text as well...
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 1:02 pm, Rein Couperus wrote:
>
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>> Gesendet: 12.01.07 17:09:44
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: 12.01.07 17:09:44
> An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
> By the way, I have often wondered why the B2F binary compression system
> used
o] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
I have seen the claim for a good operator able to copy down to about -15
db S/N for CW operation. Some of the digital soundcard modes are
supposed to be able to still have throughput down around -15 depending
upon other factors such as doppler, ISI, etc.
Using Multipsk,
I have seen the claim for a good operator able to copy down to about -15
db S/N for CW operation. Some of the digital soundcard modes are
supposed to be able to still have throughput down around -15 depending
upon other factors such as doppler, ISI, etc.
Using Multipsk, and I don't know how ac
lradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
While this information does not seem to support the SCS claim of working
way down to the minus teens of db S/N, it is interesting that in the
"old days" Pactor 1 users claimed that they could get throughput when
they could not even hear any suggesti
While this information does not seem to support the SCS claim of working
way down to the minus teens of db S/N, it is interesting that in the
"old days" Pactor 1 users claimed that they could get throughput when
they could not even hear any suggestion of modulation.
I never found this to be tru
, then you only need Pactor
I.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kd4e
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
> SCS says that Pa
Demetre,
Correction
SCS says..."On an average channel, PACTOR-III is around 3.5 times faster than
PACTOR-II. On good channels, the effective throughput ratio between PACTOR-III
and PACTOR-II can exceed 5. PACTOR-III achieves slightly higher robustness at
the low SNR edge compared to PACTOR-II.
> SCS says that Pactor III is 4 times faster than Pactor II and the
> code would indicate such. Thus the raw channel throughput IS faster
> and the BER should be better. But as far as performance goes at
> varying SNRs will make a difference in throughput. At a -5 dB SNR on
> the KC7WW channel si
24 matches
Mail list logo
