RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Dave I agree with you but how about a new twist to this. Not too long ago I was having a real nice keyboard to keyboard QSO with K2MO - Tony on dial freq 7,077.4 Pactor when a member of this list starting calling CQ on another mode. I did get a call and email him asking if he did hear the pactor signal and his reply was a "yes". He also said "well it was one of them robots" WRONG... So it not just the Pactor station. This happens a number of times. There are a lot of KB2KB pactor QSO out there no matter what Roger says. John, W0JAB At 02:40 PM 12/25/2007, you wrote: >We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", you just >won't admit it. > >The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode >protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) >transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally >clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be >aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that >exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, >the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and >occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed >computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. > > 73, > >Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
My objective is not win an argument with Demetre or any other proponent of operating practices that QRM other operators, but rather to illuminate the flaws and obfuscations in their arguments to the readers of this reflector. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of w6ids Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 6:39 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies - Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > > OK Dave, > > You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form > of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a > diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes > they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. > And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn > about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really > gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I > admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The > rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. > > Merry Christmas!!! > Uh, Demetre Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments. Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's agreements? There's more of you outside the Continental U.S., therefore that's where the power lies? Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want, without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands because, as you wrote, > in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours? Thanks for making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre. My heart goes out to Dave. He'll never win this thread's debate. More's the pity, for us all. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
- Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a >> digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended >> stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the >> frequency is locally clear. >> >>73, >> >> Dave, AA6YQ > > Well, > > Can you admit that there are people with different points of view > Dave? I'm afraid you can't. > > We can all enjoy our hobby without condemnations Dave. Everything is > acceptable in the hobby OM. > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year and smile a bit OM! > > Winlink, PACKET RADIO or e-mail, etc. are not evil! They are just > another form of DIGITAL MODES which you might not like but others like > them so there!!! > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY Demetre... What I've quoted in Dave's message are his core thoughts, the thrust of his message thread. Your reply, as I said in another message, does not touch his comments. It's as if you were talking about a totally unrelated subject. So, let me use the automobile analogy in my own way. We all like the automobile. I'm sure you do as well. What I do not like about the automobile is its use by people to drive intoxicated, because they kill and maim people. I do not like the use of excessive speed because speed kills - except on the Autobahn. I do not like automobiles being driven on the wrong side of the highway, because that can kill someone. I do not like automobiles being driven at night without proper lighting such as headlights and taillights. I do not like an automobile to be driven by an unlicensed driver for safety's sake. I do not like an automobile to be moved down the highway without a driver controlling it with his/her hands on the wheel. What am I saying to you? That I do not like automobiles or that I do not like illegal and/or improper use of automobiles? Tell me which? Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
- Original Message - From: "Demetre SV1UY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:50 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > > OK Dave, > > You must admit that the problem you have is not Winlink, but any form > of networking on HF. But you should not forgot that Ham Radio is a > diverse hobby and everyone has the right to have a go with the modes > they like. Otherwise everything must be banned except QSOs. > And in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn > about band segments and all this stuff. The subbands are really > gentlements agreement! (no offence to gentledames of course who I > admire). FCC only rules USA. Don't forget the rest of the world. The > rest of the world has more radio hams than USA. > > Merry Christmas!!! > Uh, Demetre Wow, you're sure off target with Dave by your comments. Are you saying, generally, screw the U.S. and gentlemen's agreements? There's more of you outside the Continental U.S., therefore that's where the power lies? Are you saying, generally, you'll do what you want, when you want, without regard to efforts to make life bearable on the ham bands because, as you wrote, > in 99% of the countries of this world the administrations do not > give a damn about band segments and all this stuff. So say your adminstrations, so say YOU and yours? Thanks for making this thread all the clearer for me, Demetre. My heart goes out to Dave. He'll never win this thread's debate. More's the pity, for us all. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Demetre SV1UY wrote: > OK Roger, Whether you like it or not all the > above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away > because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! Actually, I doubt very much whether Winlink or Pactor will be around a few years from now. They are dying out as RVers get Wi Fi internet access in their parks, and boaters are increasingly using satellite telephone/internet. Few hams bother with Pactor or own TNCs any more. This is a problem that will likely take care of itself over time, as most problems do. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Dave AA6YQ wrote: > > We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", > you just won't admit it. > > The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital > mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended > stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the > frequency is locally clear. Hear hear!! de Roger W6VZV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
