I should point out that in my tests of the Alpha version PackinkW (with Winmor) the busy detect worked. I only tried it a few times , and not under all conditions, but several times WINMOR told me the frequency appeared busy and asked me if I really wanted to start a transmit.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "WD8ARZ" <wd8...@...> wrote: > > Hello Dave, I was there during those scamp beta testing adventures too > ..... and I remember that part of the evaluation. Various levels were played > with, akin to a sensitivity level. Bottom line to me was that when the level > made it 'work' ie, not transmit when the frequency was 'active', throughput > dropped way back.... Remember those that would intentionally put 'activity' > on the frequency to kick in the transmit control system so we had zero > activity with scamp ???? > > No cynicism involved at all, just the real world. > > 73 from Bill - WD8ARZ > (Grateful for those who are doing for all of us what they do, giving us what > we have today .... hi) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa...@...> > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] No FCC data bandwidth limit on HF Re: USA ham > rules > > > > > re "The Winmor implementation in PaclinkW (much to the dismay of the > > naysayers) has busy channel transmit control enabled." > > > > I and others strongly encouraged Rick KN6KB to provide a busy frequency > > detector in SCAMP. We were optimistic when he agreed to give it a shot, > > and > > thrilled by the effectiveness demonstrated during the SCAMP beta; even > > Rick > > was surprised by the results. When SCAMP disappeared and WinLink failed to > > upgrade its PMBOs with the SCAMP busy frequency detector, cynicism > > returned. > > Many concluded that the WinLink organization simply prefers to keep "its" > > PMBO frequencies clear by QRMing "trespassers", rather than having to wait > > for the frequency to become available. > snip snip > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ >
