[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Dave Bernstein]

I have never heard a WinLink PMBO identify in CW. I'll do some tests 
with my SCS modem to see if disconnections *always* include an 
identification in either P1 or CW.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Dave
> When a P3 station disconnects there is an ID 
> in P1 or CW  or both.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> At 07:18 PM 9/15/2007, you wrote:
> >Since Pactor 3 can't be decoded with soundcard software and the SCS 
> >decoder is relatively expensive, most hams can't decode Pactor 3 
> >messages. Thus when QRM'd by an unattended Pactor 3 station, most 
> >hams can't determine the offending callsign and so can't initiate an 
> >appropriate action.
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Dave
When a P3 station disconnects there is an ID 
in P1 or CW  or both.

John, W0JAB

At 07:18 PM 9/15/2007, you wrote:
>Since Pactor 3 can't be decoded with soundcard software and the SCS 
>decoder is relatively expensive, most hams can't decode Pactor 3 
>messages. Thus when QRM'd by an unattended Pactor 3 station, most 
>hams can't determine the offending callsign and so can't initiate an 
>appropriate action.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Unfortunately this statement is only half true.



>The one thing that concerns me a great deal is that the automated 
>stations are not listening before transmitting and at least here in the 
>U.S. are operating illegally. And they even are open about this with 
>comments made by the administrator of Winlink 2000, that signal 
>detection is not practical because they would never find an open 
>frequency. This may be based upon their experiences with the SCAMP mode 
>that they invented that clearly demonstrated a full ability to provide 
>busy frequency detection. But the automatic users do not want to 
>implement these technologies.

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

Hi,

I am QRV now and until 15.00z at 14.105 KHZ (center frequency) on
PACTOR1, 2 or 3. I plan to do the same every Sunday from now on. 

You are all invited for a QSO.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

Hi Jose and all,

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> With packet forwarding, there was noone even attempting to park on a
> HF 
> forwarding frequency. Common sense prevailed (even when a few crazy 
> contesters sometimes attempted to overpower the BBS forwarding, 
> specially on CW and RTTY contests. Nobody even whined about it).

Common sense is what seems to have being lost nowadays I'm afraid Jose. 

> 
> As I remember, packet BBS's were not so few. Quite a few could be
> found 
> between 14090 and 14115, just to remember the 20 meters activity. I 
> have 
> been a BBS sysop using only radio links since 1991 (three FBB/JNOS 
> BBS's 
> and multiband nodes, and cooperated in setting up another three) and 
> operated in several bands in different seasons.

Indeed a big portion of 20m digital subband was full of them. There
are still a few around.

> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> PS: Doing whatever is interesting, fun or novel in ham radio since 1972.

OK Jose, I have been a licensed radio ham since 1983 and an SWL since
1970.

> Also, hoping this day is not the start of another anti-Winlink rant 
> flood campaign on digitalradio. Please, spare us the undeserved 
> suffering...this is not an appropiate forum for that anti-Winlink 
> whining. Most of us on this list are NOT Winlink 2K MBO operators.
> 

It shouldn't start anything since this is really an argument about
PACTOR 2 or 3 versus soundcard modes and not about Winlink2000. If
anyone wants to argue against Winlink2000, he will start arguing very
soon about PSKmail, ALE or any other messaging system that might be
developed because they are very similar systems. Arguing against a
system one cannot understand, use or does not like, does not promote
digital and amateur radio at all. There are many others who want to
use messaging systems.
 
After all amateur radio is not only about voice QSOs, RTTY, PSK and
all the variants, it has many aspects, many modes and we should all be
a bit more tolerant since we are only doing a hobby here and if
sometimes we cannot avoid the hidden transmitter syndrome (which by
the way does not cause problems all that often) and cause some QRM to
each other it is not the end of the world. Some seem to forget the
most important Radio Amateur Rule about "Courtesy". 

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Jose A. Amador]

Roger J. Buffington wrote:

> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> 
>>  First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it
>>  transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have
>>  their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
>>  operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and
>>  make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will
>>  make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the
>>  autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if
>>  in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good
>>  cause.
> 
> I doubt whether this has ever happened.  What if the robot interferes 
> with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed?  There is 
> no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without 
> listening first.  Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly 
> violate this basic principle of amateur radio.

