You don't know if an instantaneously "empty" spot on the waterfall is truly
empty until you send "QRL?" and receive no response, or monitor it long
enough to have heard both sides of a QSO if one were in progress.
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of aa777888athotmaildotcom
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:34 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: More RSID - PLEASE!
You know what's really exciting? We are a hop, skip and jump away from a
powerful, lightweight ALE implementation that would probably outperform
MIL-STD-188-141A by a large margin.
Right now the code scans an entire 3KHz bandwidth for RSID (or more with
SDR). When you add in the future, planned SELCAL feature the only things
missing after that are scanning and an automated response.
It also appears possible that the software would be capable of automatically
choosing an empty spot on the waterfall to make the call. This would allow
all calls to occur simultaneously and therefore I would suggest time
synchronized scanning a la JT65 or WSPR in order to improve probability of
intercept without long or repetitive RSID transmissions. Say 4 second dwell
per band to allow a +/-1 second guard band on the timing (given a 2 second
RSID transmission length). The occasional collision would be worth the
simplicity and reliability.
Thanks again, Simon!
Scott
k*b*l*0*0*q
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon \(HB9DRV\)" <simon.br...@...>
wrote:
>
> I think it'll take up to a year - then we'll be rocking.
>
> Also when we use SDR more there will be a big improvement.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tony
>
> I think we're making progress with RSID Dave, it's just slow to catch on.
Have a look at the RSID video in the file section of this reflector.
>
