The SCS modem is not a hardware-only implementation; it uses an
embedded microprocessor. With respect to Pactor-X modulation/
demodulation, it is not correct to say "a soundcard will not work".
What I think you mean is "a soundcard in a PC running Windows will
not work"; that's because Windows is not a real-time operating
system, and prevents a Pactor-X modulation/demodulation application
from meeting the turn-around-time constraints imposed by Pactor-X. A
fast Pentium and state-of-the-art soundcard running a realtime
operating system would have the horsepower required to implement
Pactor-X; such a configuration would be a dedicated Pactor-X modem
that costs far more than an SCS modem, so no one bothers to
implement it.
As to whether the public description of the Pactor-X protocol is
sufficient to allow implementation by a third party, we won't know
till someone tries. Worst case, one might have to do a little
reverse engineering.
One of these days, someone will design a high-performance data
transfer protocol (with busy frequency detectors, of course) that
can be implemented on Windows and a soundcard. That will render the
SCS price point unsustainable, and you'll start finding them at flea
markets in a pile between the big hardware RTTY modems and Packet
TNCs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 11:35 PM 6/21/2006, you wrote:
> >Can I use a soundcard program to detect it and monitor it, as I
should be
> >able to do as a licensed amateur? No, it is not open to the
public.
>
>
> That's right. They (SCS) holds the rights to how and why it works
> If you don't putout $$$ you can copy it. That is the way things
> work. And I have a news flash for you. A sound card will not work
> anyway. You ask why? Because of the same reason there is no
> program that works as well as hardware on pactor or amtor ARQ.
> It's all in the timing.
>
> Last night in a email you said:
>
> " That's why it should not be allowed. I am an amateur and I am not
> able to listen to amateur transmissions. How do I know the
terrorists
> that planned the 9-11 attacks didn't use WinLink or Sailor-Mail to
> plan it? I don't, because the transmissions are secret. "
>
> Along that same line of thinking should we stop using CW because
> not all ham's can copy it?
>
> I, Dave and others that have paid for the pactor modem and can copy
> pactor III, therefore it's not secret..
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
