[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
None of those 1500 QSOs were made with ALE, Skip. Most of them were made within a 2-week interval. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "kh6ty" wrote: > > > I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > > "expeditionradio" wrote: > > 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? > > Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about? > > Wow! That is just unbelievable! > > At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous > operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in > a week, or WAS in just a couple of days. > > How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at... > > 73, Skip KH6TY >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
I concur with Graham on this. As a long time digital operator since I got back into ham radio in 1980 (first licensed in 1963), I quickly gravitated to HF and VHF RTTY (before VHF packet). I was one of the earliest adopters of Amtor and later Clover II for a short time. Because of my disastrous experience with the inferior HAL P-38 not possible to use in a practical manner with their P-mode (what they preferred to call Pactor), I was forced to abandon HF digital for a number of years until sound card modes ... changed everything. But I do miss the connected modes. Even though Amtor was pretty good, it was not very fast for messaging, and if the mode got close to failure due to low SNR, it would begin to pass false characters. Pactor and Clover II did not do this. Piccolo and other similar systems used by government/commercial users is effectively what we now have with some of our current IFK sound card modes and they greatly outperform Amtor and probably Pactor in terms of weak signal capabilities. This may be especially true with higher levels of ISI and Doppler that may make Pactor inoperative, maybe even true for Pactor 2 and Pactor 3, but I have not seen any data on that. As I have said elsewhere, no current sound card connected mode can perform at the level of FAE400 from what I have found. Both messaging and keyboarding is all ARQ. It also includes memory ARQ which can get some frames through like is done in Pactor modes. But there just does not seem to be much interest in having this capability. The WINMOR protocol has the potential for messaging, keyboarding, and e-mail ... and has significant adaptive ability for varying conditions. No one has indicated that they would be willing to do this yet, but I am hopeful that there will be at least one ham who has the interest and ability to carry this out. In the meantime, I am hopeful that it will work quite well for the e-mail part. 73, Rick, KV9U Graham wrote: > ... 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 .. ? > > 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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In > digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" > wrote: I forgot to mention that once when I was young and single, I was a victim of an alien abduction... Fortunately, it was a female alien! That is something one never forgets! ;-) 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
In the grand scheme of things, the old MIL-STD-188-141A form that we can legally use is very rare other than one group that sends out HF beacons. I had hoped at one time that we could use this for public service/emergency use but being one of the very few hams worldwide who actually tried to use the system, was actually attacked because I had a lot of difficulty trying to get it to work. I was actually criticized for being stupid, not really wanting it to work, etc. I was appalled at this behavior as many others were and it has insured even less interest by many of us. One individual claimed huge numbers of hams using the system but it proved to be completely false. I pointed out that I monitored their web site that displays world wide connections and found that over several days, other than the beacon stations, I was actually one of the most active, if not the only other station using it for messaging! Their solution was to completely block me from even accessing the web site so that those of us who can answer your question, are kept from doing so. Needless to say, when you do this to your friends, you don't need enemies. The truth is that the older ALE technology from the 1970's is not going to be used by hams. I have since asked many hams about this and the response was extremely negative and parallels some of my experiences. Having said that, the more modern "ALE" modes, such as MIL-STD-188-110A are not legal for U.S. hams on HF so they are going nowheres. Even if they were legal, testing by hams in other countries indicate that signals have to be very good for this to work, especially with sound card techniques which currently do not have the robust signal capability at the slowest 75 bps speed. As you point out, if there really was an significant use, it would be very apparent to those of us who monitor the HF bands everyday. What is clear, is that most hams don't do digital, but for the few that do, it is mostly PSK31 and RTTY, with an occasional Olivia, MFSK16, or other mode that they might be testing. When a new mode is developed, there may be a flurry of activity for a few days or weeks, but unless it is superior to what we already have, and few have been, then you may not hear much about the mode after that. Right now the best chat and messaging mode that I have used is FAE400 which is a narrower and slower version of MIL-STD-188-141A. This is the only currently available sound card mode that works fairly well into the noise, can provide both chat and messaging ARQ error free connections. But there are few who use it. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > > 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 > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
> I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > "expeditionradio" wrote: 50 QSO's per day, for each of 30 days? Is there a daily ALE contest going on we do not know about? Wow! That is just unbelievable! At a mere 10 minutes per "QSO", that is 500 minutes, or 8 hours of continuous operating, every day of the month. Sounds like you could qualify for DXCC in a week, or WAS in just a couple of days. How about posting your log for everyone to marvel at... 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Re: Some More Thoughts On WINMOR and Winlink
Please explain how "trying it" would reveal how many amateur QSOs are typically made each month. 73, Dave, AA6YQ I made more than 1500 QSOs last month. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" wrote: > > > 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
> 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] 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] 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?
