While fairly technical at times, the one thing that stood out is that
the computational power and especially memory available (3G cell stuff
and maybe 256K) is not that large. So it could be implemented. However,
this appears more for multicasting in the case of the fountain codes.
He
I used to think that Viterbi coding worked better for ham applications.
For example, Pactor modes (Viterbi) work better than Clover modes (R-S).
Other R-S modes include, SSTV RDFT and the Winlink 2000 initial attempt
to develop a sound card mode (SCAMP) which uses the same modulation
scheme as
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still have not understood what P2 and P3 have that
is all that special and allows them to run as fast
as they do (not to mention they are also ARQ modes).
If we had non ARQ modes with similar modulation, why
would not that run at a similar rate of
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Another look at ALE
Yes 200 WPM will do but 300-400 WPM or faster would be much better if the same SNR was maintained. However, if going to 300-400 WPM increases the SNR by 5 to 7 dB, then that would be acceptable.
For the time being, MT63 seems to be the mode
I agree completely, Jose.
However, all these things can (and often are done) with other modes that
do not run as fast. The bandwidths are no differerent than the wider
sound card modes at either 500 Hz for Pactor 2 or closer to a voice
bandwidth such as Pactor 3 uses. And the Pactor modes
--- KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree completely, Jose.
However, all these things can (and often are done)
with other modes that
do not run as fast. The bandwidths are no
differerent than the wider
sound card modes at either 500 Hz for Pactor 2 or
closer to a voice
bandwidth
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Another look at ALE
Understand that I have used MIL-STD-188-110a and FS-1052(?) modems (modes) when I was in the AF Reserve. I used MIL-STD-188-110a and c (I think) in February of 1990 in US Air Force test, then in California during joint services test
Walt,
Initially you had indicated that:
I would like a robust keyboard-to-keyboard mode that would accept typing at
about 50-60
WPM. Also a robust mode that could send data files at 200 WPM and be robus
enough to work right down in the noise.
That is exactly what MT-63 does. However, now you
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy,
Are you talking about Automatic Link Establsihment capability to
connect to
stations or the service messaging protocol of ALE just to send
text with?
Good question. I started my
Title: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Another look at ALE
There has been some discussion about what mode does what and what is needed/desired.
We have had a little discussion on what the problems were during Katrina with digital communications.
During hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I worked
Walt,
What you are describing sounds very close to MT-63.
73,
Rick, KV9U
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
There has been some discussion about what mode does what and what is
needed/desired.
We have had a little discussion on what the problems were during Katrina
with digital
I'll be monitoring 7065 USB for ALE tonight until around 0500 UTC. If
you want to play around with Indivdual Calls via ALE (as opposed to
Net Calls), we can experiement up a few KCs from 7065 after making a
link.
Andy K3UK
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to
Here is a snippet from Bonnie and the HFLINK group
This afternoon, I heard John K6ERO calling on the 20m sounding
channel, 14109.5kHz USB. I linked with him there and sent an
AMD: QSY SSB VOICE THIS BAND. Then I called him on 14346 and we
linked there. We talked for a while on voice SSB. The
13 matches
Mail list logo