What lifesaving operation hes been hampered  by a "pactor robot"?
Please name one instance of this happening. Factual data, please.
Does common law work on factual, or on imaginary precedents?

>> I think that this is called
>>  semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING
>>  taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was
>>  it OK then and it is not OK now?

> Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands in 
> which live QSOs usually were absent.  The Pactor stations, inexplicably, 
> insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which live 
> QSOs are present.  Further, the packet stations were few, and operating 
> at least in the USA under a limited STA.

With packet forwarding, there was noone even attempting to park on a HF 
forwarding frequency. Common sense prevailed (even when a few crazy 
contesters sometimes attempted to overpower the BBS forwarding, 
specially on CW and RTTY contests. Nobody even whined about it).

As I remember, packet BBS's were not so few. Quite a few could be found 
between 14090 and 14115, just to remember the 20 meters activity. I have 
been a BBS sysop using only radio links since 1991 (three FBB/JNOS BBS's 
and multiband nodes, and cooperated in setting up another three) and 
operated in several bands in different seasons.

Jose, CO2JA

PS: Doing whatever is interesting, fun or novel in ham radio since 1972.
Also, hoping this day is not the start of another anti-Winlink rant 
flood campaign on digitalradio. Please, spare us the undeserved 
suffering...this is not an appropiate forum for that anti-Winlink 
whining. Most of us on this list are NOT Winlink 2K MBO operators.




__

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: So there I was -

[Jose A. Amador]

The same happens with pactor, keyboard mode (also on packet).

You type, the message accumulates in the buffer, until you press the 
ENTER key, or exceed the buffer set size.

Jose, CO2JA

Rick wrote:

> The only mode I have ever used that comes close to the "feel" of Clover 
> II, is the new ALE FAE mode. Currently, it is a non-standard form of ALE 
> and only available on Multipsk. But after you make the connection, you 
> don't have to switch back and forth. I did not have good luck with the 
> mode working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF.
> 
> Additional testing would be helpful. Also, is anyone else testing this 
> mode? Any results to share?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U



__

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: So there I was -

[Jose A. Amador]

Hi all,

I would like to add my two cents.

 >Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
> free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer,
> but this is not possible unfortunatelly.

Something that is NEVER argued, but is very real

> Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore
> because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept
> on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. 

Addition to the list: HF AFSK 300 baud packet radio using Bell 103 tones.

> PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs
> poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as
> I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the
> military modes that use the $5000 modems. 

I also agree here. When I switched the FBB BBS forwarding from packet 
using Bell 103 tones to Pactor II it meant an average tenfold increase 
in daily forwarding traffic, from 100 kB to 1 MB. NOt bad for HF radio.
On packet, I had to run my linear at times, on pactor I had a perfcetly 
good link with Africa (1 hop away from Europe) with only 25 watts.

My regard is that some military modems rely too much in high power.
After all, overpowering seems to be the entrenched line of thought in 
their minds.

Something I see as unfair in rating the modems: As the S/N rating is 
based on a 3 kHz channel, it makes the wider modes look worse. A fair 
rating would be something based on densities per hertz occupied. With 
non rectangular spectrums, it is hard to rate fairly.

> I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am
> away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them
> in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers.
> 
> As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they
> are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer,
> e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as
> good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ,
> except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of
> 100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that
> PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance
> and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can
> do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can.

There is a conflict: keyboarders do not like long latencies, so their 
rating is based on "slickness", and speed above the average typing 
speeds does not matter much, while those engaged in moving traffic 
prefer the more robust and faster modes.

I see nothing with common characteistics to please all.

> Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is
> was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many
> years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were
> interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3
> because the soundcard digital modes are all you need. 
> 
> I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and found that unless I could
> hear very well the signal of my corresponded I could not decode
> anything, and then it was very touchy to any noise on HF. Since HF are
> very noisy I got sick of it and abandoned it. I have heard that the
> military modes that some have implemented to work with soundcards
> perform in the same way more or less because all the above need a good
> signal to work. 

I have not tried it but raw speed is not what only matters. For HF radio 
QPSK or QAM are the most complex constallations advisable.

> Now if I have to buy a 1 KW linear amplifier, a 3 element Yagi, a
> tower and an expensive rotator in order to make the soundcard modes
> work, thanks very much. I might save $1000 from the SCS modem but I
> would have to pay at least $5000 for a decent linear and a
> Yagi/tower/rotator combo.

