Re: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors
In an animals meeting someone stated that the culprit was a "big mouth animal" ...and then the frog and the alligator began blaming each other... . . . . John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Not sure what mode "the mode" is but should it not be for > all modes? > > Case in point - the other evening I was in QSO with a ham in > Dallas Texas keyboard to keyboard Pactor 3 on 7077.4 LSB > when N4CE started calling CQ on HELL (for half an hour) . > He was so strong here in the mid west that we last the link. > I feel sure that he had no clue whatsoever who or even that > it was a KB to KB QSO. It is more common than you would expect. It also has happened here quite often when someone on SSB making a national QSO below 7100 kHz gets QRM from someone in FL or LA starts a QSO with New York or Chicago on top of you. Unless you plug your keyer ad say QRL D I R E C T L Y, he will ignore "that latino QRM". And then, not all QSY, either. In many bands, the FCC allocations and our allocations are different. Conversely, I have been doing BBS forward in the past and some people have come to talk on SSB "over that cricket". Turning the linear on and overpowering them has been the only solution not to lose the link. Disconsideration is more extended than what is generally believed, people on one mode ignoring the others. > My point being it's just not "only" Pactor stations. In fact > last week I have see more ALE stations and JT65A than > anything else blasting away on a freq already in use. Undoubtedly. > John, W0JAB 73, Jose, CO2JA __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
RE: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors
Not sure what mode "the mode" is but should it not be for all modes? Case in point - the other evening I was in QSO with a ham in Dallas Texas keyboard to keyboard Pactor 3 on 7077.4 LSB when N4CE started calling CQ on HELL (for half an hour) . He was so strong here in the mid west that we last the link. I feel sure that he had no clue whatsoever who or even that it was a KB to KB QSO. My point being it's just not "only" Pactor stations. In fact last week I have see more ALE stations and JT65A then anything else blasting away on a freq already in use. John, W0JAB At 07:15 AM 9/17/2007, you wrote: >Exactly the reason the mode should be taken to some other band(s). > >73 > >Bill KA8VIT
RE: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors
Exactly the reason the mode should be taken to some other band(s). 73 Bill KA8VIT > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:52:07 + > Subject: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors > > There are down sides to busy-detection: > > 1. There is no way to know the relative interference temperature > threshold for distant co-channel users on HF. SNR at every station is > different. A signal that seems in the background at one location, for > one mode, may be interference to another mode working at a different > SNR or a different mode at another station. > > 2. What to detect? How sensitive? It is possible to engineer a > busy-detector that can be set for a very sensitive threshold, and > detect almost any mode or almost any level. That same detector will > also falsely show a busy channel most of the time on the HF ham bands. > That renders the busy-detector useless for the busy-detector user who > wants to have a QSO or send an important message. > > 3. When does the receiving station with busy-detection know whether > the content of such an incoming message is an emergency? A > too-sensitive busy detector might prevent such a message from being > run in the first place, and the result would not be good. Thus, > stations that are on the air specifically with a very likely possible > purpose of running emergency traffic should probably not use a > busy-detector. It is possible to envision a busy-detector that could > be programmed to remotely disengage upon reception of a specific > command... but such a system is not readily available at the present > time, and the use of it would certainly unnecessarily complicate the > sending of an emergency message at a critical time. > > 4. It may be counter-productive for networks or users to announce what > type of busy-detection they use or don't use, because this sort of > information can be used nefariously (has been and will be) by > individuals on purpose to maliciously interfere or thwart normal > operation. > > 5. We all know that there are many feuds and grudges out there on the > air. It seems that certain hams who are most prone to carrying on > feuds or grudge-matches may also be the same individuals who clamor > most loudly for busy-detectors to be put in place by their "enemy" :) > > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > _ Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It’s our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™. http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2
Re: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors
