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

Re: Kantronics, Kam XL

Expand Messages
  • Ken
    Tomi, Can you please supply the basic spec s for this mode? The guy at Kantronics is ready to go with trying to implement this mode in the Kam XL, but I have
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 7 6:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Tomi,

      Can you please supply the basic spec's for this mode? The guy at
      Kantronics is ready to go with trying to implement this mode in the
      Kam XL, but I have been unable to find on the net, or via emailing
      people the basic specs for Q15x25. It would be a terrible shame to
      miss this opportunity!

      73 de Ken.
      vk4akp@...
      .-.-.

      From the Kantronics email.

      ---
      I can probably get my boss to agree to publish the modules from the
      KAMxl
      pertaining specifically to the Q15X25 and MT63. But rather than just
      work
      from other people's code, I would also like to be able to work from a
      real
      specification which would not be based on someone's code. For
      example, what
      are the filter characteristics, how does the FEC work, how do the
      bits get
      parsed to the different frequencies, etc. In time, I can probably
      figure
      this stuff out from the published code, but I don't have a lot of
      time to
      devote to this. We did the PSK31 based only on the spec, not on
      someone
      elses code. The firmware in the KAMxl is all HC12 and ADSP21xx
      assembly
      language, and the ADSP2185 is running two modems (HF/VHF)
      simultaneously.

      Mike
      ---


      --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Tomi Manninen <oh2bns@s...> wrote:
      > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 04:48, Scott Thile (K4SET) wrote:
      >
      > > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the
      developers in it
      > > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
      there is at
      > > this point.
      >
      > This comment reminded me of an old issue with my Q15X25 code that is
      > used in MixW, so I recently asked Denis to update the code with a
      > small fix. This fix disables corrections to the symbol sync during
      > data phase, which I think might have been doing more harm than
      good...
      >
      > So it would be really nice if people who have tried this mode with
      > MixW before would try it again with the updated DLL and let me know
      > if there is any difference. The updated DLL is in the donwloads
      section
      > of the MixW site (http://mixw.net/files/q15x25dll6.zip).
      >
      > Also, while I'm at it, I would like to point out that Q15X25 was
      > designed to be a fairly fast mode requiring good SNR. My
      > implementation of the modem has a "bps" control that actually
      changes
      > the internal sample rate and scales the whole modem with it. While
      > you can (and probably should) experiment with the "bps" control,
      > the modem really was designed to work with fairly high rates.
      Pawel's
      > original modem only supported 2500bps or 3000bps. My experiments
      > have always been with bps=2500, fec=3, interleave=8. With these,
      I've
      > had pretty good success. I guess what I'm trying to say is that
      > trying to use the modem with slow "bps" is probably not going to
      > work very well. There are better modems for that.
      >
      > --
      > Tomi Manninen / OH2BNS / KP20JF74
    • Ken
      Hi guys, sorry it s been a while since I checked this group. Here s a bit of an update. From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn t
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.

        Here's a bit of an update.

        From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
        have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
        platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
        include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
        technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
        suitable.

        It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
        done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
        main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.

        Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
        about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
        development on the mode for their TNC.

        My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
        interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
        is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.

        This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.

        So what does the future hold?

        I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
        off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
        exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
        setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
        panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no where.

        Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
        a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
        not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
        reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
        alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
        but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
        from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
        TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
        consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
        lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
        like minded users and writing their own firmware.

        So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
        contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
        group to do just this.

        In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
        guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.

        Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
        PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
        wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
        300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
        21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
        available to do this.

        As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
        packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
        the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
        Once again, I won't hold my breath.

        Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
        frequencies etc currently.

        Regards,
        Ken - VK4AKP
        .-.-.