Or build your own... I did 30 years ago, for DXing and contesting.

> This makes the PACTOR 3 modem really cheap because I can work PACTOR 3
> and send/receive e-mail or make a filetransfer on HF with my FT-817
> and a piece of wire tossed at a nearby tree or to a fishing pole if
> there are no trees around, and use a dead cheap secondhand laptop.

Factual truth, isn't it ?

> If this is not cheap for a decent HF Digital ARQ mode then I do not
> know what it is.
> 
> Nevertheless I would happily get rid of my PACTOR 3 controllers if I
> saw something that can do half as good as PACTOR 3 and it can perform
> well with a low power portable radio, and of course if it manages to
> transfer intact files on HF, not half intact as pure FEC systems can.

It seems that nothing is as elaborate or well thought as the SCS modems...


73,

Jose, CO2JA



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Rick]

The only mode I have ever used that comes close to the "feel" of Clover 
II, is the new ALE FAE mode. Currently, it is a non-standard form of ALE 
and only available on Multipsk. But after you make the connection, you 
don't have to switch back and forth. I did not have good luck with the 
mode working with a nearby station that I do tests with on HF.

Additional testing would be helpful. Also, is anyone else testing this 
mode? Any results to share?

73,

Rick, KV9U



jhaynesatalumni wrote:
> Yet I have one friend who it is hard to interest in any of the newer
> modes because he loves the quasi-duplex nature of Clover.
>
>
>   

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Dave Bernstein]

Since Pactor 3 can't be decoded with soundcard software and the SCS 
decoder is relatively expensive, most hams can't decode Pactor 3 
messages. Thus when QRM'd by an unattended Pactor 3 station, most 
hams can't determine the offending callsign and so can't initiate an 
appropriate action.

Independent of protocol, it would be a good idea for unattended 
digital mode stations to identify in CW at the beginning of each 5 
minute interval of operation; without this, the amateur community 
cannot effectively police itself. Such stations should be either be 
equipped with effective busy frequency detectors, or not permitted to 
run unattended.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> 
> >
> >  First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before 
it
> >  transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to 
have
> >  their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
> >  operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency 
and
> >  make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this 
will
> >  make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the
> >  autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world 
if
> >  in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good
> >  cause.
> 
> I doubt whether this has ever happened.  What if the robot 
interferes 
> with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed?  There 
is 
> no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without 
> listening first.  Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly 
> violate this basic principle of amateur radio.
> 
> Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in
> >  this case you canreport them to FCC.
> Often the Pactor stations don't even ID.
> 
> 
> >I think that this is called
> >  semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET 
FORWARDING
> >  taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. 
Why was
> >  it OK then and it is not OK now?
> Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands 
in 
> which live QSOs usually were absent.  The Pactor stations, 
inexplicably, 
> insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which 
live 
> QSOs are present.  Further, the packet stations were few, and 
operating 
> at least in the USA under a limited STA.
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>
>  First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it
>  transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have
>  their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
>  operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and
>  make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will
>  make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the
>  autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if
>  in a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good
>  cause.

I doubt whether this has ever happened.  What if the robot interferes 
with a live QSO in which lifesaving traffic is being passed?  There is 
no excuse for any station on either end ever transmitting without 
listening first.  Pactor mailboxes routinely, often, and flagrantly 
violate this basic principle of amateur radio.

Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in
>  this case you canreport them to FCC.
Often the Pactor stations don't even ID.


>I think that this is called
>  semi-automatic operation. In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING
>  taking place, non stop, day and night, noone was complaining. Why was
>  it OK then and it is not OK now?
Because the Packet stations were confined to a portion of the bands in 
which live QSOs usually were absent.  The Pactor stations, inexplicably, 
insist on operating in the small portions of the bands in which live 
QSOs are present.  Further, the packet stations were few, and operating 
at least in the USA under a limited STA.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Demetre, the problem is not the bandwidth, but as Skip Teller, KH6TY 
> try to point out:  "The number of times PACTOR stations override PSK31,
> PSK63, or CW communications is so great that the probability is that 
> they seldom, if ever, "listen first" in their passion to use the ham
> bands as an automatic gateway to send and receive email to and from the
> Internet.".
> 
> I have experienced this myself  many times on 20m, and because of its
> "great" capability to "keep the link", it never give up but squeeze you
> out. You will have this pitiful meeting with pactor almost all over the
> digital segment of 20m,  from 14.065 to 14.120 with some small gaps..
> 
> I have no trouble understanding those who call this a "pest".
> 
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar

