[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> Dave, AA6YQ wrote: > Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically > initiated each month? Why not try it and see? 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" wrote: > Andy K3UK wrote: > Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! > Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK Hi Andy, As the defacto global standard for initiating and sustaining HF comms, ALE isn't affected by "ham radio digital flavor of the month" :) >>>I wonder what fraction of amateur radio QSOs are initiated and sustained >>>with ALE. Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typically initiated each >>>month? Anyone know how many amateur QSOs are typicaly initiated with ALE >>>each month? 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> Andy K3UK wrote: > Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! > Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK Hi Andy, As the defacto global standard for initiating and sustaining HF comms, ALE isn't affected by "ham radio digital flavor of the month" :) When linked, simply use whatever mode suits your fancy... voice, PSK, CW, etc, and perhaps WINMOR when it becomes widely available. Personally, I support the efforts to advance the WINMOR development. Advancement is a good thing for ham radio. Bonnie KQ6XA http://hflink.net
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
I have a friend who years ago twisted my arm to get me into Clover. Back then the original Clover modem, the PCI-4000 was arguably more costly than the SCS modems in constant dollars. We used to keep skeds and use it conversationally - he seemed to really enjoy the quasi-full-duplex operation where we could both be typing at the same time and our two-way communications were going along with the ACK and NACK signals. Eventually we gave up on Clover, partly because we both got busy with other things, but also because Clover seemed to have a particular shortcoming: when the channel quality deteriorated it would keep trying unsuccessfully to send a long block, instead of dropping back to a shorter block that might have a chance of getting through. But when it worked we did enjoy the error- free conversations under band conditions that were too bad for the only other keyboard mode we had at the time, which was RTTY. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > > I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can > use > > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted > messages > > . > > > Q Why not .. looks like with the passage of 'noble cw' we now have > > a new wave of message handeling systems to replace it, which 'will > > not' support a direct qso ? > > > Can we have a little button that says 'arq qso mode' that would > > be 'fun' > > > G . > > Graham, when we implemented ARQ in NBEMS, we could have included an ARQ chat > mode, but, instead we included "Plain Talk", which communicates "between" > ARQ blocks for coodination purposes (such as suggesting a speed change), but > not using ARQ, because using ARQ slows down the communication exchanges so > much. The mode selected for ARQ needs to be pretty good anyway in order to > keep the error rate down, or there will be too many repeated blocks, and the > link may even timeout. So, by using a low error-rate mode to start with, ARQ > is not needed for a QSO, because hams are used to seeing some errors in the > reception (just like you can also get with CW), and either mentally correct > for the error or may just request a partial repeat. > > ARQ is more important for messaging (vital actually!), to be absolutely sure > the message does not have any errors at all, for even a single error in a > phone number for delivery will render the entire message undeliverable. > However, in QSO's, we hams often use a type of "manual FEC" by just > repeating an important word (such as a callsign, or grid square) two or > three times, which is faster than repeating a whole block just to correct a > random error which may not destroy the meaning of the communication. > > 73, Skip KH6TY > NBEMS Development Team Skip, Well your right in what you say, I suppose `we' are all right in what `we' say and in there lies the problem, my intro to data was with a ST5 terminal and a creed 75 printer quickly moving on to a Sinclair zx81 with 8251 uart with a couple of modem chips (still in box in the attic) most if not all of my data has been on hf with qsb noise and the odd co occupancy of the channel, in those days , yes you could force shift and work out what the message should of been, the pk232 with amtor and pactor came as breath of fresh air, and hf packet in the middle of the sun spots on 10 mtrs was something else , but `we' seem to be loosing foreword momentum as that's was in the mid 1980's ! Yes data rates have slowed , yes data is lost due to noise and qsb and yes you can make a guess at the `missing bits ` but somehow it was nice to know that spelling mistakes you made where reproduced at the other end and the odd place names actually where printing correctly. But looking at the advances in data processing and digital audio processing, it tantalising to think that you could achieve error free live communications at or below the noise level. It was established well back, that the picalo multi tone diplomatic links out performed the sitor 2 tone arq system, but the arq function was retained and resulted in longer traffic `windows' , The winmor system looks like `missing link' multi tone and arq . A quantum leap .. ? G .. nb Therese always some one who want to knock square pegs into round holes , ive found that as long as the diagonal is slightly smaller than the inner circumference they fit quite well .. hihi >
Re: [digitalradio] JT65A ??
I suspect that they are NOT JT65A signals , what frequency? Andy K3UK On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Kim wrote: > Does anyone know what's going on with JT65A? I'm seeing signals now that are > 400 hz wide and I am unable to decode them with WSJT6 software. > > Kim AB7JK > > _
[digitalradio] JT65A ??