We've been through this too many times, Demetre. I know you "get it", you just won't admit it. The core issue is not that WinLink conveys email or uses a digital mode protocol that's wide or narrow -- its that its unattended stations (PMBOs) transmit without first listening to ensure that the frequency is locally clear. The fact that some human operators do this is regrettable and should be aggressively discouraged, but is no excuse for building automated systems that exhibit the same unacceptable behavior. To refer back to your highway analogy, the fact that some people drive cars while they are intoxicated and occasionally injure or kill others is no excuse for building a high-speed computer-controlled vehicle incapable of detecting pedestrians in its path. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:21 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Well, > > > > Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw > > qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual > > wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys > > pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency > > arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off > > for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When > > human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower > > priority. > > > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY > > The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham > radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, > without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham > radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. > > de Roger W6VZV > OK Roger, To you it might be a bad idea sending e-mails over the air, but to many others it is a good idea. It is a good as having a voice QSO, a CW QSO, a contest, chewing the rag, etc. Any form of communication that uses Ham Radio equipment and the Ham radio bands to allow radio amateurs to communicate with each other is Ham Radio (being WINLINK, PSKMAIL, FLARQ, TCP/IP over PACKET RADIO, AX25 over PACKET RADIO, APRS, etc. does it matter?)!!! Whether you like it or not all the above DIGITAL MODES are here to stay!!! They are not going to go away because you don't like them. If you don't like them don't use them! "Merry Christmas everyone" 73 de Demetre - SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
In my college days, lots of on-campus and off-campus hams work 6M with the Benton Harbor lunch box, Lafayette rigs and some home brew rigs. I use a Lafayette running I suppose a couple of watts output, then a home brew 6146 transmitter about 15-20 watts output and ARC-5 Command Set receiver and Ameco Nuvistor convertor and finally a WRL 6N2 6M-2M transmitter with 6146 final and with Ameco convertor and HQ-129X. With a Squalo at 30 ft, I could work 30-40 miles to a similar station any time and 25-30 miles to a same power mobile with a squalo or Satern 6 Halo. But I was not really happy with this type of 6M operation because I had worked in 2-way radio (32-48 MHz) using basically 100 watt radios in mobiles and 100 watt base stations with antennas from 30-100 ft up and even stations with 30 ft base stations antennas you could always work mobiles that were 25 to 30 miles away...and the signals didn't have all that AM noise on them and I just fell in love with squelch which never worked on 6M or even 10 AM. Yes, I think that the use of 6M FM is a very good choice. I'd also mention that after college I taught at an independent military academy which required me to be a member of the Texas Guard. They worked with the local county and city civil defense using 10M FM (29.6 MHz) with old Link or Motorola 30-50 watt units and 8 ft whips mounted on the rear fender of a Jeep or other vehicle...no bumper mounts allowed. Seems like a 30 watt mobile could always to to another 30 watt mobile 25-30 miles away. Again I think it was the noiseless FM that was the big imporvement in signal qualitity. 73, Walt/K5YFW Rick wrote: > Hi Walt, > > I did try and operate on 6 meter AM back in the summer of 1964, but had > inadequately operating equipment and hardly anyone local who worked the > band. At that time local was mostly done on 2 meter AM so I bought a > Heath Lunchbox and later a Clegg 22er which I even operated mobile. Even > with very crude antennas (not even tuned up as I had no SWR bridge back > then and barely knew what that was), we could work with one watt from a > homemade coaxial antenna made from a piece of copper tubing, a crutch > tip and a wire sticking out from the crutch tip. One station was about > 30 km north of me and I would shove the coaxial vertical through a > slightly dislodged screen in order to get it out window in my second > floor dorm room. It worked quite well considering I was facing the wrong > direction! The distant station must have been using a beam now that I > think of it, but I would think he had it set up as horizontal > polarization. Seems almost impossible that this stuff worked back then:) > > This past year we did some testing on 10 meter SSB with a mobile running > a converted CB whip with 25 watts to my base station with a ground > mounted Butternut HF-9V. Signals are often weak once you get out beyond > 10 miles, but we would still be able to copy the station in deep coulees > when the 2 meter repeater would completely drop out. This was at around > 20 km as measured on the map. But if it had been much further, we would > have had to have better base antennas or more power. > > Because of the change in HF rigs, we are now seeing most of them with 6 > meter capability and they can do this with a full 100 watts output. To > get 100 watts SSB on 2 meters is much more difficult, and that was why I > thought 6 meters might have more practical value. The capture area of > the antenna is much larger for mobiles than for 2 meters but apparently > it does not make that much difference. And the downside is that 6 meter > antennas are triple in size, so not as convenient to carry as a portable > beam. > > I did quite a bit of searching on the internet for information on > comparing 6, 2, and 10 meter operation on FM and SSB as well as > horizontal vs vertical polarization, but did not come up with much. This > may be one of those things we will have to do revisit ourselves. > Recently, some anecdotal experiences were shared on another group that I > found helpful. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > Walt DuBose wrote: > >>Ric, >> >>You have discovered the lost band...6M. Well for that matter 10M and 6M FM. >> >>Going back to my LMR (at the time just commercial 2-way radio) dispatch days, >>motorola had a formula that said two stations running 30 watts at 30 ft could >>operate 30 miles. 15 miles to a mobile and that was in the 30-50 MHz band. >> >>Well, I much better than that. Typically was 30 miles from a 30 ft antenna >>with >>the base station running 50-100 watts around 32 -37 MHz and slightly less at >>47 >>MHz. 6m meters using very old commercial FM units got 25+ miles mobile to >>mobile. And on 10M, 30-40 miles was not uncommon. >> >>I am a huge beliver in using 10M and 6M FM for out to 30-40 miles and a good >>HF >>NVIS antenna for beyond ground wave. $0M day and 75/80 at night and that >>will >>al