Then you can report these stations Steinar. There are lids in every
mode. I always listen before I transmit, whether I use CW, SSB, SSTV,
PSK31 or PACTOR. Because some PACTOR operators are lids, it does not
mean that we are all like that. I can only understand the necessity to
transmit without listening only in an emergency situation. This is a
hobby and it should be kept like it. Let's all try and educate whoever
is a lid. But let's not condemn PACTOR 3 because of some lids.

I can tell you thousands of lid stories especially among contesters.
This does not make contests and the rest of the contesters bad. They
like contests, let them have them.

We can all share our bands happily.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Steinar Aanesland]

Demetre, the problem is not the bandwidth, but as Skip Teller, KH6TY 
try to point out:  "The number of times PACTOR stations override PSK31,
PSK63, or CW communications is so great that the probability is that 
they seldom, if ever, "listen first" in their passion to use the ham
bands as an automatic gateway to send and receive email to and from the
Internet.".

I have experienced this myself  many times on 20m, and because of its
"great" capability to "keep the link", it never give up but squeeze you
out. You will have this pitiful meeting with pactor almost all over the
digital segment of 20m,  from 14.065 to 14.120 with some small gaps..

I have no trouble understanding those who call this a "pest".

73 de LA5VNA Steinar





Demetre SV1UY skrev:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> , Steinar Aanesland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a "pactor
> > pest" or a "plague".
> >
> > Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/
> 
> >
> > Have a nice day.
> >
> > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
> Hi Steinar,
>
> With all due respect it is a matter of preference. If you are serious
> about digital filetransfer, e-mail networking etc, then PACTOR 3 is
> the way to go at the moment. If you want Digital QSOs then PSK31 is
> OK. I use both, but I never call any mode a pest. After all Pactor 3
> is in the in wideband portion of the band now. PACTOR 2 is where all
> the other DIGITAL modes are. RFSM2400 is in the wideband portion of
> the band too. Is this a Pest too? Is SSTV a pest too? Is DIGSSTV a
> pest too? Is FAX a pest too? Is Contesting a pest too? Is SSB voice a
> pest too? Don't tell me about the Winlink Mboxes that do not listen
> before they transmit because the SCS controllers have the option to
> listen before transmit. It is the Winlink people that have decided not
> to use it.
>
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>
>  

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All good points, Demetre,
> 
[snip]
> Thank you for the information on RFSM2400, as many of us suspected that 
> it would require a very good signal to work well. Once you reach a 
> threshold of adequate S/N, it probably works as they claim, but that
may 
> be well above zero dB. The need we have is to send ARQ data at moderate 
> speeds above zero dB, say 1000 wpm or so, and yet have a fall back to a 
> 100 wpm or even a bit less as the S/N deteriorates. As we found out the 
> hard way, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF
bands. 
> Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for 
> SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

OK Rick,

First off PACTOR 3 supports DCD control so it can listen before it
transmits. Now maybe the Winlink people have a good reason to have
their automatic MBOS not support the DCD control, but the human
operator that calls an automatic MBO can listen to the frequency and
make sure noone else is using it before he transmits. Also this will
make sure that if someone's life is in danger they can reach the
autoanswering MBO no matter what. It is not the end of the world if in
a rare occassion someone's QSO is ruined if it is for a good cause.
Now I can hear you saying that people can abuse this. Well in this
case you canreport them to FCC. I think that this is called
semi-automatic operation.
In the past when we had PACKET FORWARDING taking place, non stop, day
and night, noone was complaining. Why was it OK then and it is not OK now?
What about all the contesters that transmit wherever they want without
even asking if the frequency is on use? Do they own the frequency?
PACTOR MBOs and maybe ALE systems are just lurking there and if the
frequency is clear and someone calls them they respond. The way I use
WINLINK PACTOR MBOs is to first listen for a while, make sure the
frequency is not busy and the call. If the frequency is busy I QSY and
try to contact another MBO, the same way as before. If all the
frequencies that PACTOR MBOs are available are busy then I wait. It is
not the end of the world if I do not get through to them straight
away. But if my life or someone else's life is in danger, then I will
use the most available power and QRM anyone who is in the same
frequency. I think this is fair.

