+++ AA6YQ comments below -----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jose A. Amador
You are pretty persistent, sir.... +++ Thank you. Dave AA6YQ wrote: >>>If you see a flaw in the above logic, please point it out. I cannot read arabic, nor none of those middle eastern backward written languages. I know, I am not perfect. Just as a curiosity, could you please state the date of that 97.101(d)? I am not under FCC jurisdiction, so, I am pretty outdated with all the back and forth changes it has had lately. I just want to know when I all saw and knew changed from forward to backwards. +++ I do not know the date at which 97.101 was originally instituted or last modified. Part 97 is available online via http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=57 +++ 97.101 is available online via http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=115 Under your reasoning, automatic operation is IMPOSSIBLE, because noone knows if the called automatic station will QRM someone else, even if there is no band noise, or if it will ever respond, using the activity detector you have been so actively promoting, and yet not in use. +++ That's not true, Jose. If an unattended station contains a busy frequency detector, then it can respond to an activation signal from a remote initiator as long as the busy frequency detector indicates that the frequency has not been in use. Additional confidence could be gained by designing an unattended station's control software to respond to a "universal QRL signal", for example the letters QRL sent twice in 5 wpm CW. +++ I note that you've cited no flaw in my reasoning. You simply didn't like its conclusion. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
