> The point I am making is that us hams have a lot > of tools in our EMCOMM arsenals.. and using this > irrational hatred of Winlink...to discard one > of our tools makes no sense...
I am unaware of anyone suggesting Winlink being "discarded". That is a red herring. The points I made, and they were intentionally precise, were: 1. Were any other weak-signal digital modes tested? Winlink is one of many, and one of the most complex. Why test only the most expensive and the most complex rather than several different digital modes? 2. In proper emergency communications planning one *always* seeks the most commonly available, least complex, and most effective mode(s) for communication. There is no evidence that such was done re. digital modes in this case. 3. Winlink was not listed as to be "discarded", only as not the wise choice as a top-tier tool. Nothing presented in your reaction/reply has in the slightest way factually argued against that assertion. There are standards and science which are supposed to guide professional and wise decision making for emergency communications. The assertion that Winlink is (or was) the only and best mode simply fails to meet the standard. That Winlink was the *only* weak-signal digital mode tested makes an entirely different statement having nothing to do superiority and something else to do with skewing the playing field. How about inviting operators of several different digital modes to the test. Then using real-world probabilities postulate equipment failure. It is impossible to not find a higher probability that necessary pairs of rare Winlink stations at both critical ends will either not be in place or suffer some sort of failure then one of the more common (due primarily to cost) and more reliable (due primarily to simplicity) digital modes will really be there when things really get ugly. Let me illustrate. If one does a test that says that one must complete a relay of a package across difficult terrain and the vehicles chosen are two each Chevy S10's (SSB Voice), Honda Accords (CW), SUVs (complete VHF/UHF FM Repeater Link system), and Hummer H2s. Those vehicles would need to be in precise positions (the equivalent of EOC's) prior to the suddenly declared relay. They would have to be fully fueled, manned by competent drivers, and absent mechanical problems. One would face a series of serious challenges. Winlink, like the Hummer H2, is rare and the probability that sufficient hardware/software combinations at both ends (and "both ends" is an unpredictable because EOC's may be breached by an earthquake or terrorist attack) when needed with antennas and power and everything required is highly improbable in a properly designed scenario. Furthermore, due to the complexity of Winlink the probability of failure in one or both of the rare pairs required is also high. Just as they postulated that your vhf/uhf repeater would fail so they would equally have to postulate the failure of one specific Winlink pair being in perfect position operating perfectly undisturbed by the same or some other variable. If one postulates that the very common (Read: redundancy) S10s, Accords, and SUV's all failed and that two rare Hummers were in the right place at the right time with all variables intact and suffered no failures (in spite of the complexity and in spite of no redundancy due to cost) one has postulated an absurdity. Consider the many other far more common digital modes and one sees clearly the fallacy of the Winlink/Hummer postulate. In emergency/mission-critical planning redundancy is king. These are simple and indisputable facts that no emergency management professional may ignore unless he wants to end up like the former FEMA Director. IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e 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/
