I hope you are wrong this time. All your previous comments have been right but maybe this time you could be wrong.
Rick Muething is putting so much work into Winmor AND it is working so well, that this time it may become widely used. The busy detect feature works very well, even detecting voice signals at times. The speeds achieved seem to be faster than Pactor 2. They are not faster than Pactor 3 but the bandwidth is smaller too (1600 hz compared to 2400 hz). There is no guarantee that the guys with Pactor 3 modems will stop QRMing but once there is a good alternative maybe we can get the FCC to issue citations to those who interfere. The testing with the peer to peer program (RMS Express) has gone well and they are now working on the server version. It won't be long until that is broadly tested. Hang in there and let's see how it works. Howard K5HB ________________________________ From: Charles Brabham <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 6:36:19 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital busy detect I knew one of the hams who first envisioned what would later end up being SCAMP, followed its development with interest, and was thoroughly disgusted at the way the WinLink group used those efforts as a cheap propaganda ploy instead of pursuing it honestly. SCAMP was at no point intended by the WinLink group to see actual use, its development was stretched out and used as a talking point for political purposes. As soon as its utility for that purpose became unsupportable, it was uncerimoniously killed. At no point did the WinLink group intend to phase out the use of the SCS harmful interference mills. This still holds true today. WinMore is just one more SCAMP, unfortunately. Knowing the level of character and intelligence to be found in the WinLink group, I have not followed WinMore's development. - I already know it's fate. After stretching out its supposed development for as long as possible, milking it for political traction ( We are working on ending our widespread inteference - honest! ) there will come the inevitable point where it is reluctantly admitted that WinMore just cannot do the job nearly as well as PACTOR III and then all of a sudden, you won't hear anything more about WinMore. The thing that the ARRL, the FCC, and all amateurs should understand is that WinLink will never be reformed. They hope to become so thoroughly established with delaying tactics like SCAMP and WinMore that eventually the FCC will throw up their hands and award them private spectrum of their own, or re-write PART97 so that we no longer enjoy the use of shared spectrum, thus bringing amateur radio to an end. They want a channelized, CB-like environment and the ARRL, to its discredit, is behind them 100%. As was the case with city and county entities forcing thier employees to get ham tickets as they pursued DHS grant money, and eventually starting to eye amateur radio spectrum as something to lobby for the possession of, our only real hope for a good outcome in this case is for the FCC to step in. We cannot hope for help or support from the ARRL, which again is part of the problem. So no, I have not followed WinMore's development at all, since I already know its fate. Note how WinMore is not open source but is strictly proprietary to the WinLink group, just like SCAMP was. They will be using this control to be sure that it is not developed further or used for any other purpose by anyone else. When they decide to kill it, they will want it to stay dead. - Just as dead as SCAMP is today. 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at HamRadioNet. Org ! http://www.hamradionet.org ----- Original Message ----- >From: Dave AA6YQ >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:50 > PM >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Digital busy > detect > > >Did > you evaluate the busy frequency detector in Scamp, > Charles? > >Have > you evaluated the busy frequency detector in Winmor? > > 73, > > Dave, > AA6YQ > >-----Original Message----- >From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. >com]On Behalf Of Charles > Brabham >Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:55 PM >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Subject: > [digitalradio] Digital busy detect > > >Packet radio gets by with a simple carrier > detect, PACTOR can only detect other PACTOR stations, and from what I can > tell, ALE has no busy detection at all. > >Several years ago I took a serious look at > automated busy detection, and always ran across the same stone > wall: > >A more sophisticated busy detect that > can usually tell the difference between noise and a human activity like > speech or digital transmissions is possible - BUT - only after the software > has a fairly long audio sample to work with, and can look back upon that > sample. > >It can't do this instantly, or even very quickly > unless you have a supercomputer to work with. > >If it listens to a long sample and a new signal > comes in toward the end of that sample, that new signal may or may not end > up > being identified. > >This is a terrible thing to have to report, but > Packet's carrier detect is the most effective and sophisticated automatic > signal detection scheme we currently have at our disposal. - It detects more > kinds of activity *right then* than anything else that hams are currently > using. > >There are lots of signals that carrier detect > will not detect - but it is still the best thing out there, that can > automatically detect and act in ( more or less ) real-time. > >The human ear works better, detecting signal > intelligence and differentiating it from noise far better than any automated > detection system. Period. > >Better still is the human eye, looking at a > properly set up waterfall display that will show you recognizable patterns > in > the waterfall image that you may not be able to register just by > listening. > >One thing to ponder is why carrier detect, > developed over twenty-five years ago is not utilized by PACTOR or ALE, both > allegedly more advanced than Packet. My feeling on this is that if they > cannot > detect signals as well as Packet does, then which mode is more advanced, > more > suitible for use on the ham bands? > >That is really an unfair question in the case of > PACTOR III and ALE, niether one of which was designed or ever intended for > use > within shared amateur radio spectrum, in the first place. It is not the > square > peg's fault that it will not fit in the round hole. > >In the end, if we are not operating an automated > station, then a waterfall display in combination with speaker audio is the > most effective and useful busy detection system we have at our disposal, and > this will almost certainly continue to be the case for a very long > time. > >For real-time automated busy detection, carrier > detect is highly likely to be the best thing at our disposal - again for a > very long time. > >The Reed-Soloman ID system is a great step ahead > for digital operation. It is not really useful as a real-time busy-detect, > but > it does give us a first step on something that may eventually take > us there. As standards and hardware evolve over the years, we may eventually > embed information into our data streams that can be instantly recognized as > 'busy' by our software. - It may even approach the speed of carrier detect, > and work with all modes. > >But don't hold your breath, it's not right around > the corner. > >73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL > >Prefer to use radio for your amateur radio communications? - Stop by at > HamRadioNet. Org ! > >http://www.hamradio net.org > > > > >