At 08:18 PM 9/16/2007, Andy, K3UK in part wrote: >but Bonnie, a fundamental issue has been the frustration with >PACTOR just switching on mid-stream and interfering with a QSO. If I may jump in here. Does this not go back to the so called "hidden transmitter" issue ?? This I think has bee beat to death by many times on this list. Find a fix for that and you will die a very rich man. But I really think a lot has to do with those that just *HATE* the wide modes (RTTY Amtor Pactor) . John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Busy Detectors
but Bonnie, a fundamental issue has been the frustration with PACTOR just switching on mid-stream and interfering with a QSO. Other than under contesting conditions, it rarely happens with other modes. Would not it be fairly easy for programmers to build in a variable parameter that allows the user to set a signal to noise ratio and a waterfall bandwidth. If the software detects a signal above the specified SNR within the specified bandwidth, the software refused to xmit? A "off" setting could be used when emergencies exists. For example MixW and PC-ALE both have a pseudo way of measuring SNR. Andy. On 9/16/07, expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are down sides to busy-detection: > > 1. There is no way to know the relative interference temperature > threshold for distant co-channel users on HF. SNR at every station is > different. A signal that seems in the background at one location, for > one mode, may be interference to another mode working at a different > SNR or a different mode at another station. > > 2. What to detect? How sensitive? It is possible to engineer a > busy-detector that can be set for a very sensitive threshold, and > detect almost any mode or almost any level. That same detector will > also falsely show a busy channel most of the time on the HF ham bands. > That renders the busy-detector useless for the busy-detector user who > wants to have a QSO or send an important message. > > 3. When does the receiving station with busy-detection know whether > the content of such an incoming message is an emergency? A > too-sensitive busy detector might prevent such a message from being > run in the first place, and the result would not be good. Thus, > stations that are on the air specifically with a very likely possible > purpose of running emergency traffic should probably not use a > busy-detector. It is possible to envision a busy-detector that could > be programmed to remotely disengage upon reception of a specific > command... but such a system is not readily available at the present > time, and the use of it would certainly unnecessarily complicate the > sending of an emergency message at a critical time. > > 4. It may be counter-productive for networks or users to announce what > type of busy-detection they use or don't use, because this sort of > information can be used nefariously (has been and will be) by > individuals on purpose to maliciously interfere or thwart normal > operation. > > 5. We all know that there are many feuds and grudges out there on the > air. It seems that certain hams who are most prone to carrying on > feuds or grudge-matches may also be the same individuals who clamor > most loudly for busy-detectors to be put in place by their "enemy" :) > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Busy Detectors
There are down sides to busy-detection: 1. There is no way to know the relative interference temperature threshold for distant co-channel users on HF. SNR at every station is different. A signal that seems in the background at one location, for one mode, may be interference to another mode working at a different SNR or a different mode at another station. 2. What to detect? How sensitive? It is possible to engineer a busy-detector that can be set for a very sensitive threshold, and detect almost any mode or almost any level. That same detector will also falsely show a busy channel most of the time on the HF ham bands. That renders the busy-detector useless for the busy-detector user who wants to have a QSO or send an important message. 3. When does the receiving station with busy-detection know whether the content of such an incoming message is an emergency? A too-sensitive busy detector might prevent such a message from being run in the first place, and the result would not be good. Thus, stations that are on the air specifically with a very likely possible purpose of running emergency traffic should probably not use a busy-detector. It is possible to envision a busy-detector that could be programmed to remotely disengage upon reception of a specific command... but such a system is not readily available at the present time, and the use of it would certainly unnecessarily complicate the sending of an emergency message at a critical time. 4. It may be counter-productive for networks or users to announce what type of busy-detection they use or don't use, because this sort of information can be used nefariously (has been and will be) by individuals on purpose to maliciously interfere or thwart normal operation. 5. We all know that there are many feuds and grudges out there on the air. It seems that certain hams who are most prone to carrying on feuds or grudge-matches may also be the same individuals who clamor most loudly for busy-detectors to be put in place by their "enemy" :) Bonnie KQ6XA