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Hi Walt, I did try and operate on 6 meter AM back in the summer of 1964, but had inadequately operating equipment and hardly anyone local who worked the band. At that time local was mostly done on 2 meter AM so I bought a Heath Lunchbox and later a Clegg 22er which I even operated mobile. Even with very crude antennas (not even tuned up as I had no SWR bridge back then and barely knew what that was), we could work with one watt from a homemade coaxial antenna made from a piece of copper tubing, a crutch tip and a wire sticking out from the crutch tip. One station was about 30 km north of me and I would shove the coaxial vertical through a slightly dislodged screen in order to get it out window in my second floor dorm room. It worked quite well considering I was facing the wrong direction! The distant station must have been using a beam now that I think of it, but I would think he had it set up as horizontal polarization. Seems almost impossible that this stuff worked back then:) This past year we did some testing on 10 meter SSB with a mobile running a converted CB whip with 25 watts to my base station with a ground mounted Butternut HF-9V. Signals are often weak once you get out beyond 10 miles, but we would still be able to copy the station in deep coulees when the 2 meter repeater would completely drop out. This was at around 20 km as measured on the map. But if it had been much further, we would have had to have better base antennas or more power. Because of the change in HF rigs, we are now seeing most of them with 6 meter capability and they can do this with a full 100 watts output. To get 100 watts SSB on 2 meters is much more difficult, and that was why I thought 6 meters might have more practical value. The capture area of the antenna is much larger for mobiles than for 2 meters but apparently it does not make that much difference. And the downside is that 6 meter antennas are triple in size, so not as convenient to carry as a portable beam. I did quite a bit of searching on the internet for information on comparing 6, 2, and 10 meter operation on FM and SSB as well as horizontal vs vertical polarization, but did not come up with much. This may be one of those things we will have to do revisit ourselves. Recently, some anecdotal experiences were shared on another group that I found helpful. 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: > Ric, > > You have discovered the lost band...6M. Well for that matter 10M and 6M FM. > > Going back to my LMR (at the time just commercial 2-way radio) dispatch days, > motorola had a formula that said two stations running 30 watts at 30 ft could > operate 30 miles. 15 miles to a mobile and that was in the 30-50 MHz band. > > Well, I much better than that. Typically was 30 miles from a 30 ft antenna > with > the base station running 50-100 watts around 32 -37 MHz and slightly less at > 47 > MHz. 6m meters using very old commercial FM units got 25+ miles mobile to > mobile. And on 10M, 30-40 miles was not uncommon. > > I am a huge beliver in using 10M and 6M FM for out to 30-40 miles and a good > HF > NVIS antenna for beyond ground wave. $0M day and 75/80 at night and that > will > always be more of a NVIS challange than 40M daytime. > > Take a look at this SuperNVIS antenna. > http://www.hamuniverse.com/supernvis.html > I REALLY works as advertised. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Ric, You have discovered the lost band...6M. Well for that matter 10M and 6M FM. Going back to my LMR (at the time just commercial 2-way radio) dispatch days, motorola had a formula that said two stations running 30 watts at 30 ft could operate 30 miles. 15 miles to a mobile and that was in the 30-50 MHz band. Well, I much better than that. Typically was 30 miles from a 30 ft antenna with the base station running 50-100 watts around 32 -37 MHz and slightly less at 47 MHz. 6m meters using very old commercial FM units got 25+ miles mobile to mobile. And on 10M, 30-40 miles was not uncommon. I am a huge beliver in using 10M and 6M FM for out to 30-40 miles and a good HF NVIS antenna for beyond ground wave. $0M day and 75/80 at night and that will always be more of a NVIS challange than 40M daytime. Take a look at this SuperNVIS antenna. http://www.hamuniverse.com/supernvis.html I REALLY works as advertised. 73, Walt/K5YFW Rick wrote: > I tend toward having solutions to the more extreme situations, but I am > probably more of an exception. With our summer flood disaster, our > immediate area did not have a communications emergency, but it could > have happened. Across the Mississippi River in SE MN, they did have > worse conditions. We did have some areas that had loss of electricity > for up to 4 days which is very serious for dairy farming, if you do not > have the necessary back up generator which has to be quite large these > days. I was lucky (sort of) since I live on the ridge top and did not > have severe flooding, although with the windstorm that took out dozens > of trees across fence lines, it was still no fun. Because our power was > off for about 18 hours and we were out of state at the time, we > personally came close to a crisis since that is pushing the limit of how > long we can tolerate not having water for cattle during hot weather. If > we had gone into a communications emergency we would have been able to > help on a limited basis, but it surprised me how impaired we were with > our own problems. > > Now I am not clear on what you are referring to with low S unit signals > for various modes. For Section and regional distances this would not be > associated with sunspots, would it? If we want to communicate outside of > our immediate area, using amateur frequenices, we would have to do this > on HF NVIS for the most part. As you probably are aware, the FoF2 can > change drastically, and particularly will go quite low at night. Right > at this moment past 10 pm, most of the U.S. is barely able to use 160 > meters for NVIS operation since the FoF2 is so low. But other times it > can go much higher, even above 7 MHz, so you have to be flexible. > > As I have discovered, actual groundwave is extremely limited on even the > HF bands, and on 75 meters will be only 15 miles or so unless you are > running verticals with excellent ground planes and perhaps with some > power over 100 watts. > > That is why the interest in working more with 6 and especially 2 meters > for digital modes. Most new rigs tend to have 100 watt 6 meter output so > that might be a practical solution in some cases, but as some have > pointed out, 2 meter SSB often works better. > > While tactical voice is most of the communications needed locally, I > agree that if you need to get messages outside of the immediate area, > other modes may be needed. CW is not exactly a dying mode, but it is > drastically less used by new hams. None of my students in the past few > years have the slightest interest in CW and that includes upgrades to > General and Extra. It is fairly easy to connect up a laptop to an HF rig > that can operate SSB, but the power requirement is significant. If we do > not have generator power, things are probably critical and even having a > low powered rig would be of limited use since you might not have much > traffic to handle in such a case, unless you were located at an EOC > facility that was trying to communicate with next level of operations. > Having much lower powered computers, which we are seeing happen, may > help, although they may not run Windows OS, particularly Vista, which > requires too much computing power. That will be a challenge to solve. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communication) Yahoogroup discussion > > > > W2XJ wrote: > >>Those are good and insightful questions. I would not depend on the >>Internet working. While certain data centers are hardened the average >>user will not have access to those benefits. We learned in the last NYC >>black out that the telephone company is no longer maintaining generators >>and they failed in a number of places. If they are part of your back >>bone, all is lost. If you have a station associated with a large company >>(as we do) it is likely you will have a dark fiber path where the active >>points in between have redundant emergency pow
