Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Hi Jose, I wondered if there was some major misunderstanding here because Dave has clearly been on the opposite side of the issue for years and has posted on other venues as well as this one on the same subject. As to the Winlink 2000 owners claiming there is no hidden transmitters, I am not sure, but I would be surprised if they did take that position. Verbal escalation is very unfortunate but sometimes occurs on these internet discussions. The internet is not for those who are impatient with understanding, since it sometimes takes many exchanges to understand the different positions of those who post. If we were meeting physically, many errors of this type would be easily corrected in a few seconds. I am glad that you are looking for the truth in all this because hopefully that is what all of us are trying to do. Even if we might have different perspectives on a given issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: Rick wrote: Dave seems to have the high ground on this discussion. Some of Jose's comments lately seem to be very specious, which surprises me since he has normally been fairly logical in his comments. I am concerned that Jose is claiming that Dave does not accept the hidden transmitter issue, which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very least an apology is in order for deliberately misconstruing Dave's actual viewpoints. Rick, initially I understood he was denying the existence of the hidden station. It has not been my intention at all to deliberately miscontrue his viewpoint. I accept I am fallible and that may have I misunderstood his point when reading not in a full context. I may have been misled. English is not my mother tongue. I gain nothing in discrediting anyone on a false ground, that is also unnacceptable to me. David himself has explained that he assumed the Winlink's position to deny its validity. But initially I understood the contrary, which left me bewildered. I have not seen anywhere such a denial made by the Winlink team themselves. I have been after the truth, and nothing else. I understand the hidden station effect is UNDENIABLE, and I find the denial of a proven physical unnaceptable, to say the least. What is needed? An apology that it was a misunderstanding? Haven't I told it already in a implicit way? It appears in the last paragraph you quote. If a explicit phrase is needed, here it goes: Mr. Bernstein, sorry if I misunderstood you. Is that OK now, Rick? But I have seen my statements misconstrued, and attempts that I justify things I did not state. Objectively, persisting in the clarification of every tiny detail has solved nothing, and actually has led to a verbal escalation. It is a worthless endeavour.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave,
What about building a replacement now? It would be good for
Emcomm (ARES MARS) to have a package that would
support high speed without a high price.
For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net
and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages.
It seems the PSKmail guys can adapt quickly to different modems.
They also have the advantage that you can quickly set up a new
post office sort of ad hoc.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:12:35 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio
amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they
turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP?
This occurred in the fall of 2004. I held direct discussions with
Steve K4CJX and Vic W5SMM. Despite early signs of receptiveness, they
made it clear that they would not use anything we developed.
SCAMP was already under development, though without a busy
frequency detector. There were concerns about the choice of RDFT.
Later, I was able to engage with Rick KN6KB and encourage him to
include a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. I was not alone in this
activity. If I made a contribution, it was in helping to convince
Rick that while good would be a great first step, waiting
for perfect could yield failure.
Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail
type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink
2000?
If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our
goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better
transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of
hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Go right ahead! 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brown Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:53 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys Dave, What about building a replacement now? It would be good for Emcomm (ARES MARS) to have a package that would support high speed without a high price. For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages. It seems the PSKmail guys can adapt quickly to different modems. They also have the advantage that you can quickly set up a new post office sort of ad hoc. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:12:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups. com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP? This occurred in the fall of 2004. I held direct discussions with Steve K4CJX and Vic W5SMM. Despite early signs of receptiveness, they made it clear that they would not use anything we developed. SCAMP was already under development, though without a busy frequency detector. There were concerns about the choice of RDFT. Later, I was able to engage with Rick KN6KB and encourage him to include a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. I was not alone in this activity. If I made a contribution, it was in helping to convince Rick that while good would be a great first step, waiting for perfect could yield failure. Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 2000? If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Skip Teller has done this in Emcomm. PSK 31 to PSK250 with or without ARQ , and an email component too. Andy K3UK On 10/16/07, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, What about building a replacement now? It would be good for Emcomm (ARES MARS) to have a package that would support high speed without a high price. For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages. 2000? If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
That sounds great Andy. I sure would like to test this with you.
My station is off the air for a few days, will try for a sked with you
when it is back on.
Howard K5HB
- Original Message
From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:08:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Skip Teller has done this in Emcomm. PSK 31 to PSK250 with or
without
ARQ , and an email component too.
Andy K3UK
On 10/16/07, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
What about building a replacement now? It would be good for
Emcomm (ARES MARS) to have a package that would
support high speed without a high price.
For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net
and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages.
2000?
If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our
goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better
transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of
hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb. com
(QSL via N2RJ)
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
I should be fully functional on HF by the time your station is back on the air. Let me know where to get the software and we can setup a schedule. I have an 80m NIVS dipole with a tuner that will work most bands. I should be able to bounce to you from where I am north of Houston. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net http://thehamnetwork.net/ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brown Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys That sounds great Andy. I sure would like to test this with you. My station is off the air for a few days, will try for a sked with you when it is back on. Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Andrew O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:08:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys Skip Teller has done this in Emcomm. PSK 31 to PSK250 with or without ARQ , and an email component too. Andy K3UK On 10/16/07, Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:k5hb%40yahoo.com wrote: Dave, What about building a replacement now? It would be good for Emcomm (ARES MARS) to have a package that would support high speed without a high price. For my two cents, I would like a non-ARQ mode to run a net and then the package would use ARQ to transfer messages. 2000? If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb. com (QSL via N2RJ)
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
*** more AA6YQ comments --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? It did not start as a sound card mode. It dates back to the age of boxed controllers, around 1999. *** Pactor II and III didn't start as sound card modes and still aren't sound card modes, at least on a Windows PC. The basic cost of a PTC, nowadays, brand new, is around 600 euro. Of course it is not reasonable to ask it. And I HAVE NOT asked for it. *** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then what was your intention? Dave, how much actual operating do you do on the air? I have only heard you once on PSK31, around 14071. *** You'll find my digital mode stats in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/23572 *** I've never heard you at all, Jose. By your logic, you must never operate. How many times a PMBO has actually stepped on you? *** I have been QRM'd by what looked like Pactor II or Pactor III signals quite a few times on 40m and a couple of times on 30m. Only in the past couple of years have I been able to know for certain that these events were PMBOs by firing up the PTC-IIe that SCS sent me. *** I have also used Winlink, for whatever that's worth. ### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 years ago may now be practical. That is on a PC. I meant available technology in multimode controllers. Have the PTCs made by SCS evolved likewise? I think they haven't, in a similar amount. The PTC's so far only detect activity from modes alike to the mode it is set to. And so far, also, Pactor has proved to be a better protocol than SCAMP, and alive, with relatively frequent firmware updates. *** It is not necessary to implement the multimode busy frequency detector within the SCS box. Remember, its only PMBOs that need busy frequency detectors. One could run the SCAMP busy frequency detection software as process on the PMBO host (using a soundcard to monitor the RX output). The PMBO station management software would be modified to take the output of the SCAMP busy detector into account. Some time ago, I described the basic state flow