As for your last comment, I also wish there was a soundcard mode or a
system of combined soundcard modes that can do what PACTOR 3 can do.
There isn't any though. There isn't any soundcard mode that can do
even what PACTOR 2 can do. It is either impossible to develop as a
soundcard mode (which is the most likely to be true), or programmers
are too lazy to do it (which I don't believe so much), or programmers
want to make some money if they ever find the time to develop such a
beast. SCAMP is a perfect example of what cannot happen on HF. It was
good only when there was no noise. It lost the link at the slightest
noise. I followed this experiment all the way until it was abandoned,
and I don't believe that WINLINK people are paid agents of SCS 'cause
this is a story that has been mentioned as well by ignorant people in
many mailing lists. I don't think you do either.

In any case I am back to PACTOR 3 any day. I am not wasting my time
with PSK in a soundcard because I could be wishing and waiting until
2050 or later, if I'm still alive then! hi hi hi!!! I still like PSK31
for a QSO because this is way to make DX though but not for
filetransfers, e-mail etc over HF channels.

And remember PACTOR 3 is not WINLINK. Winlink uses PACTOR 3 (it is not
the only system that uses it) and if some think that they do not use
it correctly, well it is a matter of opinion.

Life is too short man, enjoy it while you can.

73 de Demetre SV1UY 

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are very correct that Clover II was not a very good mode,
especially 
> considering the price, since it was only a bit faster than Pactor I and 
> perhaps similar in ability to operate in weak signals. 

Yet I have one friend who it is hard to interest in any of the newer
modes because he loves the quasi-duplex nature of Clover.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Rick]

All good points, Demetre,

While Pactor modes can not go as fast as the 8PSK2400 modes, I suspect 
that it does compete well with those modes in real world HF conditions 
when in the +5 to +20 dB S/N range. From everything I have been able to 
find, none of the $5000 ALE modems can operate much below -10 dB and 
even at -10 dB, they are likely having no actual throughput.

You are very correct that Clover II was not a very good mode, especially 
considering the price, since it was only a bit faster than Pactor I and 
perhaps similar in ability to operate in weak signals. Pactor II was 
tremendously better. Pactor 3 is a very wide mode, but it is hard to 
criticize such a mode when you compare it to other wide modes. I would 
prefer to see wide modes in the voice segments and keep the 500 Hz and 
narrower modes in the digital text area here in the U.S. It is difficult 
to see what will happen in the future as many hams are more interested 
on keeping modes separate and not the bandwidths.

The one thing that concerns me a great deal is that the automated 
stations are not listening before transmitting and at least here in the 
U.S. are operating illegally. And they even are open about this with 
comments made by the administrator of Winlink 2000, that signal 
detection is not practical because they would never find an open 
frequency. This may be based upon their experiences with the SCAMP mode 
that they invented that clearly demonstrated a full ability to provide 
busy frequency detection. But the automatic users do not want to 
implement these technologies.

The automatic ALE modes, which are similarly wide bandwidth modes (> 500 
Hz),  also seem to be operating illegally as I don't find a signal 
detection mode present. The stations that are "sounding" are skipping 
from one band to the other with short bursts on each band. Based on 
comments by some of the ALE proponents, they seem to believe they own a 
frequency, which is contrary to the FCC rules here in the U.S. As the 
FCC pointed out recently, all stations, even automatic stations, are 
required to follow the rules and MUST listen before transmitting and not 
transmit on a busy frequency. There is an attitude on the part of the 
automatic stations, that stations with operators present should not be 
using the automatic subbands unless they are trying to communicate with 
the automatic stations.

The only mode that could compete with Pactor 3, at the higher speeds was 
the SCAMP mode at around 1000 wpm, but required close to + 10 dB S/N. If 
Pactor 3 drops to only a few wpm when deep in the noise, then the slower 
sound card modes may actually compete. The main problem is that they are 
not ARQ, so if a static burst or QRM blocks a character, the message is 
not correct as it would be with many tries with ARQ. Since Pactor 3 
defaults to the Pactor 2 mode with only two tones during difficult 
conditions, it can not have that much throughput with many tries. But it 
would still work somewhat better than many other sound card modes. I 
have never seen direct comparisons on this other than rough graphs that 
have large gaps in the data.

