Karl, that is not what he is saying at all. He said that PSK is effective
at C/N ratios where FSK is not.
If you look at the QST article a few years ago comparing Pactor,
Pactor-II, Clover and other protocols, it clearly shows the relative
performance. Pactor-II is quite effective and is an improvement over
Pactor in most, if not all cases (o.k., I'll hedge here since I haven't
dug out the article).
Having said that, what does any of this have to do with Linux, other than
that the Pactor-II and Clover protocols and methods don't fit the open
source model? Discussions of this sort are better held on
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc.
Bob
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Jose Angel Amador Fundora wrote:
>
> } On 26 Mar 99 at 14:57, Karl F. Larsen wrote:
> }
> } > Pactor is hard on your transmitter.
> }
> } Pactor-II is not as hard. It "has envelope", so you are forced to
> } run amplifiers with emphasis on linearity, and average power is about
> } half the peak power.
>
> So what? You still are transmitting more than when in a qso on
> ssb.
>
> }
> } > I use a TS-50 which is a very small radio and the cooling fans are
> } > on all the time when doing pactor. So far so good. No blown
> } > transistors. But I run the rig at 50 watts instead of the 100 watts
> } > max.
> }
> } Usually I run LESS THAN 25 watts on 40, 30 and 20 meters. The
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> } demodulators-decoders on the PTC-II are real gems. Also, PSK has no
> } threshold and gives useful output at C/N ratios that are useless for
> } FSK. Heat is no longer a problem, and thruput is far better.
> }
>
> Assuming PSK is phase shift keying and C/N ratios is Signal to Noise ratio
> and FSK means Frequency Shift Keying, the words above make no sense at
> all. Jose is saying that ptcII is using PSK and that makes it much better
> than a unit using ...PSK.
>
> My MFJ uses PSK for pactor. The pctII talks to my pactor so it
> must use PSK too. What is the point here?
>
> Jose, a deal: I will publish the protocal in total for pactor and
> you publish the protocal used by ptcII in total and then we will let the
> smart people on this list decide just how much better/worse ptcII is.
>
> If you can't do what you need to do, then stop telling us that
> ptcII works better than pactor. I and many others do not believe you.
>
>
>
> } 73 de Jose, CO2JA
> }
> } ---
> }
> } Ing. Jose A. Amador | Telf: (537) 20-7814
> } Depto de Telecomunicaciones | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> } ISPJAE |
> }
>
> Best wishes
>
> - Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303 -
>
>
----
Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
