-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13.01.07 02:36:52
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
Rein,
I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink 2000. I
am not sure what
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
Rein,
I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink
2000. I am not sure what it really is other than a compression
scheme to nearly double plain text throughput and is some kind of
adaptation to the protocols
Rick,
This is certainly lost on the Pactor III group.
73,
Mark N5RFX
having many small bandwidth users means more throughput for more
users than one large bandwidth user at a time.
I am afraid it is as Rein says.
FBB, which uses B1F compression (hope I remember right) does not
compress the sysop keyboard, but just the BBS traffic.
JNOS has a compressed ttylink mode that uses LZW and has never worked
for me (compile errors), but which might provide an edge.
PTC-II boxes
Not bad...but quite a few DXpeditions and less luck people cannot rely
on full time Internet.
This is ham radio...
Jose CO2JA
Dave Bernstein wrote:
Why stop there, Leigh? With the use of QRZ.com and weather.com to
independently determine name, QTH, and weather conditions, you could
Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. wrote:
But why stop there, as you say? I'm reasonably sure someone's already
done this (from the scores I see in the contest logs) but it should be
possible to totally automate the RTTY contests. With wide-band SDR
receivers (and transmitters for that matter) it ought
The Winlink 2000 promoter brings up B2F from time to time with the claim
that this is what makes their system have the extra efficiency. But
apparently this is a bit overstated.
Is it possible to use more compression in the current keyboard modes or
is Varicode about as good as can be
If it is the same protocol as B1F, was the reason for developing it,
that the B1F did not have the needed exchange to work with Winlink 2000?
So it is basically an extended version to do more things that they
need to have it do?
I don't think that I am fully understanding what your code is
There is already a degree of Huffman-type compression in PSK31 via the
Varicode, where the number of bits per symbol depends on symbol
frequency.
Compression that depends on the text that went before it could be more
efficient, but would lead to total loss of the following text in the
ecent
KV9U wrote:
If it is the same protocol as B1F, was the reason for developing it,
that the B1F did not have the needed exchange to work with Winlink 2000?
I'm not really sure what that means, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say
B2F is the same protocol as B1F. Only the compression is the same.
: Pactor versus Olivia
I have seen the claim for a good operator able to copy down to about -15
db S/N for CW operation. Some of the digital soundcard modes are
supposed to be able to still have throughput down around -15 depending
upon other factors such as doppler, ISI, etc.
Using Multipsk, and I
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12.01.07 17:09:44
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
By the way, I have often wondered why the B2F binary compression system
used with the Winlink 2000 system
of the uppercase text as well...
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 1:02 pm, Rein Couperus wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12.01.07 17:09:44
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12.01.07 22:24:49
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
Here's a modest proposal: compress most of the QSO the way the
moonbounce modes do, by knowing what
: Pactor versus Olivia
By the way, I have often wondered why the B2F binary
compression
system
used with the Winlink 2000 system has never been used for
nearly a 2:1
compression for improved throughput. This could be applied to
any
system, including keyboarding.
73,
Rick
Rein,
I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink 2000. I
am not sure what it really is other than a compression scheme to nearly
double plain text throughput and is some kind of adaptation to the
protocols that were adopted by FBB such as B1F.
Shouldn't this work with
KV9U wrote:
I am not clear on this. The B2F compression is used with Winlink 2000. I
am not sure what it really is other than a compression scheme to nearly
double plain text throughput and is some kind of adaptation to the
protocols that were adopted by FBB such as B1F.
B2F compression
Betreff: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
By the way, I have often wondered why the B2F binary
compression
system
used with the Winlink 2000 system has never been used for
nearly a 2:1
compression for improved throughput. This could
: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
Thanks for the suggestion Dave and I'm glad you liked my modest
proposal.
In fact I have an XSLT transformation I can apply to weather.com which
is invoked via a command-line macro which inserts the current
temperature from weather.com, so when people ask for WX
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, may I inject my 2 cents worth.
SCS says that Pactor III is 4 times faster than Pactor II and the
code would indicate such. Thus the raw channel throughput IS faster
and the BER should be
SCS says that Pactor III is 4 times faster than Pactor II and the
code would indicate such. Thus the raw channel throughput IS faster
and the BER should be better. But as far as performance goes at
varying SNRs will make a difference in throughput. At a -5 dB SNR on
the KC7WW channel
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, may I inject
only need Pactor
I.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of kd4e
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:44 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Pactor versus Olivia
SCS says that Pactor III is 4
While this information does not seem to support the SCS claim of working
way down to the minus teens of db S/N, it is interesting that in the
old days Pactor 1 users claimed that they could get throughput when
they could not even hear any suggestion of modulation.
I never found this to be
: Pactor versus Olivia
While this information does not seem to support the SCS claim of working
way down to the minus teens of db S/N, it is interesting that in the
old days Pactor 1 users claimed that they could get throughput when
they could not even hear any suggestion of modulation.
I never
I have seen the claim for a good operator able to copy down to about -15
db S/N for CW operation. Some of the digital soundcard modes are
supposed to be able to still have throughput down around -15 depending
upon other factors such as doppler, ISI, etc.
Using Multipsk, and I don't know how
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rich Mulvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing about Pactor 1 is that it's adequate for relatively good
conditions, but is noticably worse than
Pactor 2 and 3 when things get marginal. Pactor 3 absolutely shines
under the absolute worst conditions,
Hi Andy,
I listened for about 90 minutes - problem for me was that copy was too
good (a rare compliant about that) - you and Craig we 100% print in all
modes tried, even BPSK31. Was alot of fun following you two around and
your use of the RS ID helped alot for when I was less than attentive to
28 matches
Mail list logo
