Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
A reasonable person would respond properly by stating what it is they specifically disagree with and then offer their solutions. He did not do this because ... he can not ... and must result to personal attack. Everything that I have said is not only true, to the best of my knowledge, but can be important for the long term improvement of digital modes. Clearly, me vision does not fit his idea of where we need to go. I am hopeful that taking a head in the sand approach is not common with those who want to improve digital modes. What we have now for general casual chat modes is quite good. It can be competitive with CW. But it is difficult to believe that there are not others like me who would like to see improved modes and want to discuss some of the ways to get there. We don't all have to exactly agree how this is to be done, but we don't have attack others either. The reality is that the technology developed in SCAMP had the largest breakthroughs in solving several of the most difficult problems with digital communications that were commonly expressed by many hams. It was that significant! Why would you ignore this when it has already been invented? Even if the developers of this mode will not share it with the amateur community, someone will need to reinvent the wheel (as we see being done more than once) and then be further improved even beyond that point. Consider modes that: - are as spectrum efficient as possible (relative to the throughput) - can adapt to the ever changing conditions on HF - will not interfere with a busy frequency on the shared amateur bands - are low cost and will result in wide adoption resulting in a critical mass of use - have other attributes that you value How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me. 73, Rick, KV9U WD8ARZ wrote: > As usual Rick you take comments and twist them to take off on a tangent and > make personal put downs. Worse yet you make associations that were not made > and not intended. I will no longer make replies to you or your posts. If > your continual mis-directions and abuse of congenial communications > continues to get through on the various reflectors we share (your list is > shrinking), your address and calls will simply be put into automatic bounce > filters and that will be that. > > Use what we have as best as possible and where appropriate. Do your own > programming and put your misdirected energy to better use. > > As one of the testers of Scamp, its amazing you are still pushing in > directions that are not being continued by the originators. > > WD8ARZ Out >
Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
As usual Rick you take comments and twist them to take off on a tangent and make personal put downs. Worse yet you make associations that were not made and not intended. I will no longer make replies to you or your posts. If your continual mis-directions and abuse of congenial communications continues to get through on the various reflectors we share (your list is shrinking), your address and calls will simply be put into automatic bounce filters and that will be that. Use what we have as best as possible and where appropriate. Do your own programming and put your misdirected energy to better use. As one of the testers of Scamp, its amazing you are still pushing in directions that are not being continued by the originators. WD8ARZ Out - Original Message - From: "Rick W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
I agree. But as we just found out in the 2008 flooding it took days for some sites to get on the air even with radio equipment on hand - on site. Not everyone knows how to operate the equipment. 99.999% can send a text message using a cell phone. Win-link again worked. FYI water got to within 30 feet of the XYL's bookstore. John, W0JAB At 12:28 PM 8/7/2008 -0500, you wrote IN PART: > If you have taken any of the ARRL ARECC >courses, or have a good understanding of basic public service >communication, real time communication is not appropriate via e-mail.
Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
I have discussed this many times, but may some have missed it. The SCAMP development was an amazing ham radio software breakthrough. It dispelled many of the claims that you could not develop a sound card modem that would compete with Pactor 3. It solved the issue of the timing of computers by having pipelined (background) calculation of the last packet while the new packet was being received. It solved the problem of transmitting on a busy frequency. It was faster than Pactor 2, but not as fast as Pactor 3, but about as wide as Pactor 3 when P3 operates in the 18 tone form. The speed with compression was around 1000 wpm and was extremely impressive to watch as it linked with one of the three server stations here in the U.S. and Canada and handed off the e-mail message. Although some of us questioned the belief that it could work down to close to zero dB S/N, (those of us who were familiar with the real world experiences with the RDFT protocol as the a major SSTV protocol at the time), the author was convinced that it would be able to do this. Also, he had a VHF version that would work even faster! Expecting the RDFT protocol to perform at much below +8 or 10 dB S/N was not realistic and the software could not support the moderate to weak signals often found on HF paths. It worked best with good signals on HF paths close to the MUF. This concept had the same flaw as we continue to see with sound card modes that attempt to compete with Pactor 2 and 3. It had no ability to negotiate different speed levels/modulation complexity depending upon conditions. This absolutely has to happen to come up with a competitive system. The only current system that can do this