>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In [email protected], Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sorry but you are tilting with a windmill. You just added 4.5 to
5 minutes to every session request, even for messages that shouldn't
take more than 90sec to complete. That means this recommendation
will require 3 times the number of channels to handle the same
amount of traffic. That's not an effective way to do things.
>>>Unless a remote operator seeking access to the automatic station
is sitting on frequency waiting for the frequency to clear, there
will be a signficant delay between the frequency clearing and the
first transaction. The proposed multi-minute process that verifies
that the frequency is truly clear runs in parallel with this delay.
The probability that the remote operator will attempt initiation
within 5 minutes of the frequency clearing is low, hence the impact
on overall throughput will be low.
In addition, I sincerely doubt that a RTTY station, for instance,
will recognize the CW QRL request and reply in 30 seconds.
>>>Most ops would quickly learn to recognize "QRL?" in CW. Replying
requires nothing more than hitting a couple of keys, whether on an
KSR-33 or a keyboard.
It would be much better if the automatic station could respond to a
standard QRL signal during receive periods (wasn't it you that
suggested that to me at some time in the past?).
>>>Yes, I did; the two techniques are complementary.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