Thank you for the information on RFSM2400, as many of us suspected that 
it would require a very good signal to work well. Once you reach a 
threshold of adequate S/N, it probably works as they claim, but that may 
be well above zero dB. The need we have is to send ARQ data at moderate 
speeds above zero dB, say 1000 wpm or so, and yet have a fall back to a 
100 wpm or even a bit less as the S/N deteriorates. As we found out the 
hard way, it is not that easy to get even a 10 dB S/N ratio on HF bands. 
Many of our communications on HF are below that and are borderline for 
SSB. But they are good for digital/CW modes down to -15 or so.

73,

Rick, KV9U


> Hi Rick,
>
> Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
> free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer,
> but this is not possible unfortunatelly.
>
> Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore
> because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept
> on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. 
>
> PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs
> poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as
> I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the
> military modes that use the $5000 modems. 
>
> I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am
> away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them
> in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers.
>
> As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they
> are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer,
> e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as
> good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ,
> except PSKMAIL b

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a "pactor
> pest" or a "plague".
> 
> Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar

Hi Steinar,

With all due respect it is a matter of preference. If you are serious
about digital filetransfer, e-mail networking etc, then PACTOR 3 is
the way to go at the moment. If you want Digital QSOs then PSK31 is
OK. I use both, but I never call any mode a pest. After all Pactor 3
is in the in wideband portion of the band now. PACTOR 2 is where all
the other DIGITAL modes are. RFSM2400 is in the wideband portion of
the band too. Is this a Pest too? Is SSTV a pest too? Is DIGSSTV a
pest too? Is FAX a pest too? Is Contesting a pest too? Is SSB voice a
pest too? Don't tell me about the Winlink Mboxes that do not listen
before they transmit because the SCS controllers have the option to
listen before transmit. It is the Winlink people that have decided not
to use it. 

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi,

If this is such a great mode, I wonder why so many call it a "pactor
pest" or a "plague".

Maybe the answer is on this website: http://www.digipan.net/

Have a nice day.

73 de LA5VNA Steinar



Demetre SV1UY skrev:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> , Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Demetre,
> >
> > I was not suggesting that hams would be using $5000 modems. I won't
> even
> > buy the "relatively" low cost SCS modem for ~ $1000.
> >
> > The reason of course, is that we now have amateur sound card modes, and
> > are likely to have more of them in the future, and they are for the
> most
> > part at no additional cost for the hardware or software, once you buy
> > the computer.
> >
> > My point was that the military and commercial users are buying these
> > insanely expensive products and they may not work all that well:(
> >
> > Pactor 2 and 3 are commercial modes. It requires
> > hardware/firmware/software that is available only from the commercial
> > manufacturer. Same with the HAL Communications products, especially
> > Clover 2000, which are almost never used by radio amateurs. The earlier
> > Clover II was used by some of us but fell by the wayside as it was,
> > quite frankly, was not that good. Even earlier was the Clover mode
> > (Clover and Clover II were both invented by Ray, W7GHM), but that was
> > strictly an amateur mode requiring complicated equipment and was mostly
> > a proof of concept that then was carried over to the commercial
> world as
> > Clover II, but on a DSP board instead of phase locking your
> frequency to
> > a standard time signal.
> >
> > The sound card modes are primarily amateur modes whether MT-63, Olivia,
> > PSK variants, MFSK16, DominoEX, etc., etc., Same concept as when we had
> > hardware/firmware systems that adapted X.25 and used it for amateur
> > radio as AX.25. Same thing with Sitor being adapted for amateur use as
> > Amtor.
> >
> > Now we have ALE, which was primarily used for commercial purposes
> and is
> > now available as a sound card mode and it is freely available and can
> > work without the expensive hardware. If it only used hardware from
> > commercial sources, ALE would rarely be used on amateur frequencies.
> >
> > If Pactor was the only new digital mode, more of us would spend the
> > money for the hardware/firmware system, but because it is only one
> niche
> > player, we thankfully don't have to do this. I abandoned Pactor (Hal
> > P-38 card) many years ago and would never move back to hardware
> > solutions again for amateur use.
> >
> > Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some
> tests
> > that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I understand
> > that some hams compared Clover products and presented the
> information at
> > a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any details.
> >
> > Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about
> > testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how
> they work?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
> >
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
> free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer,
> but this is not possible unfortunatelly.
>
> Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore
> because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept
> on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them.
>
> PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs
> poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as
> I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the
> military modes that use the $5000 modems.
>
> I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am
> away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them
> in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers.
>
> As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they
> are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer,
> e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as
> good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ,
> except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of
> 100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that
> PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance
> and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can
> do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can.
>
> Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is
> was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many
> years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were
> interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3
> because the soundcard digital modes are all you need.
>
> I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and f

