Craig,
Based on your comments, you stated that:
PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that
happens to use amateur frequencies under current rules,...
I was assuming you included the Winlink 2000 system. Of course Winlink (older
system that Winlink 2000 developers would like
Dave if this is a reply to my comment.
Go and re-read it again .
At 11:24 PM 6/21/2006, you wrote:
I have an SCS PTC-IIe that can operate both Pactor-2 and Pactor-3. I
can find no evidence of a busy frequency detector in its
documentation or schematic.
For keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor operation,
At 11:35 PM 6/21/2006, you wrote:
Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it, as I should be
able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is not open to the public.
That's right. They (SCS) holds the rights to how and why it works
If you don't putout $$$ you can copy it. That is the
The SCS modem is not a hardware-only implementation; it uses an
embedded microprocessor. With respect to Pactor-X modulation/
demodulation, it is not correct to say a soundcard will not work.
What I think you mean is a soundcard in a PC running Windows will
not work; that's because Windows is
At 08:09 PM 6/22/2006, you wrote:
What I think you mean is a soundcard in a PC running Windows will
not work
No I mean what I said, a sound card running on anything. The best I have
seen was 40% of what the TNC would do. And I did test it.
I'll thank you for not trying to speak for me.
No one has released a Pactor-2 or Pactor-3 implementation based on a
PC and soundcard running a realtime operating system, John, so how
could you have evaluated this configuration and reached the conclusion
that a soundcard will not work?
Also, a soundcard will not work is a different
The fact that a soundcard-based Pactor implementation works poorly
on a PC running Windows in no way justifies your claim that a
soundcard will not work. As I've already pointed out, the reason
that a soundcard-based Pactor implementation on Windows would work
poorly (for Pactor 1) or
At 09:38 PM 6/22/2006, you wrote:
The fact that a soundcard-based Pactor implementation works poorly
on a PC running Windows
Let me say this again just for you...
RUNNING ON ANY THING TODAY
It just will not keep up with a hardware ( TNC )
If you're changing your assertion to soundcards don't work running
on anything today (referring to Pactor-X implementation), then I
agree.
That's quite a bit different than your original a soundcard will
not work.
(in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/15246 )
Its not the
If the ARRL proposal is accepted, then the main change would be that the
wide data modes would have to all move up above 14.100 at first. The
impression that I got from reading Dave Sumner's comments was that they
would like to see a bandplan where the digital voice would be segregated
from
will be intolerable unless
operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if
their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to
remote requests.
but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC?
I'm talking about any time a station starts a
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
will be intolerable unless
operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their licenses if
their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding to
remote requests.
but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC?
I'm talking about
In the case of semi-automatic operation, there is generally no
operator present at the station generating the QRM. Even when an
operator is present, the automatic station control software
immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is
locally clear or not.
If you and I
Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there
was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5
and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't
we operate other digital modes down there?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aside from what's been said recently, once upon a time there
was a lot of Clover operation in the range 14064.5-14066.5
and such. Since there is hardly any Clover anymore, why don't
we operate other digital modes
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
At 07:30 AM 6/21/2006, Dave Bernstein wrote:
the automatic station control software
immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is
locally clear or not.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
Couldn't this be cured by software? The automatic station
Yes. This was well-demonstrated in SCAMP, a soundcard-base protocol
that was beta-tested but never operationally deployed. For protocols
like Pactor-2 and Pactor-3 whose implementation evidently requires
an outboard modem, busy detection could be implemented either with
additional hardware,
If QRM-Tor III modems did listen for a busy channel, much less traffic would
get through. Thurston Howell won't be able to send free email from his
luxury yacht, possibly hurting sales of modems. Don't count on it ever
happening. PactorIII/WinLink is a commercial for profit enterprise that
I do know that no automatic
station control software currently uses busy frequency detection to
refrain from transmitting when the frequency is in use.
Packet for one.
Sorry you are right that's the hardware doing it.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
If QRM-Tor III modems did listen
Since it cost over 900 bucks to get a SCS Pactor III controller I think it's
a pretty good guess that most have never copied any pactor III traffic.
That makes the above statement bold or just repeating what someone
else has said.
I do have a pactor III
Craig,
Where exactly is the money exchanging hands? I have heard this type of
comment a number of times and found the exact opposite from what you are
saying.
The Winlink 2000 system is completely free to use and the four hams or
so who developed, own, and control this system have donated
I have an SCS PTC-IIe that can operate both Pactor-2 and Pactor-3. I
can find no evidence of a busy frequency detector in its
documentation or schematic.
For keyboard-to-keyboard Pactor operation, there is no need of busy
frequency detection; the operators at each end can assure a clear
SCS gives away the modems at cost or for free? News to me.
Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it, as I should be
able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is not open to the public.
Will West Mountain Radio, MFJ, or some other company start selling a more
reasonably priced
Leigh,
Current FCC rules permit semi-automatic operation by stations operating
digital modes of 500 Hz or less bandwidth throughout any area that
digital modes can be used. This theoretically means that they can
operate across the non-voice areas. On 20 meters that would be 14.000 to
14.150.
I agree, Rick.
Continuing to use 20M as an example, I doubt that the ARRL's
bandplan will restrict phone operations to anything less than 14150-
14350; thus all wideband digital modes will likely be restricted to
14100-14150. The contention between 3500 hz keyboard-to-keyboard and
At 11:18 AM 6/20/2006, Rick, KV9U, wrote in part:
Leigh,
Current FCC rules permit semi-automatic operation by stations operating
digital modes of 500 Hz or less bandwidth throughout any area that
digital modes can be used. This theoretically means that they can
operate across the non-voice areas.
Yes there has got to be a place for the wide 3500Hz keyboard-to-keyboard
as well as for the semi-automatic operators with enough room for both.
I don't like the idea of putting both in the same sub-band.
At 11:49 AM 6/20/2006, you wrote:
I agree, Rick.
Continuing to use 20M as an example, I
Since when are band plans established by groups of hams unilaterally
assigning frequencies to the modes they happen to prefer?
Perhaps you meant to say that this is someone's proposed band plan...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL
Bonnie has been working very hard to move keyboard-to-keyboard modes
out of the region above 14100 to provide unobstructed access for
automatic stations. It is reasonable for a Winlink and ALE
afficianado to advocate such allocations, but it is dishonest to
refer to http://bandplans.com as a
29 matches
Mail list logo