for this approach in a thread here; it would likely be less than a day's work to implement, followed by some serious testing. ### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not. How many years ago? The SCAMP Protocol Specification Draft Rev Q is dated 2/1/2005. *** 10/15/2007 - 2/1/2005 looks like 2 years, 8 months, and 2 weeks ago to me. ### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an excuse for PMBO-generated QRM. I mentioned it because it is a physical fact. *** Its a physical fact that I fully acknowledge, and yet you accuse me of distorting physical facts. *** You even told that Steve Waterman said there is no hidden effect. And I told you he might have had his reasons, which I don't know, and are not my reasons. ### Yes -- my point was that you were accusing the wrong person of denying the hidden transmitter effect. The denial of this effect is implicit in the design of Winlink. I do not need to hide the existence of the hidden station effect. I believe on that, as a fact of life. I am not seeking excuses for the Winlink design. I just have been a user, and a grateful one, indeed. But if I understand reality is being twisted and confusion created, I feel it hard to remain silent. *** That's a serious accusation, Jose. Exactly where have I twisted reality or created confusion? ### The only evidence of hidden transmitter effect denial is in the system design of Winlink. I have not seen that statement with my own eyes. *** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter effect. *** Said another way, were Winlink's designers to acknowledge the existence of the hidden transmitter effect, they would also have to acknowledge that their PMBOs will occasionally QRM ongoing QSOs - which they have steadfastly refused to do. OK. I understand you will not come forward
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Practically speaking, there were two issues that the Winlink 2000 owners tried to address: 1) Have a workable sound card mode. SCAMP = Sound Card Amateur Messaging Protocol) 2) Have busy detection built in. There was no time as a beta tester that I did not have the busy signal detection. The two came hand in hand. The performance was excellent in detecting any kind of emission in the passband, including a computer carrier or any other constant carrier of this type. So you need to keep your own operating location clean as possible. It was also adjustable for the amount of signal it would not transmit over. The performance for ARQ data transfer was also excellent with good signals. It worked in a similar manner to what the HF DV operators require for adequate signal. This means that it needed a fall back mode as well and they did not plan for that, even though some of us pointed out that the RDFT protocol did not operate much below 10 dB S/N. The programmer was convinced that he could get it to work down to zero dB, but it just was not possible due to the limitations of the protocol. 73, Rick, KV9U Rud Merriam wrote: SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of software and capability. SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it for file transfer and ARQ. Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with SCAMP. Just trying to keep the confusion and subsequent misinformation to a minimum.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein wrote: *** more AA6YQ comments SNIP *** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then what was your intention? I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything as you so quickly imagined. If you own one PTC, you could have told that before I did, instead of making people believe, by omission, that PMBO's operate with no activity detection at all. SNIP *** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. Yes, the same assumption made for the previously existent RTTY mailboxes, APLINK, etc. This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter effect. This is the one you cooked up, seemingly, in a late reduction to absurd scheme. You have been very convincing, indeed. SNIP OK. I understand you will not come forward with a better SCAMP. *** Actually, Jose, I recruited Bob N4HY and Peter G3PLX to work with me on developing a soundcard-based protocol that would replace Pactor as the transport for Winlink. But the WinLink guys made it clear that they would never use it, so we stopped. Very capable persons indeed. Why then did your quest for the poor guys access to improved digital communications vanish so easily? Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. So far, as all can see, after a lot of words, the situation remains exactly the same, and I foresee no real solutions this way. It is a pity that the increasingly contorted exchange has just been a loss of time. 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
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *** Then why did you bring up the point that PMBOs can detect ongoing QSOs in Pactor? If you weren't suggesting this as a solution, then what was your intention? I was merely describing a fact, not suggesting anything as you so quickly imagined. If you own one PTC, you could have told that before I did, instead of making people believe, by omission, that PMBO's operate with no activity detection at all. My oft-stated position is that Winlink PMBOs rely on the remote initiator to verify that that the frequency is clear -- an approach that is unreliable due to the hidden transmitter effect. The fact that PMBOs can detect Pactor signals indeed means that keyboard-to- keyboard Pactor QSOs are protected from PMBO QRM. Keyboard-to- keyboard Pactor QSOs represent a very small percentage of overall keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs, so the fact that PMBOs don't QRM them is of no consequence to anyone except that small minority using Pactor for their keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs. SNIP *** Then let me help you see it, Jose: WinLink is based on the assumption that the remote initiator can reliably verify that the frequency is clear before activating a PMBO. Yes, the same assumption made for the previously existent RTTY mailboxes, APLINK, etc. People once assumed the world was flat. Does that mean its okay to design navigation systems based on that assumption? This assumption can only be true if there is no hidden transmitter effect. This is the one you cooked up, seemingly, in a late reduction to absurd scheme. You have been very convincing, indeed. The truth is usually pretty convincing once you clean off all the spin people hang on it. If you disagree, then please explain how the assumption can be true given that there is a hidden transmitter effect. Very capable persons indeed. Why then did your quest for the poor guys access to improved digital communications vanish so easily? Why do you assume it vanished so easily? Were you there? Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. So far, as all can see, after a lot of words, the situation remains exactly the same, and I foresee no real solutions this way. It is a pity that the increasingly contorted exchange has just been a loss of time. You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated none of them. You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon which my opposition to system designs like Winlink's has rested for years. You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the Winlink team and remains in their possession. The only conclusion I can reach is that you personally like using Winlink, and will say anything to rationalize your continued use of a system that QRMs other amateur radio operators. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein escribió: You've made lots of wild allegations, Jose, but substantiated none of them. Who? Me? The one who has attempted to make me slip on a banana peel is you, . That is unnaceptable, and a waste of time. You've accused me of denying the basic principal upon which my opposition to system designs like Winlink's has rested for years. That is what you made us understand by assuming the same position of what you say to be refuting. You did so very well. You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the Winlink team and remains in their possession. Where? No, once again, dont put ýour phrasing in my words. I did not. The only conclusion I can reach is that you personally like using Winlink, and will say anything to rationalize your continued use of a system that QRMs other amateur radio operators. Man thinks as he lives. Obviously, what does not serve your purposes and views is wrong, or whatever adjective you choose to hang on it. That's your point of view. Be happy with it. Enough. 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] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave seems to have the high ground on this discussion. Some of Jose's comments lately seem to be very specious, which surprises me since he has normally been fairly logical in his comments. I am concerned that Jose is claiming that Dave does not accept the hidden transmitter issue, which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very least an apology is in order for deliberately misconstruing Dave's actual viewpoints. If Winlink 2000 proponents claimed that there is no hidden transmitter problem, then they are on denial of basic physics. There can even be non reciprocal two way transmissions where one signal is much stronger in one direction than the other. Arguing about who is operates on the air the most is completely specious and tells me that the person arguing that point realizes they are unable to support their position. I am not sure if I have ever worked Dave or Jose but does it really have anything to do with the topic? Of course it does not. An SWL can see what is going on. The only reason that the busy signal detector was not further developed for use by the automatic stations in the Winlink 2000 system is a decision made by the owners of the system. Not because it did not work, since it worked very well. Steve, K4CJX and Rick, KN6KB have said repeatedly over the years, that they welcome additional programmer assistance but they claim that no one who has agreed to work with them will follow through and they gave up on them. They used to make this claim about Linux support as well. Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP? Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 2000? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: Dave said: *** Actually, Jose, I recruited Bob N4HY and Peter G3PLX to work with me on developing a soundcard-based protocol that would replace Pactor as the transport for Winlink. But the WinLink guys made it clear that they would never use it, so we stopped. Jose said: Your repeated postings about this anti Winlink stuff, as I understood, denying the existence of the hidden station effect. If you finally admit it DOES exist, that's OK with me.