        --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello all,
        >
        > This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
        tell has
        > more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of two a
        > month asking what's up....
        >
        > Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
        on the
        > XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development on any
        > platform.
        >
        > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
        in it
        > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
        there is at
        > this point.
        >
        > 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
        >
        > >-----Original Message-----
        > >From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
        > >On Behalf Of Ken
        > >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
        > >To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
        > >Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
        > >
        > >The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
        > >it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
        > >author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
        > >
        > >They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
        > >
        > >Please everyone, help to make this happen!
        > >
        > >THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
        > >popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
        > >popular and common place on HF!
        > >
        > >Regards,
        > >Ken.
        > >.-.-.
        > >
        >
      • Paul David Gregg, KD4IDR
        ... where. ... two a ... on any ... Ken, You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech support in there now. Maybe you can get them to
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.
          >
          > Here's a bit of an update.
          >
          > From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
          > have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
          > platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
          > include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
          > technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
          > suitable.
          >
          > It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
          > done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
          > main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.
          >
          > Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
          > about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
          > development on the mode for their TNC.
          >
          > My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
          > interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
          > is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.
          >
          > This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.
          >
          > So what does the future hold?
          >
          > I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
          > off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
          > exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
          > setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
          > panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no
          where.
          >
          > Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
          > a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
          > not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
          > reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
          > alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
          > but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
          > from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
          > TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
          > consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
          > lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
          > like minded users and writing their own firmware.
          >
          > So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
          > contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
          > group to do just this.
          >
          > In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
          > guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.
          >
          > Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
          > PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
          > wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
          > 300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
          > 21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
          > available to do this.
          >
          > As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
          > packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
          > the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
          > Once again, I won't hold my breath.
          >
          > Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
          > frequencies etc currently.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Ken - VK4AKP
          > .-.-.
          >
          > --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hello all,
          > >
          > > This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
          > tell has
          > > more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of
          two a
          > > month asking what's up....
          > >
          > > Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
          > on the
          > > XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development
          on any
          > > platform.
          > >
          > > Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
          > in it
          > > have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
          > there is at
          > > this point.
          > >
          > > 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
          > >
          > > >-----Original Message-----
          > > >From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
          > > >On Behalf Of Ken
          > > >Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
          > > >To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
          > > >Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
          > > >
          > > >The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
          > > >it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
          > > >author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
          > > >
          > > >They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
          > > >
          > > >Please everyone, help to make this happen!
          > > >
          > > >THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
          > > >popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
          > > >popular and common place on HF!
          > > >
          > > >Regards,
          > > >Ken.
          > > >.-.-.
          > > >
          > >
          >


          Ken,

          You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
          support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.

          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282

          paul
        • kd4e
          ... There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition. Many manufacturers have tried the
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > Jose A. Amador wrote:
            > Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate
            > modems formats?

            There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary
            formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.

            Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode
            idea and all have failed. Kantronics among them,
            more recently joined by Alinco, Kenwood, and Icom's
            competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.

            Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same
            as in the Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.

            We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:

            1. All of the code is published and anyone is
            allowed to base apps on it.

            2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.

            3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.

            Only then will we have something likely to earn the
            support of the majority of digital mode Ham ops and
            only then can we move into the digital mode future
            working together vs divided and making inefficient
            use of fragmented development resources.


            --

            Thanks! & 73,
            doc, KD4E
            ... somewhere in FL
            URL: bibleseven (dot) com
          • Jose A. Amador
            Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate modems formats? Those are very robust modem formats, far better than the traditional Bell 103 modems
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate modems formats?

              Those are very robust modem formats, far better than the traditional
              Bell 103 modems
              for HF, and might prove to be better than Q15X25 in poor conditions,
              specially on the
              lower bands. Q15X25 is faster, but requires a clean, stable channel, or
              it won't work.

              While PAX is rather slow, in comparison, it really fights to get the
              data thru when others
              fail and desist. It is better to have a slow working link than none at
              all. PAX requires
              about the same bandwidth as a Bell 103 modem. PAX2 is wider.

              Jose, CO2JA


              Paul David Gregg, KD4IDR wrote:

