I can't disagree with your comment. But, if you can't completely prevent it, at least minimize it to the maximum extent possible.
Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Bernstein Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? Your point was "QRM is inevitable -- live with it". My point is "QRM from unattended stations is preventable; stop making excuses and fix it". 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In [email protected], "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > <sticking tongue in cheek> > This is a sane idea and a good operating practice...are we (hams) suppose to be sane and use good operating practices since we are sharing all these frequencies? > </sticking tongue in cheek> > > Thanks for making my point. What technology can't do, good manners and operating practices can. > > Walt/K5YFW > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Bernstein > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? > > > The scenario where neither A or B can hear C or D, but that C or D > are QRM'd by transmissions from A or B is indeed possible, but is > relatively infrequent. No one expects A or B -- whether they are > attended or unattended -- to suspend transmission to avoid QRMing a > station that neither can hear. > > The more common scenario is that A can't hear C or D, but B can hear > C or D. A contacts B. If B is attended, he or she detects that the > frequency is in use, and either remains silent, or transmits > something quick like "QSY to 14085". If B is unattended and without a > busy frequency detector, its responds to A, QRMing C and D. > > It is the latter scenario that is responsible for most of the QRM > from unattended stations responding to attended stations (often > referred to as "semi-automatic" operation). The fact that we can't > cure the first scenario is no excuse for not curing the second > scenario, especially given that the second scenario is far more > common than the first scenario. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In [email protected], "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" > <walt.dubose@> wrote: > > > > A & B hear each other but dont' hear C & D. But C hears either or > both A and B. > > > > If C is receiving D, then A or B is QRMing C. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny Douglas > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? > > > > > > HMMM By whom is C being QRMd. You didnt say who he is hearing as > QRM. I am > > assuming that C is hearing either A or B or even both? In this > case, if A > > and B were already in QSO, then C and D should QSY to start their > QSO > > elsewhere. > > > > If the C and D QSO was already underway, and A and B started up, > and they > > were not hearing either C or D (not probable as usually prop is two- > way if > > it is strong enough for QRM) then C and D would either put up with > it, or > > move since under this condition, they cant tell the other pair that > the freq > > is in use. > > > > It is prudent for both parties, starting a QSO to insure that > neither of > > them is intefering with an ongoing QSO, and by both checking to see > (both > > automatic stations having the capability) if the freq was QRL - it > would > > avoid inteference to others. > > > > > > Danny Douglas N7DC > > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > > DX 2-6 years each > > . > > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > > As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you > > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > > or hard card. > > > > moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <walt.dubose@> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:56 PM > > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Dec 15? > > > > > > > If A and B can hear each other but can't hear C or D then if A or > B > > transmits and C is receiving D, then C is QRMed and can't copy D. > > > > > > This is something that happens quite often on HF and I don't > think that > > any amount of coding willremedy this problem. > > > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node > spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs. Yahoo! Groups Links