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Demetre,
> 
> I was not suggesting that hams would be using $5000 modems. I won't
even 
> buy the "relatively" low cost SCS modem for ~ $1000.
> 
> The reason of course, is that we now have amateur sound card modes, and 
> are likely to have more of them in the future, and they are for the
most 
> part at no additional cost for the hardware or software, once you buy 
> the computer.
> 
> My point was that the military and commercial users are buying these 
> insanely expensive products and they may not work all that well:(
> 
> Pactor 2 and 3 are commercial modes. It requires 
> hardware/firmware/software that is available only from the commercial 
> manufacturer. Same with the HAL Communications products, especially 
> Clover 2000, which are almost never used by radio amateurs. The earlier 
> Clover II was used by some of us but fell by the wayside as it was, 
> quite frankly, was not that good. Even earlier was the Clover mode 
> (Clover and Clover II were both invented by Ray, W7GHM), but that was 
> strictly an amateur mode requiring complicated equipment and was mostly 
> a proof of concept that then was carried over to the commercial
world as 
> Clover II, but on a DSP board instead of phase locking your
frequency to 
> a standard time signal.
> 
> The sound card modes are primarily amateur modes whether MT-63, Olivia, 
> PSK variants, MFSK16, DominoEX, etc., etc., Same concept as when we had 
> hardware/firmware systems that adapted X.25 and used it for amateur 
> radio as AX.25. Same thing with Sitor being adapted for amateur use as 
> Amtor.
> 
> Now we have ALE, which was primarily used for commercial purposes
and is 
> now available as a sound card mode and it is freely available and can 
> work without the expensive hardware. If it only used hardware from 
> commercial sources, ALE would rarely be used on amateur frequencies.
> 
> If Pactor was the only new digital mode, more of us would spend the 
> money for the hardware/firmware system, but because it is only one
niche 
> player, we thankfully don't have to do this. I abandoned Pactor (Hal 
> P-38 card) many years ago and would never move back to hardware 
> solutions again for amateur use.
> 
> Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some
tests 
> that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I understand 
> that some hams compared Clover products and presented the
information at 
> a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any details.
> 
> Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about 
> testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how
they work?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 

Hi Rick,

Well it all depends on what is an amateur mode. Is it a mode which is
free of charge? I wish I also had a free of charge radio and computer,
but this is not possible unfortunatelly.

Also the old modes such as CLOVER, GTOR etc, are not used anymore
because they were not performing at all under noisy conditions (kept
on loosing the link) and radio amateurs stopped using them. 

PACTOR 3 really flies in good conditions (5200 b/s) and performs
poorly down to -18dB (theoretically) but it holds the link. As far as
I know there is no other mode today that does that on HF, not even the
military modes that use the $5000 modems. 

I personally use PACTOR 3 quite a lot and nearly everyday when I am
away from home, especially in some remote island (we have 3000 of them
in Greece and you are welcome to come for a holiday) in our long summers.

As for the soundcard modes, I also enjoy using them but really they
are very slow and they are OK for rag chewing not for file transfer,
e-mail, etc. I have yet to see a decent mode that performs half as
good as PACTOR 3 for file transfer on HF. They do not even have ARQ,
except PSKMAIL but then again PSKMAIL uses PSK125 with a speed of
100bps or even less. This is very slow compared to 5200 bps that
PACTOR 3 can do and that can keep the link, by sacrificing performance
and slowing down considerably even down to -18dB. But at least it can
do it and it can keep the filetransfer where no other mode can.

