-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - SCS TNC
Look at this way: An SCS TNC _IS_ COTS hardware.
But it also has another plus
]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:38 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - SCS TNC
I was trying to suggest that they could arrive at the PC with a DSP from the
other direction. Have a DSP and add the computer.
If they went under
Perhaps I sould have said not generally available. Hi Hi.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:56 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
DuBose
, September 16, 2006 12:10 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - Eurorpeans
Bill,
These are proposals by many groups and individuals, including the ARRL,
and while they may, or may not, be accepted by the FCC, the main
political reality
Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Wrong I think. With the right operating system, running on the
right/correctly configured
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:38 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - SCS TNC
I was trying to suggest that they could arrive at the PC with a DSP from
the
other direction. Have a DSP and add
The main problem with sole source technology is the absence of
competition, which generally keeps prices high. And message delivery
over HF is a niche market if ever there was one.
If we want out of this box (pun intended),
1. expand the market
Very few hams are interested in sending email
I'm just trying to say that the PactorIII technology has a broad non-ham
customer base and it is worth enough to be sold if the company has
problems. Unless there is a better and cheaper technology which
supplants PactorIII, I don't think a company failure will eliminate it.
Charlie Crizer,
At 11:28 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
AA6YQ comments below
Wrong. SCAMP, a protocol that employs ARQ to attain reliable
delivery, was implemented on a Windows PC with a soundcard rather
than an outboard TNC. SCAMP was specifically design to tolerate the
long delays caused by the lack of
Wrong I think. With the right operating system, running on the
right/correctly configured computer (hardware) and with the right software,
you can do what Pactor II/III or almost any other mode used can do.
Really ?
If this was true we would be running it today.
And I just don't see it on
At 09:33 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote:
John,
What modes are you talking about. As I mentioned, Amtor and Pactor are
dead as far as sound cards go.
Amtor and Pactor -
I think that was very clear in my post Rick.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Vojt=ECch=20Bubn=EDk?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you put a name in there for the list members?
John, W0JAB
list moderator
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of
Before you change the subject, please acknowledge that its possible
for computers with soundcards to run protocols with ARQ. Two examples
have been cited: SCAMP, and PSKMail.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:28 PM
There are two possible explanations for why we don't see PC-hosted
Pactor 3 running on the bands today, even though its technically
feasible:
1. a PC-based implementation makes little financial sense
2. information sufficiently detailed to implement Pactor 3 has not
been publicly released
+++AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:49 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
Before you change the subject, please acknowledge that its
possible for computers with soundcards to run protocols with ARQ.
Two examples have been cited: SCAMP,
At 06:58 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
+++AA6YQ comments below
+++Then having a technical discussion with you is a waste of time,
John. You were right, the thread is dead.
Not really Dave, if you recall I have been running ARQ Amtor since
the early days when you had to have the printed circuit board
John,
As I have mentioned before, SCAMP was being developed by the Winlink
2000 programmer as a replacement or at least an alternative soundcard
mode for Pactor 1, 2 and 3.
The mode worked superbly well for good signal conditions. Faster than
Pactor 2, but in a relatively wide band similar to
John,
Your post responded to my comment that we had developed two sound card
modes for the PC. One for windows and one for Linux. Your post only
indicated:
Yes I know I ran test on it
It was carp.. could only - at best to 42.72 per cent of what a TNC would
do.
This perhaps was Amtor
Bill,
These are proposals by many groups and individuals, including the ARRL,
and while they may, or may not, be accepted by the FCC, the main
political reality is to not take away anything from existing interests.
(The ARRL may have learned that from what happened with the incentive
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
Where can I get an SCS Pactor TNC for $300 with the license to run
Pactor III?
They are out there. I purchased a SCS PTC-II with P3 license and dual
packet boards for $450.00 last December, from someone on the TAPR APRS list.
You just have to be
John,
Any particular reason you think that European hams will be the ones
developing the ARQ sound card modes?
We have the one ARQ mode developed by a U.S. ham for MS-Win XP and
Reins, PSKmail for Linux. In addition, K9PS developed a proposal for ARQ
modes that I believe was used by Reins for
WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS MOMENT:
A computer will not work for a fast ARQ mode because
every time it does anything else that timing link is
lost.
Not true.
The question is what you mean with speed. If it is an average data transfer
speed, than it is certainly possible to write a very high speed
John,
What modes are you talking about. As I mentioned, Amtor and Pactor are
dead as far as sound cards go.
Have you actually used either of the two ARQ sound card modes? These
include PSKmail for Linux and SCAMP for MS-Windows XP?
I don't have a Linux box set up here but it is a future
with the latest Linux basic kernel and have a latest greatest
Linux.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:00 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Your
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:58 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988
Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out
any hardware
hardware for new modes.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:58 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC
with the license to
run Pactor III? I WILL buy one.
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:28 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
AA6YQ comments
]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:35 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
I Googled SCS Pactor buy to get you a link or two, and was
surprised to see these modems selling for $1100 rather than $300. A
dedicated PC implementation would make more
@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
John,
Any particular reason you think that European hams will be the ones
developing the ARQ sound card modes?
