Just to add my two cents.
I do have a SL-1 that is used only for MT63 and HELL.
Having said that I have found no problem with it. Of
course they are not ARQ modes. I do use ARQ modes
a lot but also have the hardware to operate it.
John, W0JAB
I agree with Skip on this Bonnie, the Signalink interface is a very good
digital interface and to write it off as a P.O.S is misinformed,
disingenuous, just plain wrong and potentially damaging to a small US
ham radio oriented company who manufacture quality products.
Just to reiterate I have u
symbol synchronization just before the frame reception (432
ms).
- Original Message -
From: "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
> Or the protocol implementers ne
Bonnie,
> Rud Merriam" wrote:
>
> Or the protocol implementers need to recognize
> the need to generate a tone to trigger the VOX.
> This would be analogous to the delay they provide for
> transmitter keying.
>Bonnie wrote:
>IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that
>the "protocol implementers" sho
Well stated, Bonnie.
73 de Stro
KO4FR
- Original Message -
From: expeditionradio
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:17 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink No Good for ARQ Modes
IMHO, it is ridiculous to suggest that
the "protocol
Bluntly, you are ignoring the reality of trends in computer hardware.
Further, my suggestion does not impact any protocol. The protocols require
no changes.
What could be changed is the way a protocol __implementation__ signals that
it ready to transmit. A simple check box on the screen that def
her's slow
radios are still locking their PLL's up...
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:40 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Signalink N
Or the protocol implementers need to recognize the need to generate a tone
to trigger the VOX. This would be analogous to the delay they provide for
transmitter keying.
- 73 -
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
> -Original Message-
> From: dig
Hello to all,
About "slow" asynchronous ARQ modes as ARQ FAE, Pax, Pax2 and even Packet
there is no much problem to have several dozens of ms in delay. This because
due to sound card buffers, the obligation to work even with slow computers,
and due to slow modulation, it is introduced big margi
Sorry to harp on about this but ALE400 has a baud rate of 50 (20ms
length) and the VOX PTT is 28ms plus allowing for say a 12ms delay from
a modern rig that is only 40ms total delay on transmit, just 2 "symbols".
From MultiPSK's help file:
In "ALE400" it is transmitted 28 symbols, alternately
Bonnie what do you suggest using with out spend a whole lot
i was also looking at the rigblaster plug and play usb
MATTHEW A. GREGORY
KC2PUA
- Original Message
From: expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:47:27 PM
Subjec
11 matches
Mail list logo
