Re: [digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
7102.2, center frequency. Certainly, a busy frequency. I cannot tell what "mode" called on top of me, because, robotic or manned, all pactor link initiations are about the same. Only after you receive a system ID or a human greeting you get to know. But I guess, given the frequency, that it was another client attempting to throw me away to seize the link. And no, I guess it was not using a waterfall, neither did I. It was another PTC calling, I heard it on pactor. And somebody else on 141A, too. So, and I stress it, this is about the lack of consideration those who trigger the "robots" that so far have got the lion's share of the blaming. "Activity detectors" would be only part of the solution. Jose, CO2JA --- jgorman01 wrote: > What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started > calling on top of you, or a "modem" mode? Hard to believe someone > with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of > you, although there are jerks everywhere. > > Jim > WA0LYK > __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
Hello Jose, You are correct, it does not seem that "attended" stations are always "listening" stations. Have seem many clients qrming each other and probably, to some locations, qrming the PMBO itself as they are calling the PBMO that is already linked. Might explain why, even though supposed "busy detector" will allegedly on detector Pactor (in the Winlink example), that it is oft turned off. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. > > The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when > somebody started calling on top of us. > > I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be > heard: my correspondent, > me, and me and my half gallon linear. And he / she kept on calling on > top...I could not see who was, > I could not monitor the failed attempts while linked. > > I did not lose my link even when an ALE 141A station started calling > also on top of the ongoing QSO. > > Something that has been spoken about very little...QRM from other clients. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
This is not new in any way Jim. Just a few weeks Tony, K2MO was in a QSO on 7077.5 Pactor and someone started calling CQ and then just sent trash. I did sent a email. His reply was (as it always is) " I was thinking it was a PMBO station" . John, W0JAB At 01:51 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote: >What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started >calling on top of you, or a "modem" mode? Hard to believe someone >with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of >you, although there are jerks everywhere. > >Jim >WA0LYK
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
What frequency were you using? Was it a keyboard mode that started calling on top of you, or a "modem" mode? Hard to believe someone with a keyboard mode and a waterfall display would start over top of you, although there are jerks everywhere. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For me, the proven offenders can be ATTENDED stations. > > The past week I was linked to a Winlink station on 40 meters when > somebody started calling on top of us. > > I turned on my linear, and he kept on calling. Three options to be > heard: my correspondent, > me, and me and my half gallon linear. And he / she kept on calling on > top...I could not see who was, > I could not monitor the failed attempts while linked. > > I did not lose my link even when an ALE 141A station started calling > also on top of the ongoing QSO. > > Something that has been spoken about very little...QRM from other clients. > > 73, > > Jose, CO2JA > > Roger J. Buffington escribió: > > > Dave AA6YQ wrote: > > > No one is beating on Pactor. The objects of mass disgust are > > > unattended stations that transmit without listening, thereby QRMing > > > other stations. Many of these happen to use Pactor III, but that's > > > no fault of Pactor III. As I've said here before, we don't ban cars > > > because some people drive drunk; neither should we ban Pactor > > > because some arrogant and inconsiderate hams operate and use > > > unattended Pactor stations without busy frequency detectors. > > > > > > John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving > > > the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really > > > think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the > > > problem". You seem to be saying "turn the clock back 10 or 15 years > > > and keep it there". > > > > I find John's position to be incomprehensible, but that's OK I guess. > > And you are right. No one has an objection to Pactor so long as it > > is Pactor operated in a courteous fashion. There is an interesting > > question about Pactor 2 and 3, which is--are these open-documented > > modes such that identification in these modes is legal? SCS claims > > that these are proprietary modes to which they hold copyrights. I > > don't know the answer to the foregoing question; I'm just asking. > > Put simply, if it takes ownership of a special modem (SCS modem) to > > decode the ID, is the ID legal? > > > > Pactor is dead as an ordinary QSO mode, at least here in North > > America. I have received emails from Europe which indicate that it is > > as dead as Julius Caesar as a QSO mode in Europe as well. When you > > visit the SCS website, it is apparent that Pactor is primarily aimed > > at non-ham-operators including boaters and RVers, and commercial > > users. As far as amateur radio goes, it is Finis Pactor. > > > > Thank goodness for Peter Martinez and other ham radio Greats who have > > made the soundcard modes what they are today--powerful digital modes > > within the reach of most ham operators worldwide. > > > > de Roger W6VZV > > > > > > __ > > Participe en Universidad 2008. > 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. > Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba > http://www.universidad2008.cu >
