Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Dave AA6YQ wrote: I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some programmer develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and prevents me from going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars and people. Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or onlookers will be disregarded as pot-stirring. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Great analogy. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
At 01:07 AM 1/18/2008, Danny wrote: See interspaced comments. Jack, I think I answered most of that just now, to another station. As long as you are setting there, and have checked that the freq is clear, fire away. If then you get someone coming in and connecting, you have already checked the frequency, so go ahead with your contact. But, if he hears you, transmits and then finds HE is causing interference, he should immediatly advise you, and quit tranmitting at his end. By the time he has connected and this text exchange takes place, with a TX/RX changeover, it could be 30 secondswhich is a long time. Just like SSB, I ask if its clear, and no one comes back, I transmit a CQ. Sonmeone answers, but he immediately is told the freq is busy. He quickly comes back and tell you and the two of you then slip to another freq, where both ask if its clear, and if so, have your contact. How do you ask IF the freq is clear in Pactor and expect any other modes, even Pactor to say yes, freq is in use? And get a readable response? Bye the way, if both of you had busy signal capability, his would have immediately told him he couldnt transmit-- but I would hope he would have heard it on the earphones before that, or seen it on a waterfall, or something. Surely all stations do check the freq before transmitting, keyboard to keyboard? He could then simply bypass the busy signal detect, and quickly advise you to QSY to for a QSO. A busy signal from what mode? Again, decoding who or what is there is not easy, Pactor hardware has no waterfall, you do not know what signal is there, unless your well calibrated ears interfaced to your brain, can understand what mode is transmitting, it may even only be an ALE sounding? Who knows? No not asking for perfection, just an attempt to get as close as possible. I know - easier said than done - but that takes place hundreds of times a day on CW or SSB, and is doable. 2 modes, the ears can decode very easily, Tx with Mic or Keydigital modes are a little different, particularly those that are hardware/firmware based. When someone comes up with a piece of software that is a simple decode only program for ALL digital modes, it would give listen and identify signal, before using freq, things may get better, but still not perfect as you would need a full blown laptop to run it. When some Pactor and Packet (some PSK31) operators can even use a dumb terminal to drive their Pactor/Packet/PSK31 hardware. 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Pretty confusing indeed. As Jack says, you never know when someone will connect. Have any of the proponents been a sysop? I guess they have not. TIS Software would have to be rewritten, so an incoming call rings a bell, turns on a lamp, awakens the dogs and let'em out, something that lets the sysop know his box is being called, listens between packets and authorizes the connection in a timely fashion. As far as I know, such a software has not been written, but would be interesting to hear about prospective programers to solve that problem for us. There are already at least two tasks to be done: A busy detector and a sysop awakener. Any volunteers to get the things well done? At least, an API with the calls and procedures is needed, in order to encourage other software developers to join the effort in a structured, well thought fashion. Also, a legal advice could be displayed, warning the sysop that any QRM originated by his allowance to answer a call can be used against him/her. Or keep on the fundamentalistic, taliban aproach: criticize, criticize, stir the pot, do nothing else and get such activity forbidden. This seems to be a LOT simpler. So far, as I see, only the taliban approach is showing any progress. /TIS 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Jack Chomley escribió: At 01:14 PM 1/17/2008, Danny wrote: Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had a busy signal capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people, if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can do the same. Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as there is no busy signal detection. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Well, even IF I am at the keyboard, I do not know IF someone is about to connect.until they do. When that happens, do I just switch the box off? Yep, I could do that and the station at the other end would scratch his head and wonder what is going on, like he connected and next minute he is cut off by me. If it was me trying to connect.then I would keep trying, just like he would. Looking for contacts in this hobby, is what its all about. I mean, this kind of operation was done on HF Packet for many years, BBSs forwarded on frequencies and everyone simply got along, generally :-) A busy signal scheme will only work while there is a signal present, the moment there is a break in the signal being heard, the busy detect would drop and.the station would fire up, unless the busy detect had a timer, which counted x time after loss of heard signal, before the station transmitted. Danny, I think you are asking for a perfect solution, when given all the modes we now have..its a big ask. Unfortunately, we have to accept some QRM at some time or another and thats it, in the real world. I think the Pactor mode has been somewhat tainted by the WinLink wars, to a large degree. I mean, I could set up a Packet Mailbox and start beaconing, looking for contacts :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC __ 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: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Well, s? I thought that might have been the case but then,
I could have been wrong...so I cashed in my $ .02 worthGRIN
In fact, it happened today...talked with VE1XL (Dick) in Canada
using PACTOR I and near the end of the contact, I could hear a
('scuse me but) PMBO or at least a station sounding like one
right close to use and fairly strong. Gave Dick some competition
for sure. It was surprising because I had been listening for about
15 mins on 3.5880 with no activity noted at all. Then, after talking
with Dick for the better part of an hour, voila! There's this PACTOR
station suddenly making its presence known.