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments bloew --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the Winlink team and remains in their possession. Where? No, once again, dont put ýour phrasing in my words. I did not. Here are your words, Jose: It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... The above quote was cut and pasted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/23961 I added the quotes in either end. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP? This occurred in the fall of 2004. I held direct discussions with Steve K4CJX and Vic W5SMM. Despite early signs of receptiveness, they made it clear that they would not use anything we developed. SCAMP was already under development, though without a busy frequency detector. There were concerns about the choice of RDFT. Later, I was able to engage with Rick KN6KB and encourage him to include a busy frequency detector in SCAMP. I was not alone in this activity. If I made a contribution, it was in helping to convince Rick that while good would be a great first step, waiting for perfect could yield failure. Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 2000? If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
If PSKMail existed back then, I wasn't aware of it. It was not our goal to replace Winlink, but rather to provide it with a better transport protocol that could use PC-hosted soundcards instead of hardware TNCs and would not QRM other stations. So why do we not have such a thing today?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments bloew --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the Winlink team and remains in their possession. Where? No, once again, dont put ýour phrasing in my words. I did not. Here are your words, Jose: It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... Couldn't a Competent programmer un-self destroy one of the time expired copies? Kevin VK5OA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Beware ! Do you see how you act? Nowhere in my text it says it is useless, it just says it is unavailable. Isn't it ? Those are very different words. Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments bloew --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've argued that the SCAMP busy detector is useless because its not publicly available, even though it was developed by the Winlink team and remains in their possession. Where? No, once again, dont put ýour phrasing in my words. I did not. Here are your words, Jose: It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... The above quote was cut and pasted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/23961 I added the quotes in either end. 73, Dave, AA6YQ __ 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] Re: Imitating the big guys
Rick wrote: Dave seems to have the high ground on this discussion. Some of Jose's comments lately seem to be very specious, which surprises me since he has normally been fairly logical in his comments. I am concerned that Jose is claiming that Dave does not accept the hidden transmitter issue, which is preposterous! I have seen Dave's comments many times and a major concern that he and others have is that there is the hidden transmitter effect. What is going on here, Jose? I think at the very least an apology is in order for deliberately misconstruing Dave's actual viewpoints. Rick, initially I understood he was denying the existence of the hidden station. It has not been my intention at all to deliberately miscontrue his viewpoint. I accept I am fallible and that may have I misunderstood his point when reading not in a full context. I may have been misled. English is not my mother tongue. I gain nothing in discrediting anyone on a false ground, that is also unnacceptable to me. David himself has explained that he assumed the Winlink's position to deny its validity. But initially I understood the contrary, which left me bewildered. I have not seen anywhere such a denial made by the Winlink team themselves. I have been after the truth, and nothing else. I understand the hidden station effect is UNDENIABLE, and I find the denial of a proven physical unnaceptable, to say the least. What is needed? An apology that it was a misunderstanding? Haven't I told it already in a implicit way? It appears in the last paragraph you quote. If a explicit phrase is needed, here it goes: Mr. Bernstein, sorry if I misunderstood you. Is that OK now, Rick? But I have seen my statements misconstrued, and attempts that I justify things I did not state. Objectively, persisting in the clarification of every tiny detail has solved nothing, and actually has led to a verbal escalation. It is a worthless endeavour. Jose, CO2JA If Winlink 2000 proponents claimed that there is no hidden transmitter problem, then they are on denial of basic physics. There can even be non reciprocal two way transmissions where one signal is much stronger in one direction than the other. Arguing about who is operates on the air the most is completely specious and tells me that the person arguing that point realizes they are unable to support their position. I am not sure if I have ever worked Dave or Jose but does it really have anything to do with the topic? Of course it does not. An SWL can see what is going on. The only reason that the busy signal detector was not further developed for use by the automatic stations in the Winlink 2000 system is a decision made by the owners of the system. Not because it did not work, since it worked very well. Steve, K4CJX and Rick, KN6KB have said repeatedly over the years, that they welcome additional programmer assistance but they claim that no one who has agreed to work with them will follow through and they gave up on them. They used to make this claim about Linux support as well. Now Dave, you are claiming that three of the top programmers of radio amateur software in the world offered to help Winlink 2000 and they turned you down? When did this happen? Before they developed SCAMP? Why didn't you and Peter and Bob give some consideration to a PSKmail type of system which gets around some of the shortcomings of Winlink 2000? 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: Dave said: *** Actually, Jose, I recruited Bob N4HY and Peter G3PLX to work with me on developing a soundcard-based protocol that would replace Pactor as the transport for Winlink. But the WinLink guys made it clear that they would never use it, so we stopped. Jose said: Your repeated postings about this anti Winlink stuff, as I understood, denying the existence of the hidden station effect. If you finally admit it DOES exist, that's OK with me. __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't. There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't. There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands. 73 de SV1UY Correction, Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the wide digital subbands. The wide modes don't usually have a problem. This way your narrow QSOs will be in their own subbabd and you will not be crying when a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you. Just like you never take a hike in the highway because the fast cars will run over you. 73 de SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions of the bands. Correction, Don't operate anything else than wide digital in the wide digital subbands. The wide modes don't usually have a problem. This way your narrow QSOs will be in their own subbabd and you will not be crying when a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you. Just like you never take a hike in the highway because the fast cars will run over you. That's progress, Demetre. You acknowledge that the remote initiator ensures the frequency is clear scheme is unreliable, and that the result can be a PACTOR PMBO steps all over you. The operators of wide digital modes are no less disgusted when stepped on by an unattended station than are operators of narrower modes. And as I mentioned in my response to Jose, the sub-bands in which unattended operation is permitted vary between regions. Thus an operator using a frequency on which unattended operation is not permitted in her region could be stepped on by a PMBO operating in a region where that frequency lies in an unattended sub-band. In the land of HF, the hiking paths and highways overlap. Thus, your simple and logical solution simply doesn't work. We need polite drivers. