I have used Winlink occasionally, and have not experienced any
contention when attempting to connect. I have not tried NTS-D.
Trading absolute efficiency for dramatically reduced QRM -- and the
frustration it generates -- seems reasonable to me. If the QRL
protocol enables automatic stations to operate considerately and
rarely QRM ongoing QSOs, then having ~10% more automatic stations to
compensate for the protocol's capacity impact is a no-brainer. And
10% is probably an overestimate...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 22 February 2006 01:09, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> > >>>AA6YQ comments below
> >
>
> >
> > >>>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.
>
> Have you ever listened on the Winlink and NTS-D frequencies? On
40m at night
> it is hard to establish any kind of session because of the usage
levels. I
> don't get much of a chance to listen to 20m during the day but
based on
> Winlink traffic loads it would appear that those channels are very
busy also.
>
> The biggest problem is that the remote operator does NOT sit on
the channel
> waiting for it to clear. That is the whole crux of the hidden
transmitter
> problem. The proposed multi-minute wait process just multiplies
the session
> time requiring even more channels to carry the traffic.
>
>
>
> > >>>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.
>
> I disagree. Most ops don't *listen* to the data tones on a
frequency. I know I
> don't. Nor do I sit there watching the waterfall while I am
reading a
> transmission or compose one to send. My guess is that most ops
would never
> hear or recognize a QRL in a mode different from the one they are
using.
>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I don't agree. I like the ability to actually break into a
transmission much
> better.
>
> tim ab0wr
>
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/