              >--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >>Hi guys, sorry it's been a while since I checked this group.
              >>
              >>Here's a bit of an update.
              >>
              >>From what I have heard the mode works fine. The only reason it doesn't
              >>have better support (YET) is that there are no simple hardware
              >>platforms available for it. This is why I was hoping to see Kantronics
              >> include the mode in their Kam XL. After all the XL bosts DSP
              >>technology and is the only TNC I know of currently on the market
              >>suitable.
              >>
              >>It is disapointing to say the least that years later nothing has been
              >>done to offer more modern DSP modes in this TNC, after all it is it's
              >>main claim to fame. Flash upgradable with the latest modes etc etc.
              >>
              >>Currently I receive no replies from Kantronics when emailing them
              >>about this. It has been over a year now since they first started
              >>development on the mode for their TNC.
              >>
              >>My current info from the grape vine is that they don't have a lot of
              >>interest in supporting the Amateur market for their product as money
              >>is more forthcomming from the commercial sector.
              >>
              >>This in it's self is very sad and bad news for us.
              >>
              >>So what does the future hold?
              >>
              >>I myself am currently looking at using USB sound card dongles chained
              >>off a dedicated PC. Power usage is of course going to be horrific and
              >>exactly the path I didn't want to go down as it will exclude such
              >>setups on hilltops etc where power is usually provided by solar
              >>panels. But what can you do. A TNC solution at present is going no
              >>
              >>
              >where.
              >
              >
              >>Long term, there is no reason why a developers group couldn't look at
              >>a alternative open source image for the Kam XL. While Kantronics do
              >>not seem interested in making their code open source. I can't see any
              >>reason why if a group started from scratch on their own version an
              >>alternative could be developed that supports not only Q15X25 packet
              >>but all the other packet modes and speeds currently so sadly missing
              >>from the XL. This sort of thing has been done for everything from the
              >>TinyTrack to DVD recorders. Where the original designers have let the
              >>consumer down, people have picked up the torch and turned a great yet
              >>lacking device into a killer product by getting together with other
              >>like minded users and writing their own firmware.
              >>
              >>So if anyone is interested in this and has programming ability. Please
              >>contact me vk4akp@... and perhaps we can start a developers
              >>group to do just this.
              >>
              >>In the mean time all my Kam XL's will go back into moth balls and I
              >>guess I will start to go down the USB sound card trail.
              >>
              >>Keep in mind that until a newer mode is invented, other then 1200 baud
              >>PSK, Q15X25 is currently the only other option available to anyone
              >>wanting to run packet on HF at a higher baudrate then the traditional
              >>300 Baud. I have also heard of people running G3RUH at 4800 baud on
              >>21Mhz. But once again, I don't know of any current TNC technology
              >>available to do this.
              >>
              >>As I've pointed out to Kantronics, what they really need is for the
              >>packet mode to be an independant setting to the baud rate. That way
              >>the device is far more flexable for things like HF and Satelite work.
              >>Once again, I won't hold my breath.
              >>
              >>Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear who's QRV in this mode and on what
              >>frequencies etc currently.
              >>
              >>Regards,
              >>Ken - VK4AKP
              >>.-.-.
              >>
              >>--- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Thile \(K4SET\)" <k4set@> wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >>>Hello all,
              >>>
              >>>This mode never really worked all that well, and from what I can
              >>>
              >>>
              >>tell has
              >>
              >>
              >>>more of less died. We only see occasional posts here. Maybe one of
              >>>
              >>>
              >two a
              >
              >
              >>>month asking what's up....
              >>>
              >>>Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I doubt it will be worth developing
              >>>
              >>>
              >>on the
              >>
              >>
              >>>XL as it is simply not viable in its current state of development
              >>>
              >>>
              >on any
              >
              >
              >>>platform.
              >>>
              >>>Great idea, just didn't pan out and as far as I know, the developers
              >>>
              >>>
              >>in it
              >>
              >>
              >>>have lost interest. I think there is potential, but that is all
              >>>
              >>>
              >>there is at
              >>
              >>
              >>>this point.
              >>>
              >>>73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>>-----Original Message-----
              >>>>From: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q15X25@yahoogroups.com]
              >>>>On Behalf Of Ken
              >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:56 AM
              >>>>To: Q15X25@yahoogroups.com
              >>>>Subject: [Q15X25] Re: Kantronics, Kam XL
              >>>>
              >>>>The Kam XL is a DSP TNC. The Tech at Kantronics tells me that
              >>>>it would be possible! The next step is to try and get the
              >>>>author to contact Kantronics and give permission for it's use.
              >>>>
              >>>>They also query wether the mode is too wide to be allowd in the US?
              >>>>
              >>>>Please everyone, help to make this happen!
              >>>>
              >>>>THis would mean many HF Gateways using the Kam XL's (Very
              >>>>popular) would become available. Q15X25 would become most
              >>>>popular and common place on HF!
              >>>>
              >>>>Regards,
              >>>>Ken.
              >>>>.-.-.
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >
              >
              >Ken,
              >
              > You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
              >support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.
              >
              >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282
              >
              >paul
              >
              >
              >


              __________________________________________

              XIII Convención Científica de Ingeniería y Arquitectura
              28/noviembre al 1/diciembre de 2006
              Cujae, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
              http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/convencion
            • Ken
              Hi Paul, I have spoken to the tech guy direct on a number of occasions. Didn t help I m afraid. Regards, Ken .-.-.
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 12, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Paul,

                I have spoken to the tech guy direct on a number of occasions. Didn't
                help I'm afraid.

                Regards,
                Ken
                .-.-.