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein wrote: AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip There are physical mechanisms in radio propagation that creates hidden stations. So do losses, distance, natural obstacles, and finite propagation paths. I even had thought it was a well known and accepted fact by knowledgeable people. But seems it isn't, at least, yet. If you check this reflector's archives, you'll find messages from Steve K4CJX, a member of the Winlink team, claiming that there is no hidden transmitter effect. Well, with all due respect, I stand on my own words. If Steve Waterman said so, I don't know, and don't know why and on which context. Nevertheless, I am not the only one convinced of the fact that nobody hears everybody, always. If it wasn't true, as one different example, cell phones could not exist. Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme clearly fails in a hidden station scenario? If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO. What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors. That is something else. I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with APLINK or Winlink Classic. Your argument seems to be because there can be hidden stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them. No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth. snip Radio has been proved not to be an ethernet backbone on which everybody hears everybody all around the world. Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible. I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode. The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even more attacks. It is really sad. SNIP Railroad tracks are an indisputably obvious marker, and their right-of-way is owned by the railroad; if you camp on railroad tracks and are struck by a train, its your own fault. So far we agree. There are no such obvious markers on frequencies in which unattended operation is permitted, the frequencies available for unattended operation vary from region to region, and these frequencies are not exclusively allocated to unattended operation. No unattended station can QRM a pre-existing QSO on the grounds that it owns the right-of-way. There is a window opening in 2009, with new ham bands limits. It seems that there is more harmonizing work to be done by IARU. SNIP There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector; Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well it worked. Rick has proved to be really brilliant. Is then such a source or algorithm already in the public domain ? If it is so, why isn't it already known and widely available? Can you elaborate on this? Can you provide a link to it? Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team; he could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to include the SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink organization interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost would be an additional soundcard for each PMBO. You are here again demanding them to please you. I believe it is clearly off-topic on this list. SNIP What all of this should be is about getting someone capable enough to come forward with a working solution available to all. So far, all the previous preaching has proven unable to achieve so. There has been not one report of failure by any developer attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in unattended stations. Why? Because it works perfectly well, or because nobody has achieved it entirely? The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not been deployed. Well, we are reaching a point where people will be afraid of publishing their findings, because their ideas can be used in more ways than what they foresaw, and with opposite ends. It is really sad... Haven't we had enough of it already? I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be made -- or when someone demonstrates that they aren't fallacious. So we arrive to a new definition of fallacious: whatever does not fit your own mental scheme. Certainly, we can see all you are attempting to do is exhausting those who disagree with you...but that by
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
+++more AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme clearly fails in a hidden station scenario? If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO. +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors. That is something else. +++I am demanding that PMBOs not transmit on a busy frequency. Winlink's system design is flawed -- it ignores the hidden transmitter effect. They should either correct the design, or QRT. A multi-mode busy frequency detector is one solution -- and one the Winlink team itself has developed and demonstrated. I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with APLINK or Winlink Classic. +++The fact that someone got away with poor engineering in the past is no excuse for poor engineering in the present. Soundcard software has dramatically expanded the number of digital mode users on the bands, so the impact of poorly engineered station management software is much greater. Your argument seems to be because there can be hidden stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them. No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth. +++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM generated by PMBOs? Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible. I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode. +++I'm not familiar with this previous techology Jose, but if it involved an unattended station relying on a remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency, then its design was flawed. I'm guessing that the timeframe preceded the explosion of digital mode usage stimulated by soundcard software, which would mean that there were far fewer operators around to be QRM'd. The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even more attacks. It is really sad. Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem, but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad. There are no such obvious markers on frequencies in which unattended operation is permitted, the frequencies available for unattended operation vary from region to region, and these frequencies are not exclusively allocated to unattended operation. No unattended station can QRM a pre-existing QSO on the grounds that it owns the right-of-way. There is a window opening in 2009, with new ham bands limits. It seems that there is more harmonizing work to be done by IARU. +++That's great, Jose. So Winlink should either QRT until we have these harmonized worldwide unattended only band segments, or it should correct its design so that other amateurs aren't QRM'd. There is no secret sauce in the SCAMP busy frequency detector; Rick KN6KB prototyped it quickly, and was surprised by how well it worked. Rick has proved to be really brilliant. Is then such a source or algorithm already in the public domain ? If it is so, why isn't it already known and widely available? Can you elaborate on this? Can you provide a link to it? +++The publication of Rick's design is irrelevant, Jose. Rick is a member of the Winlink development team. There is nothing stopping the Winlink organization from deploying it in their PMBOs. Furthermore, Rick is a member of the WinLink Development team; he could extend the existing WinLink PMBO implementation to include the SCAMP busy frequency detector, were the WinLink organization interested in reducing QRM. Worst case, the cost would be an additional soundcard for each PMBO. You are here again demanding them to please you. +++I expect Winlink to abide by the rules and regulations governing amateur radio There has been not one report of failure by any developer attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in unattended stations.