I did post a cut 'n paste of the chat just for show 'n tell and give
a little push for PACTOR I activity - it still works, of course. It was
fun today.
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN
- Original Message -
From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot
Hello Howard,
I was actually agreeing with John; sorry to all if it was poorly
worded. When operating Pactor (and in the past using Amtor), I too
have been interfered with and when I queried the other stations they
said something to the effect that, I thought you were a bot.
Obviously no excuse.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
I'm going to start driving my car around at 150 mph. When some programmer develops an an add-in that reads speed limit signs and prevents me from going too fast, I'll stop running into other cars and people. Any criticism I receive between now and then from victims or onlookers will be disregarded as pot-stirring. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jose Amador Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot Pretty confusing indeed. As Jack says, you never know when someone will connect. Have any of the proponents been a sysop? I guess they have not. TIS Software would have to be rewritten, so an incoming call rings a bell, turns on a lamp, awakens the dogs and let'em out, something that lets the sysop know his box is being called, listens between packets and authorizes the connection in a timely fashion. As far as I know, such a software has not been written, but would be interesting to hear about prospective programers to solve that problem for us. There are already at least two tasks to be done: A busy detector and a sysop awakener. Any volunteers to get the things well done? At least, an API with the calls and procedures is needed, in order to encourage other software developers to join the effort in a structured, well thought fashion. Also, a legal advice could be displayed, warning the sysop that any QRM originated by his allowance to answer a call can be used against him/her. Or keep on the fundamentalistic, taliban aproach: criticize, criticize, stir the pot, do nothing else and get such activity forbidden. This seems to be a LOT simpler. So far, as I see, only the taliban approach is showing any progress. /TIS 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Jack Chomley escribió: At 01:14 PM 1/17/2008, Danny wrote: Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had a busy signal capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people, if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can do the same. Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as there is no busy signal detection. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Well, even IF I am at the keyboard, I do not know IF someone is about to connect.until they do. When that happens, do I just switch the box off? Yep, I could do that and the station at the other end would scratch his head and wonder what is going on, like he connected and next minute he is cut off by me. If it was me trying to connect.then I would keep trying, just like he would. Looking for contacts in this hobby, is what its all about. I mean, this kind of operation was done on HF Packet for many years, BBSs forwarded on frequencies and everyone simply got along, generally :-) A busy signal scheme will only work while there is a signal present, the moment there is a break in the signal being heard, the busy detect would drop and.the station would fire up, unless the busy detect had a timer, which counted x time after loss of heard signal, before the station transmitted. Danny, I think you are asking for a perfect solution, when given all the modes we now have..its a big ask. Unfortunately, we have to accept some QRM at some time or another and thats it, in the real world. I think the Pactor mode has been somewhat tainted by the WinLink wars, to a large degree. I mean, I could set up a Packet Mailbox and start beaconing, looking for contacts :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC __ 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: I, am a Pactor Robot............