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
I tend toward having solutions to the more extreme situations, but I am probably more of an exception. With our summer flood disaster, our immediate area did not have a communications emergency, but it could have happened. Across the Mississippi River in SE MN, they did have worse conditions. We did have some areas that had loss of electricity for up to 4 days which is very serious for dairy farming, if you do not have the necessary back up generator which has to be quite large these days. I was lucky (sort of) since I live on the ridge top and did not have severe flooding, although with the windstorm that took out dozens of trees across fence lines, it was still no fun. Because our power was off for about 18 hours and we were out of state at the time, we personally came close to a crisis since that is pushing the limit of how long we can tolerate not having water for cattle during hot weather. If we had gone into a communications emergency we would have been able to help on a limited basis, but it surprised me how impaired we were with our own problems. Now I am not clear on what you are referring to with low S unit signals for various modes. For Section and regional distances this would not be associated with sunspots, would it? If we want to communicate outside of our immediate area, using amateur frequenices, we would have to do this on HF NVIS for the most part. As you probably are aware, the FoF2 can change drastically, and particularly will go quite low at night. Right at this moment past 10 pm, most of the U.S. is barely able to use 160 meters for NVIS operation since the FoF2 is so low. But other times it can go much higher, even above 7 MHz, so you have to be flexible. As I have discovered, actual groundwave is extremely limited on even the HF bands, and on 75 meters will be only 15 miles or so unless you are running verticals with excellent ground planes and perhaps with some power over 100 watts. That is why the interest in working more with 6 and especially 2 meters for digital modes. Most new rigs tend to have 100 watt 6 meter output so that might be a practical solution in some cases, but as some have pointed out, 2 meter SSB often works better. While tactical voice is most of the communications needed locally, I agree that if you need to get messages outside of the immediate area, other modes may be needed. CW is not exactly a dying mode, but it is drastically less used by new hams. None of my students in the past few years have the slightest interest in CW and that includes upgrades to General and Extra. It is fairly easy to connect up a laptop to an HF rig that can operate SSB, but the power requirement is significant. If we do not have generator power, things are probably critical and even having a low powered rig would be of limited use since you might not have much traffic to handle in such a case, unless you were located at an EOC facility that was trying to communicate with next level of operations. Having much lower powered computers, which we are seeing happen, may help, although they may not run Windows OS, particularly Vista, which requires too much computing power. That will be a challenge to solve. 73, Rick, KV9U HFDEC (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communication) Yahoogroup discussion W2XJ wrote: > Those are good and insightful questions. I would not depend on the > Internet working. While certain data centers are hardened the average > user will not have access to those benefits. We learned in the last NYC > black out that the telephone company is no longer maintaining generators > and they failed in a number of places. If they are part of your back > bone, all is lost. If you have a station associated with a large company > (as we do) it is likely you will have a dark fiber path where the active > points in between have redundant emergency power that works and other > plans in effect to harden to relay points. When this infrastructure does > work, Amateur radio is less important. When everything fails there is a > need for the most basic communications. I am not sure about your > location but we are basically getting CW PSK31 and RTTY at S0 to S1 due > to the low sunspots. I would agree that if RTTY and/or PSK31 were part > of the hardware solution in a rig they, too, would be a part of the mix. > I consider bare bones communications to be a low power battery powered > radio with no external infrastructure or equipment. If you subscribe to > that model than the modes I described are the only practical ones as of now. > > > > Rick wrote: > >> Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying >> operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our >> ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 >> and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater >> system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Those are good and insightful questions. I would not depend on the Internet working. While certain data centers are hardened the average user will not have access to those benefits. We learned in the last NYC black out that the telephone company is no longer maintaining generators and they failed in a number of places. If they are part of your back bone, all is lost. If you have a station associated with a large company (as we do) it is likely you will have a dark fiber path where the active points in between have redundant emergency power that works and other plans in effect to harden to relay points. When this infrastructure does work, Amateur radio is less important. When everything fails there is a need for the most basic communications. I am not sure about your location but we are basically getting CW PSK31 and RTTY at S0 to S1 due to the low sunspots. I would agree that if RTTY and/or PSK31 were part of the hardware solution in a rig they, too, would be a part of the mix. I consider bare bones communications to be a low power battery powered radio with no external infrastructure or equipment. If you subscribe to that model than the modes I described are the only practical ones as of now. Rick wrote: > Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying > operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our > ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 > and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater > system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being > done. They even have "nets" that work through Winlink 2000 since many > ARES members are Technician class licensees and can not operate lower > (NVIS) HF bands with voice or digital. > > While there are fewer and fewer chances of losing telecommunications > infrastructure for very long, it does occur. At that point, many of > these systems may not function since they are based upon many things > continuing to work. Some of the more foresightful emergency planners > (not necessarily ARES/RACES) in my area, realize that even repeaters are > not a sure thing either and have actually done exercises over > multi-county distances without them. > > Do you really see much of a use for CW, other than longer distance > messaging, perhaps via NTS? Even that is rarely done from the little > traffic that I tend to see coming out of disaster areas. There may or > may not be a simultaneous communications emergency, so that changes the > calculus too. Other than myself, I would be hard pressed to list any > other hams in my county who have at least some CW skill and are involved > with emergency communication. > > There are several things that I want to explore in the coming year: > > - whether or not the ARQ PSK modes will be competitive with ARQ ALE/FAE > 400. