Rick, I don't share your dream Rick, sorry that you did not like that description, but I was trying to be polite about it. I am not here to stop you or anyone from pursuing your dreams, go learn C++ or Ada and start coding it up into your dream communications software. However I am a realist and as I don't share your dream, I see it for what it really is, a potential nightmare that would hinder communications rather than actually improving it. I won't be pursuing your dream with my valuable time available to me for code development unless a dreamer manages to get such a requirement into the rules which govern the Amateur Radio Service, which I don't see happening anytime soon, if ever, as those in charge of the rules are also realists, at least at present.
The issue you are talking about has been around since day one and always will be in all forms of RF communications, the answer to the issue is a level of tolerance, its that simple. Just because one station of two ( regardless if one is unattended ) can hear a 3rd station does not even mean that the 3rd station can hear either of the two in question. As a matter of fact the 3rd station may be hearing the that station which does not hear them rather than the scenario that you paint, which means that it would be the attended station that is offending the 3rd station and not the unattended station in your scenario. In actual operation the dream scenario that you are proposing be it for Attended, Unattended or at all emitter locations, which is what I would want to see, would not make the Amateur Radio Service better, it would actually only hinder communications. You would still have the same issue that you are complaining about happening as you already realize from your comments, but just about as often if you ask me and if the algorithms were ratcheted up to the point really making a dent in the issue, then we are talking about holding off TX whenever enough RF signal is detected in the pass band over x amount of time that the algorithm qualifies as a true digital mode signal from somewhere and unless the band in question is dead, that is pretty much all the time. What will you will have then, almost no communications taking place would be the result as there is almost always a signal being heard from somewhere. Granted, you and many others would love to see almost no communications taking place WRT automated stations as you and others think they should not exist except when you feel they are needed for an ECOM event only, well I don't share that view, my view is just the opposite, automated systems are very important to the Amateur Radio Service, as they serve everyone and not just the individuals pursuit, they exist for the benefit of all Radio Amateurs communications needs 24/7, which means they can be relied upon by ECOM first responders in the middle or the day or night when needed. I fully understand why you and others would never want what you are preaching for in automated system to be in the systems that you use for digital communications and if it were to be why you would want the option to turn it off, however an unattended station can not just decide to turn it off, human intervention would be required and for the first ECOM responders trying to use the system that intervention would likely not come fast enough. I had stated on this forum a while ago that the only way to make you and others with your opinions of as you call it "on going problems" with automated stations is to have all such stations in sub bands where no other operations are conducted, that is the logical answer, any such "on going problems" would then related to only a remote user of an automated system, which by their decision to do so means they accept. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 08:33 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: >Steve, > >I am surprised that you do not understand the basic technical issues >here since you appear to be claiming that there is no such thing as the >hidden transmitter. > >A human operator can not determine the paths present at the remote >automatically controlled station. That is why there is such concern >about this on-going problem. >>SNIP<<