is NBEMS, but that has to be done manually. Still, it is a move in the right direction. There is nothing all that mysterious with Pactor modes. They combine several features that add to the capability of getting data through. P2 uses more complex (faster) modes when conditions permit, and P3 does less of that, but instead adds up to 18 tones. Both use memory ARQ and compression that can increase throughput depending upon the type of data. Even P3 drops to only 2 tones (the same as P2 uses all the time) in its most robust form. The main thing is that it adapts to the conditions rather than having only one mode for a condition that is either optimum for speed or optimum for robustness. When they discovered that SCAMP was not going to work deep into the noise, they totally abandoned the entire project, vaporized the yahoogroup, the software was timed to self distruct, and it is a bit surreal as if it had never happened. In fact, I have not seen other hams who were active with this project ever show any follow up interest. SCAMP should have received a huge award for several enormous breakthroughs of that time period. It could have been improved with adding the ability to dynamically adapt to conditions with different protocols. At the very least, it could have been used for VHF if it had been made available. 73, Rick, KV9U Jose A. Amador wrote: > > > Whatever the protocol and network, I still see the need for a better > mousetrap, i.e., a better and less costly HF modem. Rick, KN6KB > attempted that, and I don't really know what happened, but it got stuck. > The need is still there. > >
Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
Based on the comments that WD8ARZ quoted below, it would seem that there is a basic misunderstanding of the use of e-mail for emergency communications by some hams. If you have taken any of the ARRL ARECC courses, or have a good understanding of basic public service communication, real time communication is not appropriate via e-mail. As Winlink2000 users, and even wire line e-mail users have found out the hard way, you don't coordinate tactical activities through such systems. There can be significant delays of up to several hours, and even several days! There have been cases where some hams have called up an exercise for the weekend and the messages were not actually delivered until Sunday. Needless to say, participation was very low. We need to always keep in mind that phone modes are typically required for tactical traffic during emergencies. Other modes can also be helpful with certain kinds of data that is lengthy or needs to be routed to distant points. Should call ups, priority, or, emergency time value traffic be routed via on e-mail unless there is no other possible way to route such traffic? Rick, KV9U Moderator for HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communication) [EMAIL PROTECTED] WD8ARZ wrote: > Dont like to cross post, but I dont know how this topic can be said any > better than what is listed below. With out an independent internet or > wireless network to span our coverage needs to support our cause, and this > isnt going to happen, these issues are not going to go way. > > However, it must be noted that all the on the air systems working now can be > used to establish links to get early event communications out for setting up > other modes of communications, such as normal voice to voice schedule > arrangements. Thus it is important that all groups and individual users that > wish to support emergency activities have as many of the options available > as possible (or access to them and know how to use them), so those limited > in emergency area's have something to start out with before moving on to > activities that suit the situation and time. > > Get good at using what we got the way it currently works, or it is all a big > waste. Many are dedicated to making what we have work, work better, and > evolve over time. > > 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ > http://hflink.net/qso/ > > - Original Message - > From: "Rick Muething" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:33 PM > Subject: RE: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Email delivery time > > Vic confirmed the current code tries 8 times in a 4 hour period once ever 30 > minutes. Until and unless there is a general standard used by mail servers > trying to chase the latest ad-hoc anti spam technique is a significant > burden on our very limited programming resources. Shortening to 5 minute > attempts for 4 hours (48 tries) could increase the load on the server's > significantly especially when there are so many very sluggish servers (e.g. > AOL, Hotmail etc) that often take minutes to respond after accepting the > initial start of the mail forwarding sessions. If your ISP is blocking mail > waiting for multiple retries as a means of trying to control SPAM that is an > issue to take up with the ISP. One thing you learn after being in this > effort for long is there are continual changes in techniques for SPAM > filtering but often these are met by just more aggressive and sophisticated > SPAM bots with little real gain in the end. > > Rick KN6KB > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of n8gfo > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Email delivery time > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Rick Muething" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Vic would have to confirm this.there may have been recent changes but it >> used to try hourly for up to 8 hours. Remember that Winlink delivers >> > each > >> recipients mail (each addressee) independently so a failure or >> > delay with > >> one address doesn't affect any others in the message. >> > > Can this be shortened to maybe 10 minutes or even 5 with enough > attempts to make it a 4 or 5 hour total? So many servers are using > this transient failure spam "filtering" and it is only going to get > worse as time goes on. > > Having to wait a half an hour to get an email through makes it hard to > hold a real-time exercise, much less a real-time emergency. > > It is also a hinderance to teaching people how to use the system, when > they send email to themselves at their ISP address and it goes out but > apparently doesn't arrive. I just went through this with someone who > was learning packet/airmail from the ground up and it would have > helped for him to see success faster. > > Thanks for your consideration in this. > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