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude. I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a lot since then. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre: In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude. I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a lot since then. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre: In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap. You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend! 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
The overlap is the reality, Demetre. You may not like it, but you must respect it and operate accordingly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre: In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap. You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend! 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein wrote: +++more AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, hidden stations are absolutely a fact of life on HF. Why then would anyone deploy an unattended station that relies on a remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency when this scheme clearly fails in a hidden station scenario? If the other user on the channel would be in the same mode, carrier detection on the PTC itself would stop the answer of the PMBO. +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector. It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of could be but did not get to be... What you are demanding is that they use multimode activity detectors. That is something else. +++I am demanding that PMBOs not transmit on a busy frequency. Winlink's system design is flawed -- it ignores the hidden transmitter effect. They should either correct the design, or QRT. A multi-mode busy frequency detector is one solution -- and one the Winlink team itself has developed and demonstrated. Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ? I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is available: the same stuff. Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network. Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not. I repeat again, it did not happen on packet, and did not happen with APLINK or Winlink Classic. +++The fact that someone got away with poor engineering in the past is no excuse for poor engineering in the present. Soundcard software has dramatically expanded the number of digital mode users on the bands, so the impact of poorly engineered station management software is much greater. Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has changed. Your argument seems to be because there can be hidden stations, its okay for unattended stations to QRM them. No, I did not. Don't put your words in my mouth. +++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM generated by PMBOs? No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact (hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable technology (SCAMP). So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is merely daydreaming. That goes beyond the scope of winlink, pactor and ham communications. Agreed. And so deploying unattended stations whose considerate operation requires that everybody hear everybody is irresponsible. I believe a bit of knowledge of history is in order. Winlink 2K evolved from previous technology, which, as far as I know was never disputed, because everybody accepted that certain frequencies were used and their carrier detectors only detected the same mode. +++I'm not familiar with this previous techology Jose, but if it involved an unattended station relying on a remote initiator to ensure a clear frequency, then its design was flawed. I'm guessing that the timeframe preceded the explosion of digital mode usage stimulated by soundcard software, which would mean that there were far fewer operators around to be QRM'd. No, I am referring to the ages when Internet transfer was not the norm, and automated stations called each other. Nowadays, the big bellies have Internet, Internet2 and such stuff. The barefoot have even less, and the digital divide is actually growing. The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions. Rick Muething attempted to do it better and please more people. But his work has only opened the grounds for some other people to start even more attacks. It is really sad. Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that QRM other operators. Rich developed a good solution to this problem, but the Winlink organization won't deploy it. Yes, its really sad. So a question is in order. Why, beyond what has been discussed here and all know, it was not deployed? Do you have any inside info we don't? There are no such obvious
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Part of the problem is that there is a misunderstanding about who should operate where. In the US at least, the frequencies shown for automated wideband operation are NOT reserved or allocated for this purpose. These are the frequencies automated stations using wideband signals are restricted to. There are no corresponding restrictions that prevent any amateur from using these frequencies for any other purpose allowed. Consequently, the hiking trails and highways are exactly the same. There is no difference. Automated wideband signals however, are restricted to certain trails/highways but are expected to observe rules such that no one, whether on foot or in a vehicle, gets run over! To imply that pedestrians should not use the trails/highways where vehicles are allowed also implies that the rules no longer apply to the vehicles! And this is where the number of pedestrians outnumber the vehicles by 10 to 1. One of the rules of the highway/trail is that automated stations, whether attended or unattended, have a responsibility to not create harmful interference. Harmful interference does not need to be willful or malicious. In other words, an unattended automatically controlled station can create harmful interference. The FCC has issued numerous enforcement letters to repeater operators that they can no longer operate their repeaters while unattended by a control operator. The same thing can happen to automatic stations. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein aa6yq@ wrote: You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre: In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap. You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend! 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
### more AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. ### If you can't design an unattended system that won't QRM other stations, then that system should never be deployed in the first place. The fact that bad things were done in the past is no excuse for continuing to do them. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector. ### Busy frequency detection is a band-aid for a bad system design. Rick KN6KB developed the busy frequency detector in SCAMP with encouragement from me and many others to address the fundamental flaw in Winlink. The SCAMP beta test demonstrated far better performance than implied in your use of the word possibility above, Jose. But as I've pointed out here in earlier threads, a busy frequency detector need not be perfect to be helpful. A busy frequency detector that only prevents QRM 80% of the time would reduce the incidence of QRM by a factor of 5. In actual practice, SCAMP performed even better than that. It is funny to see how the expectations of people change without the real world doing likewise. Actually, the SCAMP concept was tested, but actually does not exist. The old versions expired and self distroyed, and no new versions exist. To the community, that is thin air... ### That's completely untrue, Jose. The SCAMP design and implementation remain in the hands of the Winlink Development team, with nothing stopping them from deploying it. The community does not need access to the SCAMP busy frequency detector; its Winlink that needs access, and its had that access for years. SCAMP and its advanced features remain in the land of could be but did not get to be... ### As pointed out above, this is simply untrue. snip Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ? ### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 years ago may now be practical. I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is available: the same stuff. ### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not. Of course, if YOU convince them to QRT, you need no zombie network. Brilliant. Could you achieve that? Seemingly not. ### My objective is the minimization of QRM from unattended systems like Winlink, not the termination of these systems. I really don't care how they solve this problem, though I've made several constructive attempts to help them. If the Winlink organization would rather monitor each PMBO 24x7 to ensure no transmission on busy frequencies, that's fine with me. In my technical opinion, busy frequency detectors are the most practical solution, but its not my decision to make. Again, a concept was tested. Period. It is not AVAILABLE. So there are no changes available to the public. Then, in fact, nothing has changed. ### Not true. The SCAMP busy frequency detector is available to the Winlink Development team. Its been available for years. Public access to the design is not required for Winlink to incorporate the SCAMP busy frequency detector into its PMBOs. +++OK, then what was the point of your bringing up the hidden transmitter effect if not to offer it as an excuse for the QRM generated by PMBOs? No, you keep on insisting on something contrary to a physical fact (hidden stations), that could be remedied using some unavailable technology (SCAMP). ### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an excuse for PMBO-generated QRM. ### Second, I am insisting on nothing contrary to any physical fact. Existence of the hidden transmitter effect is unquestionable. The only evidence of hidden transmitter effect denial is in the system design of Winlink. ### Third, you continuously refer to SCAMP as unavailable technology despite the fact that it lies in the hands of the Winlink Development team. So far, without a tangible solution, such kind of busy detection is merely daydreaming. ### The Winlink development team has possessed a tangible solution -- SCAMP -- for years. snip Rick is part of the Winlink organization, which deploys PMBOs that QRM other
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do either. Is that an unreasonable requirement also. Or how the washer to do what the dryer will do... If you want to play pactor 2 or 3 you need the right tools. The sound card does have it's limits. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