We have the one ARQ mode developed by a U.S. ham for MS-Win XP and
Reins, PSKmail for Linux. In addition, K9PS
: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 14:00
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Dave,
You are seeing the point that I have been making for 4 years now. $1100
Any particular reason you think that European hams will be the ones
developing the ARQ sound card modes?
Maybe because they don't have the restrictive 1980's ARRL regulations
we're forced to operate under..
73
Bill - WA7NWP
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
could be very small.
73
Patrick
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: KV9U
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 18:31
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes - SCS TNC
Look at this way: An SCS TNC _IS_ COTS hardware.
But it also has another plus, support. Not just tech support
: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
John,
Any particular reason you think that European hams will be the ones
developing the ARQ sound card modes?
We have the one ARQ mode developed by a U.S. ham for MS-Win XP and
Reins, PSKmail for Linux. In addition, K9PS developed a proposal for ARQ
modes
Bill,
What ARRL regulations are those?
73,
Rick, KV9U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any particular reason you think that European hams will be the ones
developing the ARQ sound card modes?
Maybe because they don't have the restrictive 1980's ARRL regulations
we're forced to operate
What ARRL regulations are those?
Same old discussion. If the ARRL Regulation by Bandwidth proposal is
accepted, I'd be able to run 8 KHz AM (which, of course, has it's place)
but I wouldn't be able to do 6 KHz or 9 KHz or 12 Khz data... One of
those two modes was availabe in the 1950's.
Rick,
Well, that's two, OK.
But EVERYTHING ELSE seems to come from outside the US.
Just an observation.
John
From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:36
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Hello Walt and Jose,
Yes it would be a very good thing to compare all digital modes with their
respective qualities and weakness. It would give ideas for new specifications
of mode.
For a much more fine
] Re: ARQ sound card modes
TKS for all the answers and the adress.
it requires 20 ppm or better...
1/50.000, hum it's not reasonnable for a standard PC (more about 1/3000).
73 Patrick
Is the 1/3,000 limit caused by the MS version of windows
or is there some other limiting factor
It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from Real Time
OS's than the older software. But even with a +/- 10 ms time (worst case
20 ms from one extreme to the other), wouldn't you just have to have a
little bit longer window than existing ARQ modes in order to succeed?
I think
It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from Real Time
OS's than the older software.
Where is this data found?
Is documented as true of all distributions of Linux
or only the more popular and bloated (RedHat, SUse,
Mandriva, etc)?
What about Apple?
But even with a +/- 10
I think this thread is about dead.
WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS MOMENT:
A computer will not work for a fast ARQ mode because
every time it does anything else that timing link is
lost.
FIX:
If you would like to play the AQR modes better get
yourself some hardware (TNC) .
Need a Digital mode
That's not true, John. SCS multimode controllers do a fine job with
Pactor-2 and Pactor-3, both of which utilize ARQ. These protocols are
implemented in software running on a computer -- one of the 68K
variants, as I recall.
The impediment to running ARQ protocols on Windows PCs is the absence
I have a P 2 3 TNC.
Dave are you telling me that software is doing that same thing
and just as good? If so I have not seen a thing being said about
with any of the QSO's that I have had in the past.
At 09:08 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
That's not true, John. SCS multimode controllers do a fine
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988
Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out
any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right?
At 09:45 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
Yes. Open up your P 2 3 TNC, and you will find a microprocessor.
That microprocessor
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
followed the discussions, you know that ARQ modes not only can, but have
already been implemented on sound card modes in at least two cases. One
for Linux and one for Windows.
Many of us have done all the hardware stuff
Dave,
I am comparing current mainstream versions to the older ones. Examples
would be Windows XP vs. MS-DOS also, any of the popular Linux versions
whether Fedora or Ubuntu or SUSE vs. the early versions. There are RT
versions as you note, but they are not used for typical end users who
want
At 10:05 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
followed the discussions, you know that ARQ modes not only can, but have
already been implemented on sound card modes in at least two cases. One
for Linux and one for Windows.
Yes I
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988
Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out
any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right?
Wrong. SCAMP, a
By definition Hardware solutions do not include dedicated
microprocessors. They use non-programmable control mechanisms, e.g.
finite state machines, stepping relays, or cam shafts.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Not
That's fine, Rick. The issue is specialization, not regression.
Its not obvious to me why one couldn't build a desktop Linux around a
realtime kernel.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
I am comparing current mainstream
Yes, and he'll be a European.
From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:05:40 -0500
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
--- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose, some questions,
* for Pactor, why do you need a so precise timing It
seems that you need a 1/100,000 precision or better.
This because the RX Pactor modem follows an exact
timing from the beginning of the QSO (after a first
signal
), sensitivity to QRM, QSB, ionospheric Doppler modulation and so on.
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Yes
: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
--- Patrick Lindecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose, some questions,
* for Pactor, why do you need a so precise timing It
seems that you need a 1/100,000 precision or better.