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
For clarification only: Your statement, John, about DXLab as program suite with Dave as author is incorrect. I'd suggest you look into the facts before communicating wrong statements like "All the modes you have built your software around I don't use" when your next sentences are informing us that you love RTTY and CW. Those modes are implemented in WinWarbler which is one part of DXLab. Together with your SCS PTC you can also use Amtor as well as Pactor without any problem in WinWarbler(CW, RTTY not only via the WinWarbler modules but via the SCS PTC as well, if you like, together with all other modes the SCS PTC allows). You even have a much better GUI compared to that what is offered on the SCS web sites. I have looked into all of them and decided not to use them because of the competetive advantage of DXLab. Please inform me via direct e-mail if you need some assistance to set up the SCS PTC properly in DXLab and I will be very glad to help you. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 07:29 PM 1/13/2008, you wrote: > > > >John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the problem". > > No I don't Dave. > But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from > just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. > > Talk about needing a seeing eye dog. > > You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad > I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around > I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But > I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture. > > But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and > "anti-wide" thing going. >
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the problem". No I don't Dave. But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. >>>My experience is that those ops who express a distaste for Pactor do so because they've been QRM'd by a Pactor signal. They incorrectly blame the protocol rather than the operator. Incorrect as this may be, the more Pactor is misused, the more it will be criticized. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. But I do CW and love it. That will leave a lot out of the picture. >>>WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, John, as well as Amtor, Pactor, RTTY, and CW via a modem -- not that this is relevant to the topic at hand. But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and "anti-wide" thing going. >>>No, there is not. You frequently make this statement, but without justification or evidence. The only "anti thing" going on is "anti- QRM". 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: (was : Trouble at mill RTTY contesters war
>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >John, do you really characterize the innovation that's been driving the development of new digital modes as "madness"? Do you really think that the explosion of soundcard digital mode users is "the problem". No I don't Dave. >>>Good! But I do feel that some have come to hate such modes as pactor from just what they have read and not seeing what it really is. >>>As we've discussed several times, this hatred is misplaced. It arises from the misuse of Pactor by those who employ it in unattend stations without busy frequency detectors becaue ops are QRM'd by those stations -- and its a Pactor signal doing the QRMing. As long as this abhorrent practice continues, the mode will be maligned -- unfairly, but that's just human nature. You as a programmer has done a lot for the ham radio. Just to bad I can't use any of it. All the modes you have built your software around. I don't use. My love is RTTY, Amtor and Pactor as far as digital. >>>You are misinformed, John. WinWarbler supports soundcard RTTY, generates CW, and will work with most modems to provide run RTTY, Amtor, and the Pactor family. I have used it to monitor WinLink PMBOs with my SCS modem. WinWarbler can run soundcard RTTY and a RTTY modem (KAM, PK232, SCS, etc.) simultaneously, prividing point-and-click tuning with the ability to decode two RTTY QSOs simultaneously, or a RTTY DX station and his or her pileup, or one RTTY QSO twice (diversity decoding). But like I side before there seems to be this "non-PSK " and "anti-wide" thing going. >>>No, there is no "non-PSK " and "anti-wide" thing going. You frequently say this, but without evidence or justification. The only "anti thing" going on is "anti-QRM from unattended stations without busy detectors". I don't know why you choose to frame this as "anti-wide"; that position has about as much basis in reality as "DXLab doesn't support RTTY". 73, Dave, AA6YQ