Personally although I am very interested in Digital QSOs on HF it is
was never my primary interest. That is why I have chosen PACTOR many
years ago for my digital HF filetransfers, e-mail, etc. If I were
interested in QSOs only I probably wouldn't have bought PACTOR 3
because the soundcard digital modes are all you need. 

I have tested RFSM2400 quite a few times and found that unless I could
hear very well the signal of my corresponded I could not decode
anything, and then it was very touchy to any noise on HF. Since HF are
very noisy I got sick of it and abandoned it. I have heard that the
military modes that some have implemented to work with soundcards
perform in the same way more or less because all the above need a good
signal to work. 

Now if I have to buy a 1 KW linear

Re: [digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Jose Amador]

It may hold the link, but thruput goes wy down

Jose, CO2JA



Rick wrote:

>  Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some
>  tests that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I
>  understand that some hams compared Clover products and presented the
>  information at a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any
>  details.


__

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: So there I was -

[Rick]

Hi Demetre,

I was not suggesting that hams would be using $5000 modems. I won't even 
buy the "relatively" low cost SCS modem for ~ $1000.

The reason of course, is that we now have amateur sound card modes, and 
are likely to have more of them in the future, and they are for the most 
part at no additional cost for the hardware or software, once you buy 
the computer.

My point was that the military and commercial users are buying these 
insanely expensive products and they may not work all that well:(

Pactor 2 and 3 are commercial modes. It requires 
hardware/firmware/software that is available only from the commercial 
manufacturer. Same with the HAL Communications products, especially 
Clover 2000, which are almost never used by radio amateurs. The earlier 
Clover II was used by some of us but fell by the wayside as it was, 
quite frankly, was not that good. Even earlier was the Clover mode 
(Clover and Clover II were both invented by Ray, W7GHM), but that was 
strictly an amateur mode requiring complicated equipment and was mostly 
a proof of concept that then was carried over to the commercial world as 
Clover II, but on a DSP board instead of phase locking your frequency to 
a standard time signal.

The sound card modes are primarily amateur modes whether MT-63, Olivia, 
PSK variants, MFSK16, DominoEX, etc., etc., Same concept as when we had 
hardware/firmware systems that adapted X.25 and used it for amateur 
radio as AX.25. Same thing with Sitor being adapted for amateur use as 
Amtor.

Now we have ALE, which was primarily used for commercial purposes and is 
now available as a sound card mode and it is freely available and can 
work without the expensive hardware. If it only used hardware from 
commercial sources, ALE would rarely be used on amateur frequencies.

If Pactor was the only new digital mode, more of us would spend the 
money for the hardware/firmware system, but because it is only one niche 
player, we thankfully don't have to do this. I abandoned Pactor (Hal 
P-38 card) many years ago and would never move back to hardware 
solutions again for amateur use.

Does Pactor 3 really work well at -18 dB? I would like to see some tests 
that show this, but have not found much on the internet. I understand 
that some hams compared Clover products and presented the information at 
a TAPR/ARRL DCC some time back, but I never heard any details.

Are you able to TX 2400 baud data modes in Greece? If so, how about 
testing some of the sound card ALE modes and letting us know how they work?

73,

Rick, KV9U



Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>   
>> - At least one person who actually maintains and deploys ALE in the 
>> military is not very impressed with it as there are problems with not 
>> working that well, particularly no having good throughput such as for 
>> messaging. And these are extremely expensive modems which I understand 
>> cost around $5000.
>> 
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> This fact makes PACTOR 3 modems seem as a very cheap solution because
> it costs 1/5th of the $5000 and it works down to -18dB and please
> don't tell me about PACTR 3 modems being commercial since all the
> radios and computers we use today are also commercial in the same
> sense. No offence of course. 
>
> [snip]
>   
>> 73,
>>
>> Rick, KV9U
>> 
>
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

[digitalradio] Re: So there I was -

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> - At least one person who actually maintains and deploys ALE in the 
> military is not very impressed with it as there are problems with not 
> working that well, particularly no having good throughput such as for 
> messaging. And these are extremely expensive modems which I understand 
> cost around $5000.


Hi Rick,

This fact makes PACTOR 3 modems seem as a very cheap solution because
it costs 1/5th of the $5000 and it works down to -18dB and please
don't tell me about PACTR 3 modems being commercial since all the
radios and computers we use today are also commercial in the same
sense. No offence of course. 

[snip]
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

73 de Demetre SV1UY