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a > Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms? > > - how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations > using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with > extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > W2XJ wrote: > >>I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is >>vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the >>only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout >>emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish >>to champion. When the real thing occurs and the established >>infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be >>with basic modes. >> >> >> >>Walt DuBose wrote: >> >> >>>Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place >>>especially in >>>emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications >>>are >>>NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use >>>circumvent >>>the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased >>>from >>>the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense. >>> >>>Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long >>>period >>>of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part >>>97 >>>violation but certainly a bad operating practice. >>> >>>And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you >>>messages >>>as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching >>>large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to >>>HTML >>>or better yet ASCII files where possible. >>> >>>73, >>> >>>Walt/K5YFW >>> >>> > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Rud Merriam wrote: [Stuff Deleted] > I also think more use of VHF for covering NVIS distances is possible. A > nearby digi can connect at times to a Winlink Telpac node in Austin. That is > a distance of 130 or more miles. Since local use of NVIS would be to reach > the state EOC in Austin it is a feasible route if dependable. This is using > FM so SSB might work reliably. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > I certainly here this quite a bit...but lets look at this from a worst case scenerio as we always should in emergency/disaster communications. The LOS between two vehicles running 50 watts on 2M is at best 7.5 miles. If working through a repeater (provided one is still standing/operational) mobile to mobile range may be etended to 50-60 miles. To work more than 60 miles or so, you need linked repeaters...but again this assumes that repeaters in the affected area are still up and running. If not, then 2M LOS mobile to mobile is 7.5 miles. A properly set up HF station with a proper NVIS antenna can easily work 20-600 miles and 0-20 miles on groundwave if this is a consideration. Again if you are depending on using repeaters to cover typical NVIS distances, you MUST assume that these repeaters/relays ARE operational during and after an emergency/disaster event. 73, Walt/K5YFW
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
I dont think that anyone believes that you can completely kill off the Internet in its entirity; however, certainly certain sections/rather large geographical areas could loose connectivity for several hours even for perhaps a day. The question is what do amateur radio operators do during that time? Would we really have time to respond before normal Internet service was restored? If you read the computer/IT magazines written for government agencies, you will see that the government's network folks ARE concerned about losing parts of their network and others at the same time being overloaded. In a free and open society, I don't think telling people to stay off E-Mail to aunt Sally or browse the web is really going to keep people off the Internet. They will still want to be downloadind or streaming their favorite movie, etc. Some have suggested that IPv6 can take care of this by assigning proprity IP addresses for emergency and disaster services as well as public service services. In this way if your IP address wasn't considered "necessary", then you would not get out/off of you local network. Walt/K5YFW Rick wrote: > Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying > operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our > ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 > and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater > system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being > done. They even have "nets" that work through Winlink 2000 since many > ARES members are Technician class licensees and can not operate lower > (NVIS) HF bands with voice or digital. > > While there are fewer and fewer chances of losing telecommunications > infrastructure for very long, it does occur. At that point, many of > these systems may not function since they are based upon many things > continuing to work. Some of the more foresightful emergency planners > (not necessarily ARES/RACES) in my area, realize that even repeaters are > not a sure thing either and have actually done exercises over > multi-county distances without them. > > Do you really see much of a use for CW, other than longer distance > messaging, perhaps via NTS? Even that is rarely done from the little > traffic that I tend to see coming out of disaster areas. There may or > may not be a simultaneous communications emergency, so that changes the > calculus too. Other than myself, I would be hard pressed to list any > other hams in my county who have at least some CW skill and are involved > with emergency communication. > > There are several things that I want to explore in the coming year: > > - whether or not the ARQ PSK modes will be competitive with ARQ ALE/FAE > 400. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a > Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms? > > - how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations > using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with > extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > W2XJ wrote: > >>I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is >>vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the >>only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout >>emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish >>to champion. When the real thing occurs and the established >>infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be >>with basic modes. >> >> >> >>Walt DuBose wrote: >> >> >>>Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place >>>especially in >>>emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications >>>are >>>NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use >>>circumvent >>>the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased >>>from >>>the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense. >>> >>>Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long >>>period >>>of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part >>>97 >>>violation but certainly a bad operating practice. >>> >>>And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you >>>messages >>>as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching >>>large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to >>>HTML >>>or better yet ASCII files where possible. >>> >>>73, >>> >>>Walt/K5YFW >>>
