SCAMP had no problem at all with the switching times from the testing I did. As a former Amtor and Pactor user from years earlier, it proved to me that my concerns about switching were unwarranted. Then along comes RFSM2400 with its frequent switching back and forth to maintain a link, even with no data flow, and you realize that computers can switch in a few tens of milliseconds, even with non-real time operating systems. Try toggling the PTT control with a typical multimode program and see how fast you can switch back and forth. It is not all that slow. I am skeptical about the "wear and tear" issue. Many rigs have QSK capabilities to allow switching between TX and RX many times per second. Even at 60 wpm with CW! So twice per second for older technology such as Amtor would not be that difficult to handle and new technology with less than one cycle per a few seconds, hardly noticeable.
Although RFSM (MIL-STD 188-110A) can not be used in the HF RTTY/Data U.S. bands due to the high baud rate, other MIL-STD parallel tone modems could, even though it is not something that common. One of the methods would be to use some of the SCAMP technology and leverage it with the newer non RFDT modulation of SSTV/data such as QAM and do it with on the fly ARQ instead of manually after the completion of the transmission as it is done now with most of these programs. From my understanding that is what Winmor effectively does, plus it will have the necessary adaptive technology for ramping speeds up and down for conditions. This is something that any new, successful messaging system MUST have to succeed. The big question for the future is how open Winmor will be so that other adaptations can be made for BBS and peer to peer connections, particularly if you want something that can meet the needs of public service/emergency communication. E-mail can be helpful, but peer connections are vital, and BBS of great value in order to time shift. If there was a BBS system that could use low/no cost sound card adaptive modes for HF and/or VHF, I think it would be popular. I personally would be one of the first to support such a system. This is currently a large "hole" in what we need since the packet systems have mostly been discontinued. The key is to have at least a local BBS system that can work over a moderate distance of perhaps 30 to 50 miles on VHF (or more) and up to a few hundred miles on HF. 73, Rick, KV9U José A. Amador wrote: > > Examples of tight timing and succesful implementation are P-II and > P-III, not only AMTOR, with its hair raising clicking.... > > I never tried SCAMP, which seemingly did well running under Windows. > Actually, I have entrenched on my mind what > gave me good results, but certainly, that may not be the only way for > success, I have to admit. > > Examples of the success of tight timing are WSPR and WSJT, and > certainly, knowing WHEN to expect input is a bonus. > None of them generate such a high wear and tear. WHEN may be absolute, > like in WSJT, related to the UTC time scale, > or relative, in some time measure after the last received packet. > > I have had little luck with RFSM8000, because of my perennial lack of > time in recent times and the little user mass it has generated. > > - - - > > It was a way, which certainly, has been proven not to be the only one. > You cannot entirely disegard trends, that may vary in time. > > I was the sysop of three BBS's at a time, on MSDOS (even with Desqview > "multitasking"), Linux and Windows (the last one was a quick hack and > an exercise in lazyness) and I liked BBS's. > > Forwarding over radio links, with all the freedoms it provides, and some > associated extra responsibilities too. But I fail to see the comeback of > the BBS's. > Winlink may be useful, but it hardly substiututes the "packet" network > the way it operated in the 90's. > > I have very good memories of the Linux based systems I ran (node, FBB, > JNOS, DXNET), both were highly resilient and almost bulletproof. Uptime > was usually more than 30 days, and the PC's ran without battery backups. > I always used hardware TNC's, Kantronics and SCS. > > Pactor allowed 1 MB per day of forwarding on HF easily. Packet (300 > baud) hardly ever exceeded 100 kb per day. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1853 - Release Date: 12/17/2008 > 8:31 AM > >