You've taken this out of context, John. Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence. You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for you. But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being QRM'd would be outrageous. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do either. Is that an unreasonable requirement also. Or how the washer to do what the dryer will do... If you want to play pactor 2 or 3 you need the right tools. The sound card does have it's limits. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Sorry, the second sentence of my post below was intended to be Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit if there's a Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up whenever we were QRM'd. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've taken this out of context, John. Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence. You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for you. But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being QRM'd would be outrageous. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: At 09:06 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. Gee I Dave I can't get my pick up to do what my bass boat will do either. Is that an unreasonable requirement also. Or how the washer to do what the dryer will do... If you want to play pactor 2 or 3 you need the right tools. The sound card does have it's limits. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
He is right. Any pactor will know if another pactor station is on frequency. But in fact I have 2, count em one, two - SCS TNC's. John, W0JAB in the center of fly over country At 09:58 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: You've taken this out of context, John. Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence. You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for you. But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being QRM'd would be outrageous. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He is right. Any pactor will know if another pactor station is on frequency. But in fact I have 2, count em one, two - SCS TNC's. John, W0JAB in the center of fly over country At 09:58 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: You've taken this out of context, John. Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit there's a Pactor signal on frequency, implying that we should protect ourselves from PMBO QRM by purchasing a Pactor modem that we'd quickly fire up whenever we were QRM'd. Alternatively, we could all stop using PSK, RTTY, Olivia, Domino etc. and do all of our digital mode QSOing in Pactor; then Winlink PMBOs would detect and respect our presence. You already have a modem, so there'd be no financial burden for you. But for most digital mode users, have to buy a modem to avoid being QRM'd would be outrageous. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of software and capability. SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it for file transfer and ARQ. Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with SCAMP. Just trying to keep the confusion and subsequent misinformation to a minimum. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Why would they have to have to purchase a TNC? My question is why would some one running HELL last week keep calling CQ when I know damn well they *knew* there was a pactor QSO already on the frequency for a half hour. Answer: Their thinking it was a robot. At 11:00 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
I don't think there's any confusion or misinformation in referring to the busy detector incorporated in SCAMP as the SCAMP busy detector. Its not like its ever appeared anywhere else... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of software and capability. SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it for file transfer and ARQ. Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with SCAMP. Just trying to keep the confusion and subsequent misinformation to a minimum. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Your terminology trips you up. As I pointed out, the busy detector was not incorporated into SCAMP. It was tested simultaneously. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:23 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys I don't think there's any confusion or misinformation in referring to the busy detector incorporated in SCAMP as the SCAMP busy detector. Its not like its ever appeared anywhere else... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rud Merriam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SCAMP and busy detection are two entirely different pieces of software and capability. SCAMP took the RDFT image transfer protocol and added pieces to it for file transfer and ARQ. Busy detection was a totally separate activity in parallel with SCAMP. Just trying to keep the confusion and subsequent misinformation to a minimum. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. The only thing that has changed is that the community learned that USING SCAMP there is a POSSIBILITY of avoiding collisions with its busy detector. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM. In other words, since PMBOs are only capable of detecting pre- existing QSOs in Pactor, everyone should simply switch to Pactor for all QSOs. PMBO QRM problem solved. This reminds me of a suggestion I made when Data General was trying to design its first minicomputer-based supermarket scanner. The guys were having a terrible time recovering UPC data with their laser and spinning octagonal mirror. I suggested that client stores be directed to package all food items in units costing $1. Then the laser/mirror kludge could be replaced with an optical counter; no change drawers required, either. Problem solved 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would they have to have to purchase a TNC? My question is why would some one running HELL last week keep calling CQ when I know damn well they *knew* there was a pactor QSO already on the frequency for a half hour. Answer: Their thinking it was a robot. At 11:00 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: There is no debate about Pactor modems being capable of detecting Pactor stations on frequency. The debate is whether or not its reasonable for digital mode operators not interested in Pactor to have to purchase a Pactor modem in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
At 11:31 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM. Yeah there you go. So Mr. programmer write a program. End of problem. Oh I forgot for a moment that has been tried already. Don't forget the waterfall. The XYL has one of them in the garden.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Dave Bernstein wrote: ### more AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +++That's an unreasonable requirement, Jose, especially given that PMBOs use a protocol that can't be implemented with soundcard software on a Windows PC. The cheapest Pactor TNC capable of running Pactor II and III costs in the range of $1K. Are you suggesting that all digital hams must purchase one of these in order to protect themselves from Winlink QRM? It did not start as a sound card mode. It dates back to the age of boxed controllers, around 1999. The basic cost of a PTC, nowadays, brand new, is around 600 euro. Of course it is not reasonable to ask it. And I HAVE NOT asked for it. In the ages of the early Winlinks I built my own terminal unit with my own hands, adapted to the existences in my junk box and operated Pactor with a software TNC. It was that way before the SCAMP concepts were known. ### If you can't design an unattended system that won't QRM other stations, then that system should never be deployed in the first place. The fact that bad things were done in the past is no excuse for continuing to do them. Dave, how much actual operating do you do on the air? I have only heard you once on PSK31, around 14071. How many times a PMBO has actually stepped on you? SNIP Is the available technology different to what it was in 2003 ? ### Of course; at constant cost, we have 2-4X more CPU cycles now that we did then. Algorithms that were computationally out of reach 4 years ago may now be practical. That is on a PC. I meant available technology in multimode controllers. Have the PTCs made by SCS evolved likewise? I think they haven't, in a similar amount. The PTC's so far only detect activity from modes alike to the mode it is set to. And so far, also, Pactor has proved to be a better protocol than SCAMP, and alive, with relatively frequent firmware updates. I don't see a reason to expect anything different now, using what is available: the same stuff. ### The SCAMP busy detector (as it existed years ago) could be deployed in Winlink PMBOs today and reduce QRM by a significant factor. Could it be improved; almost certainly. Would this improvement be a prerequisite for deployment? Absolutely not. How many years ago? The SCAMP Protocol Specification Draft Rev Q is dated 2/1/2005. SNIP ### First, I'll note that you didn't answer the question I posed: why did you bring up the hidden transmitter effect if not to use it as an excuse for PMBO-generated QRM. I mentioned it because it is a physical fact. You even told that Steve Waterman said there is no hidden effect. And I told you he might have had his reasons, which