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
A perspective I have mentioned before focuses on the situation when a "communications emergency" occurs. This is when normal means of communications are incapable of handling the traffic load. This perspective focuses not on whether infrastructure fails but whether it can sustain a load. There are situations where infrastructure is functional but overwhelmed, especially cell phones. The Rita evacuation in the Houston are wiped out cell phone service in the immediate vicinity of the evacuation routes. Many organizations were caught short when this happened. For example, United Way and the local Food Bank were scrambling for supplies but could not coordinate their efforts. They were short because many local supplies had gone to Louisiana for Katrina. I also think more use of VHF for covering NVIS distances is possible. A nearby digi can connect at times to a Winlink Telpac node in Austin. That is a distance of 130 or more miles. Since local use of NVIS would be to reach the state EOC in Austin it is a feasible route if dependable. This is using FM so SSB might work reliably. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:24 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being done. They even have "nets" that work through Winlink 2000 since many ARES members are Technician class licensees and can not operate lower (NVIS) HF bands with voice or digital. While there are fewer and fewer chances of losing telecommunications infrastructure for very long, it does occur. At that point, many of these systems may not function since they are based upon many things continuing to work. Some of the more foresightful emergency planners (not necessarily ARES/RACES) in my area, realize that even repeaters are not a sure thing either and have actually done exercises over multi-county distances without them. Do you really see much of a use for CW, other than longer distance messaging, perhaps via NTS? Even that is rarely done from the little traffic that I tend to see coming out of disaster areas. There may or may not be a simultaneous communications emergency, so that changes the calculus too. Other than myself, I would be hard pressed to list any other hams in my county who have at least some CW skill and are involved with emergency communication. There are several things that I want to explore in the coming year: - whether or not the ARQ PSK modes will be competitive with ARQ ALE/FAE 400. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms? - how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being done. They even have "nets" that work through Winlink 2000 since many ARES members are Technician class licensees and can not operate lower (NVIS) HF bands with voice or digital. While there are fewer and fewer chances of losing telecommunications infrastructure for very long, it does occur. At that point, many of these systems may not function since they are based upon many things continuing to work. Some of the more foresightful emergency planners (not necessarily ARES/RACES) in my area, realize that even repeaters are not a sure thing either and have actually done exercises over multi-county distances without them. Do you really see much of a use for CW, other than longer distance messaging, perhaps via NTS? Even that is rarely done from the little traffic that I tend to see coming out of disaster areas. There may or may not be a simultaneous communications emergency, so that changes the calculus too. Other than myself, I would be hard pressed to list any other hams in my county who have at least some CW skill and are involved with emergency communication. There are several things that I want to explore in the coming year: - whether or not the ARQ PSK modes will be competitive with ARQ ALE/FAE 400. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms? - how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area. 73, Rick, KV9U W2XJ wrote: > I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is > vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the > only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout > emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish > to champion. When the real thing occurs and the established > infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be > with basic modes. > > > > Walt DuBose wrote: > >> >> Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place >> especially in >> emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications >> are >> NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use >> circumvent >> the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased >> from >> the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense. >> >> Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long >> period >> of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part >> 97 >> violation but certainly a bad operating practice. >> >> And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you >> messages >> as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching >> large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to >> HTML >> or better yet ASCII files where possible. >> >> 73, >> >> Walt/K5YFW >> >>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish to champion. When the real thing occurs and the established infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be with basic modes. Walt DuBose wrote: > Roger J. Buffington wrote: > >>Demetre SV1UY wrote: >> >> >> >>>Well, >>> >>>Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw >>>qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual >>>wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys >>>pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency >>>arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off >>>for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When >>>human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower >>>priority. >>> >>>73 de Demetre SV1UY >> >> >>The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham >>radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, >>without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham >>radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. >> >>de Roger W6VZV >> >> > > Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place especially > in > emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications > are > NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use > circumvent > the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased > from > the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense. > > Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long > period > of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part > 97 > violation but certainly a bad operating practice. > > And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you > messages > as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching > large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to > HTML > or better yet ASCII files where possible. