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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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. > >
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 Bernstein wrote: > *** more AA6YQ comments > *** 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. > *** 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. > 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
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 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? > 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. > ### 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. > 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. > 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 a
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. 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. 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. > 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 fal
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Imitating the big guys
I had already grown tired of all of this before. But there is no right to rest yet if somebody wants to trick us into silence out of endlessly attempting to impose a senseless idea by making people grow tired of confronting such an absurdity once and again. There is no worse kind of blindness than that of those who refuse to see. 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. While packet radio forwarding was more active, no one even dreamed of sitting on a forwarding frequency on any other mode. Radio has been proved not to be an ethernet backbone on which everybody hears everybody all around the world. Automatic stations do have a place in the bandplans, so, if automatic stations stay in those segments, I don't see reason, exception made of emergencies, if any, to go there where the automatic stations are, in any other mode and sit there. At least, in the well connected and informed developed world. Nobody in his right mind sits between the railroad tracks. Doing otherwise is sort of cheap irrational old west bragging. In such a case, if the train overruns you, you have no right to cry. Even when an activity detector such as what SCAMP has tested, and has been documented to work fairly well, as far as I know the code is not in the public domain and noone has either convinced the author to publish it or stepped forward to write out of scrap and openly publish a viable substitute for all possible cases. Also, there is reasonably founded suspicion by the Winlink team that if they used such a thing, there are people willing to create a sort of zombie network to cause intentional QRM to grind the Winlink network to halt. Such an attitude against pactor and Winlink DOES exist. Things could have been some other way if such a threat had not been created. So, lets get real. Science has already demonstrated that you can make rain bombarding clouds with silver iodine, but hardly, by howling to the moon. Facts are needed, in a material way. In the form of code, or a little hardware gadget that blocks the PTT whenever it hears a hummingbird f*rt half a mile away, reliably. And then, convince the proper people to use it. 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. Haven't we had enough of it already? Jose, CO2JA --- Dave Bernstein wrote: I will stop debunking fallacious arguments when they cease to be made. > >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
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. > >
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
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. >> >> >>