I don't know, and are not my reasons. I do not need to hide the existence of the hidden station effect. I believe on that, as a fact of life. I am not seeking excuses for the Winlink design. I just have been a user, and a grateful one, indeed. But if I understand reality is being twisted and confusion created, I feel it hard to remain silent. ### Second, I am insisting on nothing contrary to any physical fact. Existence of the hidden transmitter effect is unquestionable. Good ! The only evidence of hidden transmitter effect denial is in the system design of Winlink. I have not seen that statement with my own eyes. SNIP So a question is in order. Why, beyond what has been discussed here and all know, it was not deployed? Do you have any inside info we don't? ### The only information I have is what Rick KV9U quoted earlier today. Paraphrasing, the Winlink organization decided not to deploy busy frequency detection because it would mean their PMBOs might have to wait longer to acquire a frequency during non-emergency conditions. (Busy frequency detection would be disabled during emergencies). OK. I know that KV9U was one of the beta testers. SNIP Would you force Rick to act against his will? ### Of course not. If he or the Winlink team have some better way to stop their QRM, I don't care how they do it. OK ! If his design is really as irrelevant as you state, it means that you have all the facts to substitute it. Then it is not necessary to go against anyone's will, just come forward with your own design. ### That's completely false, Jose. OK. I understand you will not come forward with a better SCAMP. So, you have two choices: either shut them up or make it better. Which of those choices is easier for you? ### I would much rather they found a way to eliminate their QRM by a means other than going QRT. A different alternative. OK, seems sensible anyway. snip Please illuminate us not governed by Part 97. Where does it state so ? ### For those of us governed by part 97, the relevant citation is 97.101(d): No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
Demetre, We only need a modem with adaptive abilities for emergency communications messaging and files plus the use of e-mail or similar message store and forward systems. For normal keyboard use such modes are of limited value and since most take up a large amount of bandwidth, are to be avoided unless you need to use it. As an example, I would not normally use 2 kHz Olivia or MT-63 for a keyboard contact as that would be very poor operating procedures. However, if the conditions warrant the need for a better mode, I can support the wider modes. So a lot depends upon your operating interests. Very few hams are involved with emergency digital communications or with e-mail at this time. If e-mail actually became very popular, my view is that it would eventually have to be banned since it would take up too much band width. Same thing for phone patching, AM DSB operation, eSSB, etc. But since these niche interests are not done that much, they should have minimal impact on the majority of operators. It is my understanding that right now, the PC-ALE software program has the 8PSK2400 modem. While it can not be used on the text digital parts of the bands, it should be useful for at least testing the capabilities on the voice/image portions of the bands. Thus far, no one has come forward with any testing results. The only results we have heard about the Russian high speed modem, which uses the same 8PSK2400 waveform, or at least something very similar, is that it does not perform all that well. It may be that the reason for silence from the ALE proponents, who have built these modems into the programs, is that they don't work very well. I have asked many times and no response thus far. FAE is basically a slightly modified STANAG modem using the 8FSK125 mode. By the way, I would like to test this 8PSK2400 modem on the voice/image portions of the bands (as required here in the U.S.) and if anyone would like to test this, please contact me privately and we can try things out. We should be able to send picture files for sure. I should mention that in addition to contacting the ARRL CTO a while back about some of the questions I have vis a vis the FCC regulations, I had a number of further questions which I plan to send to the FCC. But before I did that, I sent them to the ARRL Regulatory Information Department and advised them that I had previously sent some of the questions to the CTO. They were not able to answer any of the questions that I had and forwarded them to the CTO, and I expect a response back soon. Then I will be sending a request to the FCC to determine their position (or lack thereof) on a number of digital issues that have not been dealt with here in the U.S. and I believe need to be fully vetted. Then we will have a better idea of what we can and can not do. And what we may want to request be changed. What bashing do you see towards Winlink 2000 in anything I have said? There is a very good likelihood that some illegal traffic is being sent since it is not possible for normal monitoring of other hams and, practically speaking, this is true even if you have the $1000 modem. We do know that some fake illegal messages were sent from EU in the past to test how well the system worked to detect business type messages. I don't know how many messages get through but some apparently do. Eventually, if the offenders are caught, they are blocked from using the system. The rules here in the U.S. are no different than when BBS systems are handling similar traffic. I agree that if we don't use a system regularly, then when we need it, we won't know how to use it, or little things will not be in place, etc. and it may not work. That is really the only reason that I can support e-mail via ham radio. If it was not for the emergency component or public service, I would strongly oppose this. As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with my equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good as MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I have tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I have used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am sorry to report that, because I really thought that I would like it, considering the intense hype about Linux. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well exactly! In ham radio we need a robust mode that can function in bad conditions as well as in good conditions and using only our modest 100 watts HF radios with our 2.4 KHZ filters. That is why we need a good modem that can do all that. Well I hope we can soon see some decent results from soundcard modes, which I doubt will happen soon. Also ALE for me is ALE and STANAG is STANAG. Better not mix the 2. There is also ARQ FAE, which isn't ALE either. ALE can use any mode after the link has been established, unless I'm wrong. I don't understand why
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
I keep trying Linux with the same reaction. In the past I worked on as many as three different computer systems and OSs with embedded system development. I could always easily adapt to whichever machine I was on. Linux just always drives me nuts trying to get aspects of it to work. I am trying it again but the network setup is fighting me. I am getting close to having HF digital running. The wire is on the fence and I just replaced the power connector on the IC706 with Powerpoles so it is ready to go. A Rigblaster interface is in the mail. I may operate from the backyard table for a little while to make sure the wire is an antenna that does something. Then I have to figure out how to bring the coax into the house. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:02 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with my equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good as MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I have tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I have used it and tried it out, the less impressed I have been:( I am sorry to report that, because I really thought that I would like it, considering the intense hype about Linux. 73, Rick, KV9U
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre, We only need a modem with adaptive abilities for emergency communications messaging and files plus the use of e-mail or similar message store and forward systems. For normal keyboard use such modes are of limited value and since most take up a large amount of bandwidth, are to be avoided unless you need to use it. As an example, I would not normally use 2 kHz Olivia or MT-63 for a keyboard contact as that would be very poor operating procedures. Hi Rick, We already have plenty of narrow soundcard modes for QSOing so I don't see the need for another one. We also have PACTOR I and II for QSOs which are ARQ and robust narrow modes. Plenty to pick from. However, if the conditions warrant the need for a better mode, I can support the wider modes. So a lot depends upon your operating interests. Very few hams are involved with emergency digital communications or with e-mail at this time. If e-mail actually became very popular, my view is that it would eventually have to be banned since it would take up too much band width. Same thing for phone patching, AM DSB operation, eSSB, etc. But since these niche interests are not done that much, they should have minimal impact on the majority of operators. Yes OK let's ban everything progressive. It is my understanding that right now, the PC-ALE software program has the 8PSK2400 modem. While it can not be used on the text digital parts of the bands, it should be useful for at least testing the capabilities on the voice/image portions of the bands. Thus far, no one has come forward with any testing results. The only results we have heard about the Russian high speed modem, which uses the same 8PSK2400 waveform, or at least something very similar, is that it does not perform all that well. It may be that the reason for silence from the ALE proponents, who have built these