WD8ARZ wrote: > Get good at using what we got the way it currently works, or it is all a big > waste. Many are dedicated to making what we have work, work better, and > evolve over time. > > 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ > http://hflink.net/qso/ Whatever the protocol and network, I still see the need for a better mousetrap, i.e., a better and less costly HF modem. Rick, KN6KB attempted that, and I don't really know what happened, but it got stuck. The need is still there. Network issues are too large and it is risky (in time, effort and probabilities to succeed) to make a radical change from the ground up to expect inmediate success, particularly with an existent legacy network and equipment that somehow works and solves needs the way people are used to. Many decisions in the professional work are tied to existent techniques, standards and existent equipment that do not allow radical changes, and you are cornered to make improvements that do not violate the set standards. After a standard is cast, you are stuck with it. There are many examples in the professional world, be it TV, mobile telephony or any other field. When there is an existent investment in equipment, accumulated knowledge and effort, very compelling reasons are needed for a radical change. At the light of SWOT analysis techniques, a radical network change is a too large threat. The Bell 103 modem for HF packet is a weakness and improving the HF modem is an opportunity. 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Something New - Ham Radio Email delivery time - Use what we have.
Dont like to cross post, but I dont know how this topic can be said any better than what is listed below. With out an independent internet or wireless network to span our coverage needs to support our cause, and this isnt going to happen, these issues are not going to go way. However, it must be noted that all the on the air systems working now can be used to establish links to get early event communications out for setting up other modes of communications, such as normal voice to voice schedule arrangements. Thus it is important that all groups and individual users that wish to support emergency activities have as many of the options available as possible (or access to them and know how to use them), so those limited in emergency area's have something to start out with before moving on to activities that suit the situation and time. Get good at using what we got the way it currently works, or it is all a big waste. Many are dedicated to making what we have work, work better, and evolve over time. 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ http://hflink.net/qso/ - Original Message - From: "Rick Muething" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:33 PM Subject: RE: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Email delivery time Vic confirmed the current code tries 8 times in a 4 hour period once ever 30 minutes. Until and unless there is a general standard used by mail servers trying to chase the latest ad-hoc anti spam technique is a significant burden on our very limited programming resources. Shortening to 5 minute attempts for 4 hours (48 tries) could increase the load on the server's significantly especially when there are so many very sluggish servers (e.g. AOL, Hotmail etc) that often take minutes to respond after accepting the initial start of the mail forwarding sessions. If your ISP is blocking mail waiting for multiple retries as a means of trying to control SPAM that is an issue to take up with the ISP. One thing you learn after being in this effort for long is there are continual changes in techniques for SPAM filtering but often these are met by just more aggressive and sophisticated SPAM bots with little real gain in the end. Rick KN6KB From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n8gfo Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [wl2kemcomm] Re: Email delivery time --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Rick Muething" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vic would have to confirm this.there may have been recent changes but it > used to try hourly for up to 8 hours. Remember that Winlink delivers each > recipients mail (each addressee) independently so a failure or delay with > one address doesn't affect any others in the message. Can this be shortened to maybe 10 minutes or even 5 with enough attempts to make it a 4 or 5 hour total? So many servers are using this transient failure spam "filtering" and it is only going to get worse as time goes on. Having to wait a half an hour to get an email through makes it hard to hold a real-time exercise, much less a real-time emergency. It is also a hinderance to teaching people how to use the system, when they send email to themselves at their ISP address and it goes out but apparently doesn't arrive. I just went through this with someone who was learning packet/airmail from the ground up and it would have helped for him to see success faster. Thanks for your consideration in this.