Does anyone know what's going on with JT65A? I'm seeing signals now that are 400 hz wide and I am unable to decode them with WSJT6 software. Kim AB7JK
Re: [digitalradio] Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Andy brings up some very good points. I concur that WINMOR, as used with Winlink 2000, will engender a great deal more interest in using ham radio for e-mail. I know that I plan to use this myself, especially building it into public service/emergency communication. We have no way of accessing any ham radio e-mail in this part of the U.S., and even if we did, I would not be willing to build it into public service because it may not be there when you most need it. (It is fine for casual e-mail use, if you have it). Although WINMOR as used for the Winlink 2000 system will not be able to operate peer to peer, it is my long term hope that since it is an open mode, it may be incorporated into other programs or used within a stand alone multi-use digital program that can do both peer to peer and still be useful for the e-mail connection. From what I have observed over the years, only a tiny percentage of hams have the slightest interest in HF digital. And since the days of VHF packet, there is minimal interest there as well. This means that in order to get enough hams to actually be prepared to use these modes, it has to be extremely simple, no cost except for some basic interfacing to existing rigs, and work well under varying conditions without much operator intervention. There are those who believe that we need many tools in the toolbox, but is this really the case? It may be more realistic to have the fewest number. The ideal situation is to have one that works on MF/HF/VHF/UHF using the same interface and basic protocols that the user does not have to be too concerned about. Otherwise you will only have the digital aficianados available for digital modes and that is no where near enough for widespread public service use. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > As the addition of WINMOR to Paclink has begun early testing , mostly > testing of rig interfacing, I have had an opportunity to reacquaint > myself with Paclink, Airmail, and the Winlink system. I had set > things up for Winlink at my station a couple of years ago and used a > local 2M Telpac node to access the system . Sure, I could use the > Internet to access Winlink , but after my local telpac node went down > I regretted not having a direct radio on-ramp , no Pactor TNC here. > > Just as I was tempted to spend a zillion dollars on a P3 capable > machine, along came talk of WINMOR . I had some initial confusion > cleared up by Rick, KV9U and others in an earlier thread. Now, > studying Paclink a bit more has me really looking forward to using > public mailboxes that use WINMOR on HF. > > I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . It is a mode designed to work within the Paclink application. > > There is really no valid reason, but I bet you that when WINMOR HF > servers come on line...I will be trying to connect to one thousands of > miles away. This, despite the fact that I could "pop" my message in > to the system via Telnet or 2M packet. > > I wrote a brief article for a local radio group explaining the > differing concepts between NBEMS/FLARQ in FL-Digi and WINMOR in > PacklinkW. As I wrote it, and played around with both this weekend , > I am of the opinion that BOTH will be useful tools for message > delivery. NBEMS for all the reasons previously mentioned on this > message group, and the Winlink system that is efficient ,soon to be > open to more people with a sound card based HF option, and a potential > busy-detect system that will hopefully eliminate some of the PACTOR > QRM argument. > > Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! > > Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1980 - Release Date: 03/02/09 > 23:02:00 > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . > Q Why not .. looks like with the passage of 'noble cw' we now have > a new wave of message handeling systems to replace it, which 'will > not' support a direct qso ? > Can we have a little button that says 'arq qso mode' that would > be 'fun' > G . Graham, when we implemented ARQ in NBEMS, we could have included an ARQ chat mode, but, instead we included "Plain Talk", which communicates "between" ARQ blocks for coodination purposes (such as suggesting a speed change), but not using ARQ, because using ARQ slows down the communication exchanges so much. The mode selected for ARQ needs to be pretty good anyway in order to keep the error rate down, or there will be too many repeated blocks, and the link may even timeout. So, by using a low error-rate mode to start with, ARQ is not needed for a QSO, because hams are used to seeing some errors in the reception (just like you can also get with CW), and either mentally correct for the error or may just request a partial repeat. ARQ is more important for messaging (vital actually!), to be absolutely sure the message does not have any errors at all, for even a single error in a phone number for delivery will render the entire message undeliverable. However, in QSO's, we hams often use a type of "manual FEC" by just repeating an important word (such as a callsign, or grid square) two or three times, which is faster than repeating a whole block just to correct a random error which may not destroy the meaning of the communication. 73, Skip KH6TY NBEMS Development Team
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . Q Why not .. looks like with the passage of 'noble cw' we now have a new wave of message handeling systems to replace it, which 'will not' support a direct qso ? Can we have a little button that says 'arq qso mode' that would be 'fun' G .
[digitalradio] Possibly an important article
The new (March 2009) issue of Communications of the ACM has an article by Guruswami and Rudra, "Error Correction up to the Informaton-Theoretic Limit" that may be important. I'm not enough of a theoretician to say whether it is or isn't. Jim W6JVE
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" wrote: > I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . The part of this I know, but don't completely understand, is - there is going to be some kind of modem, and some kind of codec, and some kind of ARQ protocol on top of that, and then the application that sends and receives messages as part of Winlink or Paclink or whatever. Is there something unique about the modem that makes it better than some of the others we are now using for keyboard chats as well as for the Winlink application? Same for the codec?
Re: [digitalradio] Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Andy Let me know what you think of it. Not having a 2M packet network near I missout on a lot of things. Anything via airmail / winlink has got to be by HF from this station. John
