Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Q15X25] Applications for use with newqpsk?

Expand Messages
  • Rick Muething
    Mark/All No one prevented Kantronics from coming out with their own protocol and a better cheaper version of a PTC II....no one except Kantronics! Kantronics
    Message 1 of 32 , May 10, 2004
      Mark/All
      No one prevented Kantronics from coming out with their own protocol and a
      better cheaper version of a PTC II....no one except Kantronics! Kantronics
      sat on the KAM technology and milked it for almost 10 years while the rest
      of the world went DSP and computer prices fell as performance went up....Now
      you can buy a pretty powerful DSP chip for 10 bucks and a KAM (which works
      no better than the 10 year old model) still costs over $400. Let's not
      blame SCS for making a profitable business and not giving away the rights to
      Pactor II or III. The problem is there is no competition because the ham
      market is not that big or profitable and competition is the ONLY thing that
      will bring aggressive pricing. Kantronics only innovation GTOR was a total
      afterthought and amounted to not much more than using binary compression.

      Hams are going to have to understand that if you want the higher performance
      today's technology (hardware and software) can deliver you have only a few
      choices:
      1) Learn how to use and apply the technology yourself and be willing to give
      that knowledge away.
      2) Pay those that are willing to invest and risk their own time and money to
      make such products.

      I am working hard on a viable sound card protocol and initial test results
      are encouraging. I encourage others to join in and contribute if we want to
      try and advance the technology and generate a competitive marketplace.

      Rick KN6KB


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mark Miller [mailto:kramrellim@...]
      Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 01:56 PM
      To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [Q15X25] Applications for use with newqpsk?


      Yes but this is amateur radio, many would like to roll their own, and that
      is not possible with Pactor II and Pactor III.

      A KAM can't do P II and P III because KAM is not licensed to use it. That
      is kind or an artificial bargain, don't you think?

      73,

      Mark N5RFX

      At 06:57 PM 5/9/2004, you wrote:
      >Yes of course but the other side of the coin is Pactor II and III work far
      >better than Pactor I and SCS builds a reliable box and support it well with
      >continual firmware upgrades. Comparatively the PTC IIex at $700 is
      arguably
      >a better bargain than a $450 KAM.
    • Charles Brabham
      ... I have an idea that would solve this problem (busy detection) definatively by simply staying on the air. - The transmitter operates continuously,
      Message 32 of 32 , May 21, 2004
        --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Mark Miller <kramrellim@c...> wrote:

        >
        > I understand that it must be a very complex task to develop a busy
        > detection scheme.

        I have an idea that would solve this problem (busy detection)
        definatively by simply staying on the air. - The transmitter operates
        continuously, year-round.

        A. Is that legal?

        I would use multiple psk streams, each sending a multicast signal
        a'la John Hansen W2FS's "RadioMirror" protocol. If you are familiar
        with RadioMirror, the following will make sense:

        Each psk stream would send from a seperate data block, each working
        it's way through all the available data blocks as usual for
        RadioMirror. By staggering these data streams time-wise, they provide
        rapid updates and fills for each other, and at the same time ups the
        overall throughput. Remember that with multicast, "throughput" is
        measured in how fast you can get the entire set of data blocks across
        to many stations, intact and entire.

        It's a lot like EMWIN, but taken to the next step.

        RadioMirror provides fills by retransmitting all the data over and
        over again, in serial fashion. Using multiple psk streams would allow
        this same process to occur in parallel fashion. (much faster)

        RadioMirror utilizes a KISS TNC, and so is limited to using 1k
        packets, with some off-the-air time. Using multiple psk streams,
        there would be no reason for the transmitter to ever unkey. The data
        stream could flow uninterrupted, continuously.

        John Hansen talks about a single, serial RadioMirror data stream at
        1200 baud being capable of moving 20 megabytes a day... Psk streams
        would of course go at a much slower baud rate, but being multiple
        streams that do not have to pause and break every 1k, I think that
        this psk/multicast do-dad could pump an impressive amount of data.

        Couple that with the fact that the transmitted data is not point-to-
        point, dedicated to a single station but multicast instead, being
        distributed to an unlimited number of receiving stations over an
        enormous geographical area, and you are looking at data transfer on
        HF that leaves everything currently available very, very far behind.

        Yes, that would include PACTOR III. Nothing that operates point-to-
        point come come close.

        More streams = faster pumping... I'd want the server's number of psk
        streams to be optional (1-15) and the client to automatically adjust
        to the number of streams received.

        For emergency communications, a continental-scale data distribution
        system like this would be of obvious value.

        I forgot to suggest that the server also run the client software,
        updating it's files from another server on another band or freq.
        Networking these critters would expand their capability yet again.

        B. Is this technically feasable?

        C. Anybody want to put on their asbestos gloves and code it?

        To get an idea of how multicast works, as opposed to the point-to-
        point stuff we currently use, imagine this: In a room full of people,
        you pass around a note that says "point-to-point", waiting until it
        finally gets around to everybody. - Then hold up a sign that everone
        can see at once that says "Multicast".

        ( A fair comparasin would have some of the folks making copies of the
        data, which would speed up the process some - but not enough
        obviously. )

        The bigger the room, the more contrast you see. Now think about the
        overall coverage area of an HF transmission on 20 meters. That's a
        really big room.

        Charles, N5PVL

        BTY - There is some info about RadioMirror at http://www.uspacket.net
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.