No Bill and you will not see others on this list. 99.5% are sound card *ONLY* operators and have no clue what the non sound cards modes are all about. Other then what they have read, such as it's all bad and that is why pactor has such a bad name. Not all of us pactor operators are robots stations and MANY can't see that for some reason. I really don't done know what to say other than that. John, W0JAB At 09:16 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: Hello John, Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm. As I have posted often, it is sad some think Pactor modes are the issue when it is the Winlink system that is at issue. I too have been operating Pactor only to get a station right on top of me...when queried they sometimes say, I thought you were a PMBO bot ... no excuse but I do understand why they think so. 73, Bill N9DSJ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hey, Bill, NO, John isn't alone in the experience. It happens frequently enough as to catch the attention. Is it simply because the PACTOR mode is being used? I dunno, but it does happen with enough frequency to raise the ear brows. This is especially so when the signal is quite strong. Just my $ .02 worth which will not buy you even a plain donut hole. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Bill McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot Hello John, Well I have seen no others, aside from you, complaining about qrm when operating Pactor modes on the sole basis that you were using Pactor. I am sure it happens as we all get benign qrm. SNIP SNIP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
Hi Danny, I replied up here 'cause I wasn't sure what I was going to snip out from your message, yet. Why not apply the rationale to transmitters in general? YOU can't transmit for your thrice-weekly sked because your station detects VERY nearby signals and will not transmit...until the current interferring QSO terminates? THEN, you can transmit on the sked frequency. Or, you just come up on frequency, very close to 14.236 Digi voice group or very close to 3.713 Digipix group and you're going to want to ask if the frequency is use (albeit you can aurally sense the ongoing comms nearby) - only you can't because of the Busy Guard and thus, nothing transmitted to interfere with the pix or voice transfers. O, you come up to 3.713 and want to key up to declare that the digital NOISE is crap!, and then whistle or whatever - only you can't 'cause of the Busy Guard. I can see all sorts of possibilities for the technology. Hmmm, now when the folks on 3.713 stop transmitting the digital pix and there's silence. and then you CAN transmit your anti-digital pix diatribe, you can continue to spew out explitives and NONE of the folks can transmit until you stop (because of their own Busy Guard protection). I wonder if my example is as incomprehensible as another was said to be that I wote for a different subject. Don't ask me what my point is. I was just musing over your scenario and this blossomed out of that. First the BOTS, then.. the rest of the interference. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN - Original Message - From: Danny Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:14 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). SNIP SNIP
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I, am a Pactor Robot............
At 01:14 PM 1/17/2008, Danny wrote: Jack. We on the other side see THAT as exactly the problem. Your mailbox sits there silent. Somone else gets on the freq and calls it. It comes up - and causes interference to someone else that is already using the freq (which you would have heard if you were physically sitting there operating). The origninal caller to you, because of propagation, did not hear the other ongoing QSO- but YOU would have. Therefore it is your transmitter that caused the interference. All quite easily taken care of if our software had a busy signal capability, and simply didnt respond to the other guy, while other signals were up and on the air. That software has been written, and from my understanding would be made available to the Pactor software people, if they would just accept it. If its been done, other software writers can do the same. Your mailbox needs to be controlled by YOU, not the other end, as long as there is no busy signal detection. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Well, even IF I am at the keyboard, I do not know IF someone is about to connect.until they do. When that happens, do I just switch the box off? Yep, I could do that and the station at the other end would scratch his head and wonder what is going on, like he connected and next minute he is cut off by me. If it was me trying to connect.then I would keep trying, just like he would. Looking for contacts in this hobby, is what its all about. I mean, this kind of operation was done on HF Packet for many years, BBSs forwarded on frequencies and everyone simply got along, generally :-) A busy signal scheme will only work while there is a signal present, the moment there is a break in the signal being heard, the busy detect would drop and.the station would fire up, unless the busy detect had a timer, which counted x time after loss of heard signal, before the station transmitted. Danny, I think you are asking for a perfect solution, when given all the modes we now have..its a big ask. Unfortunately, we have to accept some QRM at some time or another and thats it, in the real world. I think the Pactor mode has been somewhat tainted by the WinLink wars, to a large degree. I mean, I could set up a Packet Mailbox and start beaconing, looking for contacts :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
