ct: 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]>
ay, 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 PRO
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 packag
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
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
amateu
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 s
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 transmitte
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
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
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?
>>>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 devel
>>>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? N
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 pre
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
> whi
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
*** 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
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 i
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
*** more AA6YQ comments
--- 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
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 Wi
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 waterf
They would have to purchase a TNC so they could QSO in Pactor, which
PMBOs can detect and thus would not QRM.
In other words, since PMBOs are only capable of detecting pre-
existing QSOs in Pactor, everyone should simply switch to Pactor for
all QSOs. PMBO QRM problem solved.
This reminds me of
lto:[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
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:
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:
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 subse
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
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 wi
Sorry, the second sentence of my post below was intended to be
"Jose pointed out that a Winlink PMBO will not transmit if 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."
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
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
### 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 capa
Part of the problem is that there is a misunderstanding about who
should operate where. In the US at least, the frequencies shown for
automated wideband operation are NOT "reserved" or "allocated" for
this purpose. These are the frequencies automated stations using
wideband signals are "restricte
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 initi
The overlap is the reality, Demetre. You may not like it, but you
must respect it and operate accordingly.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"
wrote:
> >
> > You've
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
>
> "In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap".
>
You said that, but when they overlap there is always a problem my friend!
>73,
>
>
You've evidently forgotten my earlier point, Demetre:
"In the land of HF, the hiking trails and highways overlap".
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" wrote:
> >
> > C
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude.
>
I have driven in USA highways and I have never seen anyone taking a
hike there! That was in July 2000. I don't think people have changed a
lot
+++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 whe
Coming from one of the drivers, that's a very unfortunate attitude.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein"
wrote:
>
>
> > >>>In the land of HF, the hiking paths and h
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 pro
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>In the land of HF, the hiking paths and highways overlap. Thus,
> your "simple and logical solution" simply doesn't work. We need
> polite drivers.
OK go and take a hike at the highway then and hope for the
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There is only a simple and logical solution. Don't operate anything
> else than wide digital in the digital subbands, just like noone in
> their right mind operates SSB in the CW portions
>>>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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" wrote:
> >
> > >>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the
> > initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing
> > QSO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>Since the initiator is typically remote from the PMBO, the
> initiator cannot reliably determine that PMBO will not QRM an ongoing
> QSO. You could activate a PMBO in England on a frequency that sounds
> clea
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 t
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't see the point of you mentioning it then.
>>>You brought it up, Demetre. You said you didn't understand. I
simply offered an explanation.
Again this is an old horse already beaten t
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 patchi
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>AA6YQ comments below
>
> >>>There are some who claim that email messages should not be
> conveyed by amateurs because doing so would compete with commerical
> operations, but the same could be said of any QSO. I don'
>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't understand why all this bashing about illegal and commercial
about Winlink2000. I wonder is it jealousy? Looks like it. Also I
don't understand why a radio ham should not get/send e-ma
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
> ar
TECTED] 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
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 avoi
53 matches
Mail list logo
