Dave Bernstein wrote: > As is often the case in engineering, Jose, perfect is the enemy of > good. What Rick KN6KB discovered while developing SCAMP's busy > detector was that he could detect CW, PSK, Pactor, and SSB at an ~80% > confidence level without enormous difficulty. SCAMP beta testers were > amazed by the effectiveness of this first iteration. > > Pushing the confidence level from 80% to 100%, however, would take > years -- if its even possible. But a busy detector that works 80% of > the time would cut QRM from unattended automated stations (like > WinLink PMBOs) by a factor of 5! > > Your comment that "many think it is simpler than it really is to do > it WELL" is frankly moot; Rick demonstrated two years ago that useful > busy frequency detection was implementable on a PC and soundcard. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ
I understand that 80% is fairly good. Hope the long standing anti-automatic stations lobby sees it as acceptable as well. What is seemingly left, then, is to simply push the busy detector into practice and 24/7 service. Who will get the task done? 73, Jose __________________________________________ V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación Energética. 22 al 25 de mayo de 2007 Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