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Roger J. Buffington wrote: > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > >> Well, >> >> Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw >> qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual >> wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys >> pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency >> arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off >> for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When >> human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower >> priority. >> >> 73 de Demetre SV1UY > > > The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham > radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, > without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham > radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. > > de Roger W6VZV > > Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place especially in emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications are NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use circumvent the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased from the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense. Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long period of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part 97 violation but certainly a bad operating practice. And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you messages as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to HTML or better yet ASCII files where possible. 73, Walt/K5YFW
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
The 50K is an arbitrary figure. The PMBO Operator may set a file size limit for file/attachment total size. Pactor 2 is expected to be utilized by a controller that has memory capable of providing buffering and handling compression The point here is that without memory buffering and/or the ability to handle compressed files, once the message length exceeds the ability of the TNC/DSP Controller's ability to "Spool" or buffer data, the station running unbufferred will crash and the message will terminate. Depending on the setup, it could be retransmitted over and over, but the situation where a message was transmitted in the clear (non B2f Compressed) for long periods of time is rarely expected to be seen. If this was actually the case, it would be the exception, and not the rule. Anything could happen, but the reporting of the message being sent for a long period of time, monitored for content buy another station, indicates it was not being sent compressed. The odds are against this situation actually occurring. Again, there are exceptions. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sholto Fisher Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies David, If it was using Pactor 2 would Winlink accept the message/attachments? or is the 50K limit applicable here also? 73 Sholto KE7HVP - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:dalite01%40bellsouth.net> net> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:47 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Then it was non B2F, and that makes it possible the message was attempted, however, buffer overrun would have stopped it's transmission long before it got to 50K mark. Pactor I cannot handle the B2F Compression used within the WinLink 2000 system with Airmail as the host, except for small text-only messaging. Pactor III and ARQ would take a large capability for processing and a CPU that was capable of true multiprocessing using a compliant operating system to decode, as proven back in 2005 when this argument originally surfaced. It should be in Snopes by now. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sholto Fisher Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:05 PM To: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Correction: it was Pactor 1 ARQ I was monitoring and yes, it was Winlink. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:leigh%40wa5znu.org> org> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >I am confused. Sholto said it was Pactor 2, not Pactor 3. I don't know > that Winlink is involved at all. But there is so much mystery about > these modes, and it seems like an archive would be a good idea. > > I set up one for SSTV but got tired of deleting the unseemly images, but > others have set up really nice ones. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 3:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:dalite01%40bellsouth.net> net wrote: >> If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for >> archival >> purposes, it must be FEC. >> >> My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. >> >> Methinks something stinks here:) >> >> David >> KD4NUE >> >> -Original Message- >> From: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On >> Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. >> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM >> To: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >> >> >> Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, >> like the various ones that exist for SSTV? >> Leigh/WA5ZNU >>> --- In digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has >>> been on >>>> going for around 25 minutes so far and the late
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
David, If it was using Pactor 2 would Winlink accept the message/attachments? or is the 50K limit applicable here also? 73 Sholto KE7HVP - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:47 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Then it was non B2F, and that makes it possible the message was attempted, however, buffer overrun would have stopped it's transmission long before it got to 50K mark. Pactor I cannot handle the B2F Compression used within the WinLink 2000 system with Airmail as the host, except for small text-only messaging. Pactor III and ARQ would take a large capability for processing and a CPU that was capable of true multiprocessing using a compliant operating system to decode, as proven back in 2005 when this argument originally surfaced. It should be in Snopes by now. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sholto Fisher Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:05 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Correction: it was Pactor 1 ARQ I was monitoring and yes, it was Winlink. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:leigh%40wa5znu.org> org> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >I am confused. Sholto said it was Pactor 2, not Pactor 3. I don't know > that Winlink is involved at all. But there is so much mystery about > these modes, and it seems like an archive would be a good idea. > > I set up one for SSTV but got tired of deleting the unseemly images, but > others have set up really nice ones. