>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message----- From: Jaak Hohensee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Dave AA6YQ Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. >>>One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. >>>And as I said, "perfect is the enemy of good" (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is "only" 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 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]> wrote: --- In [email protected], 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
