Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is
myth.
73, Jaak
es1hj/qrp
8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas:
If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop
detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal.
Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and
practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running
unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy
detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear
message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly
drive everyone else out of them.
Appeasement never works.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]*on Behalf Of *Andy obrien
*Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing
view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the
"wide" modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections
if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended"
under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of
complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle
of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic
unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do
so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment?
(actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz
sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all
that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there
really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use
narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate
schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are
primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be
secondary.
Andy K3UK
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
--- In [email protected]
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Andy obrien
<k3uka...@...> wrote:
>
> Andy K3UK
Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I
cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better
served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and
PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or
"advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which is relatively
recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why
they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic
sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on
pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no
offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots
being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic
and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation.
Bill N9DSJ
>
--
Kirjutas ja tervitab
Jaak Hohensee