This because the RX Pactor modem follows an exact
timing
TKS for all the answers and the adress.
it requires 20 ppm or better...
1/50.000, hum it's not reasonnable for a standard PC (more about 1/3000).
73 Patrick
Is the 1/3,000 limit caused by the MS version of windows
or is there some other limiting factor?
Memory, CPU, buffer size, 64-bit vs
--- John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your are right Bill but I don't see any software
that will keep up with that TNC in Amtor or Pactor
ARQ mode as yet. And both modes are still very alive
and well.
John, W0JAB
Well, some 8 years ago I built a quite complex
homebrew modem with
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just so you know, that many of us don't drive
Cadillacs or even Buicks.
Yep...I have seen many smaller imported cars on the US
streets on TV for many years.
A friend of mine still keeps his father's 1950
Buick...it is a voracious dragon with 8 cylinders in
rate 1 - 10
rate 1 - 10
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Joel Kolstad wrote:
If Pactor
)?
TKS
73
Patrick
- Original Message -
From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Doc, you said...Not to discourage innovation but perhaps a very
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Yes it would be a very good thing to compare all digital
modes with their respective qualities and weakness.
It would give ideas for new specifications of mode.
For a much more fine description of the modes, see the F1ULT Pascal WEB site:
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Yes it would be a very good thing to compare all digital
modes with their respective qualities and weakness.
It would give ideas for new
Patrick Lindecker wrote:
Yes it is incomplete (but a good start).
For example, it misses the very interesting
JT44 and JT65 modes, all the LW modes (QRSS...)
and a lot of Hellschreiber modes.
You have taken us closer to the goal of 100%. :-)
Perhaps someone can build on the start you
If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of the need for a $300 TNC,
I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying! $300 in today's money is
nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for their HF rigs years ago.
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
--- Joel Kolstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Pactor, packet Amtor, etc. all died because of
the need for a $300 TNC,
I think amateur radio as a hobby really is dying!
$300 in today's money is
nothing compared to what many amateurs paid for
their HF rigs years ago.
I believe that
in the transmission of this message but,
several million electrons were inconvienced.
- Original Message -
From: Jose Amador
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
--- Joel Kolstad
You hit the nail right on the head. people also need to remember that,
when the power, land line and cell phone towers along with the internet
fail due to a catastrophe Ham Radio will always be there and be able to
get through.
So the folks that hate to spend $300 on a TNC are going to be
So the folks that hate to spend $300 on a TNC are going to be more capable
then the system built commercially with $billions and $billions? While
there's actually a bit of wisdom in that approach, folks too often
overlook just how robust the existing infrastructure is -- and how much
has
I think you missed a point- That $300 is IN ADDITION to the rig cost. If
the same or better performance can be achieved with equipment you already
have, isn't that better? An additional plus is the fact that software
changes to improve is cheaper than new equipment.
Bill-W4BSG
At 10:06 AM
Joel,
Amateur radio is changing quite a bit from my 40+ year perspective.
Just under half of all U.S. hams are Technician class and many have no
interest in upgrading to an HF license. But the main reason that hams
don't buy a $300 TNC is because they don't have to buy one.
Contrary to the
Your are right Bill but I don't see any software that
will keep up with that TNC in Amtor or Pactor AQR
mode as yet. And both modes are still very alive
and well.
John, W0JAB
At 04:39 PM 9/11/2006, you wrote:
I think you missed a point- That $300 is IN ADDITION to the rig cost. If
the same
Just so you know, that many of us don't drive Cadillacs or even Buicks.
In fact, my wife drives a used pickup truck with over 100,000 miles on
it, but it is a 4 wheel drive extended cab she wanted for the farming
operation. I drive a Chevrolet Cavalier, which is a step up from what I
used to
I think all will agree with me when I say that the reason
that Pactor, Packet Amtor is all but dead and buried is
that it requires a box (TNC) that could be 300 plus
bucks. And so far there is no computer program that
can keep up with the timing required for ARQ mode.
Interesting comment about
PSKmail also supports APRS messaging and Posit beaconing.
73,
Rein PA0R
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 08.09.06 05:38:18
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
If I understood its description
At 05:46 8/9/2006 -0700, you wrote:
DO KNOW that ISI is far more severe on 40 than on 20.
I have found that the higher you go on frequency, the
lower the ISI tends to be and TNC's used to behave
better.
Yes, Jose is right. A very good proof is the quality
of HF FAX signals, where multipath
The reason that Clover died out is that HAL decided to keep it
proprietary. At least the early SCS Pactor mode was implemented with
varying degrees of success on hardware from different vendors, e.g.,
Kantronics and AEA. Even HAL tried to implement it on their P-38 card
but it never worked
If I understood its description correctly, PSKmail is a server-base
architecture: if you you want to send an email message, you establish
an HF connection on a known frequency with a PSKmail server, which
then forwards your message via the internet.
Is this the right network architecture?
Is
77 matches
Mail list logo
