Jim, I agree with you completely about Clover II. Some years back, when I would call CQ, I would sometimes get a connection with Ray Petit, W7GHM, (the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II), but with our distance and dipole antennas, could rarely do much more than trade the path information, HI.
Clover II just did not have a robust enough mode, which was somewhat surprising since the base modulation was 4 PSK31 tones. At the time the Winlink system used both Clover II and Pactor (some Amtor until that was phased out), but when they switched over to the Winlink 2000 internet based e-mail system, they dropped Clover II support so that really decreased use of the mode. WINMOR is an openly published protocol (perhaps not quite finalized yet) that anyone will be able to develop if they have the ability and interest to do so. This means it could be used in existing programs or even in a new program that would insure ARQ and adaptability for peer to peer communication. This is vital for those of us who have a serious interest in public service/emergency communications. We primarily need the ability to connect to other stations on a peer to peer basis, but having e-mail access to the internet can also be useful, assuming the internet is working where you need to move traffic. Based on the protocols for WINMOR, I wonder if it will sometimes be more robust than Pactor modes of which the most robust, even with P3 is 2 PSK100 tones separated by about 700 Hz. I have never seen any published information on the tolerance for ISI and Doppler and I suspect it may not be all that much based upon Tony's results with various modes. 73, Rick, KV9U jhaynesatalumni wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)" <simon.br...@...> > wrote: > >> Would not WINMOR be an option here? >> >> > Well, except that WINMOR seems to be single-mindedly a message > passing mode. I wish there was some layering so that the modulation > means and the error correcting means and the message passing were > separable. Of course adapting to varying conditions means some > communication down through the layers, changing the modulation > scheme when error control indicates that is needed. > > CLOVER had that kind of operation - trouble is that it (amateur > version) seems to lack the ability to go downhill when conditions > worsen - it's aggressive enough about going uphill when conditions > permit. Times I have used it, it would invariably get stuck > trying to send long blocks that never made it through, when shorter > blocks probably would have been successful. > > Jim W6JVE > >