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 3:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:dalite01%40bellsouth.net> net wrote: >> If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for >> archival >> purposes, it must be FEC. >> >> My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. >> >> Methinks something stinks here:) >> >> David >> KD4NUE >> >> -Original Message- >> From: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On >> Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. >> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM >> To: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >> >> >> Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, >> like the various ones that exist for SSTV? >> Leigh/WA5ZNU >>> --- In digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has >>> been on >>>> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go >>> through is >>>> titled: >>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >> http://www.obriensw <http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php> eb.com/drsked/drsked.php >> >> >> View the DRCC numbers database at >> http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database> yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Then it was non B2F, and that makes it possible the message was attempted, however, buffer overrun would have stopped it's transmission long before it got to 50K mark. Pactor I cannot handle the B2F Compression used within the WinLink 2000 system with Airmail as the host, except for small text-only messaging. Pactor III and ARQ would take a large capability for processing and a CPU that was capable of true multiprocessing using a compliant operating system to decode, as proven back in 2005 when this argument originally surfaced. It should be in Snopes by now. David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sholto Fisher Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 8:05 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Correction: it was Pactor 1 ARQ I was monitoring and yes, it was Winlink. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:leigh%40wa5znu.org> org> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >I am confused. Sholto said it was Pactor 2, not Pactor 3. I don't know > that Winlink is involved at all. But there is so much mystery about > these modes, and it seems like an archive would be a good idea. > > I set up one for SSTV but got tired of deleting the unseemly images, but > others have set up really nice ones. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 3:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:dalite01%40bellsouth.net> net wrote: >> If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for >> archival >> purposes, it must be FEC. >> >> My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. >> >> Methinks something stinks here:) >> >> David >> KD4NUE >> >> -Original Message- >> From: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On >> Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. >> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM >> To: digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >> >> >> Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, >> like the various ones that exist for SSTV? >> Leigh/WA5ZNU >>> --- In digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has >>> been on >>>> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go >>> through is >>>> titled: >>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >> http://www.obriensw <http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php> eb.com/drsked/drsked.php >> >> >> View the DRCC numbers database at >> http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database> yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Correction: it was Pactor 1 ARQ I was monitoring and yes, it was Winlink. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: "Leigh L Klotz, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >I am confused. Sholto said it was Pactor 2, not Pactor 3. I don't know > that Winlink is involved at all. But there is so much mystery about > these modes, and it seems like an archive would be a good idea. > > I set up one for SSTV but got tired of deleting the unseemly images, but > others have set up really nice ones. > > 73, > Leigh/WA5ZNU > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 3:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for >> archival >> purposes, it must be FEC. >> >> My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. >> >> Methinks something stinks here:) >> >> David >> KD4NUE >> >> -Original Message- >> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. >> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies >> >> >> Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, >> like the various ones that exist for SSTV? >> Leigh/WA5ZNU >>> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has >>> been on >>>> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go >>> through is >>>> titled: >>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php >> >> >> View the DRCC numbers database at >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
I am confused. Sholto said it was Pactor 2, not Pactor 3. I don't know that Winlink is involved at all. But there is so much mystery about these modes, and it seems like an archive would be a good idea. I set up one for SSTV but got tired of deleting the unseemly images, but others have set up really nice ones. 73, Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 3:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for > archival > purposes, it must be FEC. > > My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. > > Methinks something stinks here:) > > David > KD4NUE > > -Original Message- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies > > > Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, > like the various ones that exist for SSTV? > Leigh/WA5ZNU >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has >> been on >>> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go >> through is >>> titled: >>> >>> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Demetre SV1UY wrote: > Well, > > Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw > qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual > wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys > pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency > arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off > for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When > human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower > priority. > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham radio. Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham radio. It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
You wrote: > it must be FEC. My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions > are Pactor ARQ. > > Methinks something stinks here:) Well I assure you it doesn't stink! There are many programs which will monitor Pactor ARQ. For instance MultiPSK, Digipan, MixW. 73 Sholto KE7HPV. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:55 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
If you are monitoring a Pactor transmission, or preserving same for archival purposes, it must be FEC. My understanding is that all Winlink 2000 transmissions are Pactor ARQ. Methinks something stinks here:) David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leigh L Klotz, Jr. Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, like the various ones that exist for SSTV? Leigh/WA5ZNU > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has > been on >> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go > through is >> titled: >> >>
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies
Could you set up an automatic archive of these PACTOR transmissions, like the various ones that exist for SSTV? Leigh/WA5ZNU > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Sholto Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> For instance I am monitoring a Pactor 2 transmission on 30m that has > been on >> going for around 25 minutes so far and the latest email to go > through is >> titled: >> >>