modems into the programs, is that they don't work very well. I have asked many times and no response thus far. FAE is basically a slightly modified STANAG modem using the 8FSK125 mode. I have used the Russian modem and FAE program a few times and today I had quite a few FAE QSOs on 20 m. Well FAE is OK when conditions are good, just like AX25 HF Packet, but it loses the link very easily if there is a slight QRM and noise. Not very effective in poor conditions which prevail the Ham HF bands. On 40 or 80m these modes don't have a lot of hopes because of the QRM and all the noise that prevail in these bands. By the way, I would like to test this 8PSK2400 modem on the voice/image portions of the bands (as required here in the U.S.) and if anyone would like to test this, please contact me privately and we can try things out. We should be able to send picture files for sure. Well I bet this mode will fail too, otherwise they have been bragging about it. What bashing do you see towards Winlink 2000 in anything I have said? There is a very good likelihood that some illegal traffic is being sent since it is not possible for normal monitoring of other hams and, practically speaking, this is true even if you have the $1000 modem. We do know that some fake illegal messages were sent from EU in the past to test how well the system worked to detect business type messages. I don't know how many messages get through but some apparently do. Eventually, if the offenders are caught, they are blocked from using the system. The rules here in the U.S. are no different than when BBS systems are handling similar traffic. I am not aware of any illegal messages in WInlink2000. The authorities in USA are able to trace messages as they pass through Internet from the PMBOs, if this is your problem, so no need to worry about this. They would have been caught by now if it was a matter of illegal activities. So really only amateur traffic passes via the Winlink2000 system otherwise they would have been caught by the authorities. Anyone who mentions illegal traffic bashes Winlink2000, and you did. I agree that if we don't use a system regularly, then when we need it, we won't know how to use it, or little things will not be in place, etc. and it may not work. That is really the only reason that I can support e-mail via ham radio. If it was not for the emergency component or public service, I would strongly oppose this. Hmmm. So digital radio hams are not supposed to use ham radio for e-mail. Well good job you are not the one who decides about our hobby then. As far as Linux OS goes, I have not been able to get it to work with my equipment to a satisfactory manner. It has to work at least as good as MS Windows XP and Vista, both of which are good for the end user. I have tried Linux off and on for over 5 years, but truthfully, the more I have used it and tried it out, the less
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand why all this bashing about illegal and commercial about Winlink2000. I wonder is it jealousy? Looks like it. Also I don't understand why a radio ham should not get/send e-mail via his radio! Is it illegal too? How can you expect anyone to participate in an emergency situation if he doesn't know how to operate his rig? He is not going to be enlightened by the holy spirit when the need arises. He needs to operate every day, more or less, in order to be proficient at it. There are some who claim that email messages should not be conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe there's any merit to this claim. The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of 97.101(d), which states No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. A PMBO's transmission is not malicious, but its definitely willful. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] AA6YQ comments below There are some who claim that email messages should not be conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don't believe there's any merit to this claim. I don't see the point of you mentioning it then. The allegation that WinLink 2000 is illegal, at least in the US, is based on the fact that its PMBOs transmit without first verifying that their frequency is not in use. This is a clear violation of 97.101(d), which states No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. A PMBO's transmission is not malicious, but its definitely willful. Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you keep coming back at it over and over. Any interference caused in Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is not the PMBO's fault but the initiator's fault who is responsible for any QRM because he has to listen for a while before he transmits, and he should also keep listening when in session with the PMBO. Myself and many others do this i n every session, even when in QSO using PSK31. Whoever does not do this does not follow good radio amateur practices, full stop. Automatic operation is only what F6FBB BBSes do in PACKET radio when they start MAIL FORWARDING. Winlink2000 PMBOs use only the Internet for exchanging traffic among them. Winlink2000 PMBOs don't even transmit beacons on HF every so often, like other systems do on HF. They only respond if and when they are called by a client and the client is responsible for the QRM they cause. So any claims that they cause willful interference is not true. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
I would hope that we continue to be progressive and develop new modes. Are you seriously saying that you oppose further development for keyboarding? And that we should no longer develop ARQ/robust modes because we have Pactor? Several of the modes I had referred to, such as AM and phone patching are very old technology and would not be considered progressive by anyone that has been involved in amateur radio for any length of time. On the other hand, we need to use some restraint if some automated modes become so popular that they disrupt shared frequencies. Amateur radio is not like commercial frequencies, even though some of you want this to change. All automated systems have some who are using it illegally to send commercial information. To think otherwise is very naive. I am not suggesting that Winlink 2000 is any different than other similar systems, only that we have no way of knowing because they do not share that information. They have shared that it does happen and that they do, in fact, remove and block people. I am also not saying that hams should not use e-mail via radio on amateur frequencies. But I am saying that if it became extremely common and disruptive, then many of us would demand redress and I can guarantee you that we would be able to get the rules changed. In terms of Pactor IV, if you noticed Steve H.'s recent comments on that very subject, it is likely that they would move toward the 8PSK2400 single tone modulation in order to get increased speed. What did you think of the information in the single tone modem document? In terms of computer OS preferences, I like to use the one that is commonly available and well supported so that my monitor can actually show proper resolution out of the box. XP and Vista does this flawlessly, Linux can not do this yet. Eventually it should do it. I have no problem with closed and proprietary software or FLOSS. I look for value and practical use as the most important things. Almost all the applications I use are open source or at least free software, whether Open Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, Media Monkey, and many ham programs. It is a constant progression from where we were at the beginning of computers. It won't suddenly stop, but will continue to evolve. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: We already have plenty of narrow soundcard modes for QSOing so I don't see the need for another one. We also have PACTOR I and II for QSOs which are ARQ and robust narrow modes. Plenty to pick from. Yes OK let's ban everything progressive. I am not aware of any illegal messages in WInlink2000. The authorities in USA are able to trace messages as they pass through Internet from the PMBOs, if this is your problem, so no need to worry about this. They would have been caught by now if it was a matter of illegal activities. So really only amateur traffic passes via the Winlink2000 system otherwise they would have been caught by the authorities. Anyone who mentions illegal traffic bashes Winlink2000, and you did. Hmmm. So digital radio hams are not supposed to use ham radio for e-mail. Well good job you are not the one who decides about our hobby then. Well keep using Microsoft then (a closed and proprietary system, just like an SCS modem) and stop complaining and preaching about open systems. I like to use both Linux and Microsoft even if I had to pay for Microsoft, just as I had to pay for my SCS modem, my HF radio etc, and even if Linux is more difficult, although I find UBUNTU and KUBUNTU a breeze to setup and use.
[digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Demetre SV1UY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see the point of you mentioning it then. You brought it up, Demetre. You said you didn't understand. I simply offered an explanation. Again this is an old horse already beaten to death many times, but you keep coming back at it over and over. I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be made. Any interference caused in Winlink2000's semi-automatic operations is not the PMBO's fault but the initiator's fault who is responsible for any QRM because he has to listen for a while before he transmits, and he should also keep listening when in session with the PMBO. Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds clear in Greece, and yet the PMBO's transmissions will QRM a station in Iceland that you cannot hear in Greece. The PMBO control operator cannot depend on you a remote initiator to ensure that his or her station never QRMs an ongoing QSO unless you have real-time access to the PMBO's receiver -- which you don't. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