                > Ken,
                >
                > You should post this to the kantronics group. We have kantronics tech
                > support in there now. Maybe you can get them to help.
                >
                > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kantronics/message/282
                >
                > paul
                >
              • Ken
                Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL. A response from Tomi to my request to
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this
                  damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL.

                  A response from Tomi to my request to have the mode properly
                  documented so developers like Kantronics could include it in their TNC
                  range.

                  ---
                  > Do you have a more up to date Q15X25 technical description available
                  please? (Last release received 2005-07-20).

                  Sorry to say but no. I have mosty forgotten the whole modem as
                  I haven't used it and I don't think anyone else does either...
                  At least I haven't heard from anyone.

                  Unless I get a sudden inspiration to document stuff, I probably
                  won't update it any more.
                  ---

                  So it seems we are at a dead end again. :( Most disapointing. I have
                  been chasing this since 2005! :(

                  OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                  ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.

                  Any idea's? The big issue I see is having something that we can get
                  the TNC manufacturers to include. A mode that is within the capability
                  of some of the latest hardware like the Kam XL's etc.

                  My only other idea is to abandon triditional TNC technology and go
                  down the path of using Embedded PC boards with USB sound card dongles
                  and linux. While this would offer more mode flexability and access to
                  a better supported software base it's main limitations are these
                  devices are generally power hungry which is bad news for field apps
                  like solar sites and digi's etc.

                  Any idea's anyone?


                  ~Ken - VK4AKP
                  .-.-.




                  --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <kd4e@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Jose A. Amador wrote:
                  > > Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered as candidate
                  > > modems formats?
                  >
                  > There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary
                  > formats -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.
                  >
                  > Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode
                  > idea and all have failed. Kantronics among them,
                  > more recently joined by Alinco, Kenwood, and Icom's
                  > competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.
                  >
                  > Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same
                  > as in the Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.
                  >
                  > We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:
                  >
                  > 1. All of the code is published and anyone is
                  > allowed to base apps on it.
                  >
                  > 2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.
                  >
                  > 3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.
                  >
                  > Only then will we have something likely to earn the
                  > support of the majority of digital mode Ham ops and
                  > only then can we move into the digital mode future
                  > working together vs divided and making inefficient
                  > use of fragmented development resources.
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  >
                  > Thanks! & 73,
                  > doc, KD4E
                  > ... somewhere in FL
                  > URL: bibleseven (dot) com
                  >
                • Charles Brabham
                  ... Q15x25 has demonstrated that AX25 need not be packet. - In fact there are several digital modes that could be operated over AX25 just as Tomi has done with
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <vk4akp@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                    > ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.

                    Q15x25 has demonstrated that AX25 need not be packet. - In fact there
                    are several digital modes that could be operated over AX25 just as
                    Tomi has done with multiple PSK streams.

                    The primary holdup is that most of the programmers who are capable of
                    this kind of work have been taught to look down on the concept of an
                    independent amateur radio network in the first place. They have
                    specifically been encouraged to look down on AX25, despite the
                    obvious irony that not a single one of them can point to anything
                    else that does the same thing better.

                    Fortunately this is true in the great majority of cases, but not all
                    of them.

                    There is a newer, slower mode that strangely enough has great
                    potential to speed things up on HF. Have you looked at HF multicast?
                    HF multicast SYSOPs are currently needed, if you find that you are
                    interested in providing this service and would like to participate.

                    There is a special section on HF Multicast at USPacket. Skim over the
                    articles there, if you get a chance.

                    http://www.uspacket.org

                    Charles, N5PVL
                  • Jose A. Amador
                    The efforts I am seeing might indicate that we are attempting to bite a bit too large.... On one side, the reports that Q15X25 works better at 2300 baud, and
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 9, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The efforts I am seeing might indicate that we are attempting to bite a
                      bit too large....

                      On one side, the reports that Q15X25 works better at 2300 baud, and that
                      the 100 baud packet mode incorporated into MultiPSK works when 300 baud
                      does not looks like a hint to go at lower speeds and bandwidths, and at
                      least match the expected thruput of 300 baud packet, reliably. It is a
                      pity that only some AEA TNC's could go below 300 baud, and that it did
                      not become popular. Greed or carelessness? Cannot tell, but the results
                      are there for all to see.

                      I have been a witness that Pactor II and III are better alternatives
                      than 300 (and HF 1200 baud) packet, with some 10 times the thruput.

                      SCS has achieved to better protect the data in transit, starting with
                      their old "memory ARQ", and using adaptative techniques, like switching
                      in more complex constellations (Pactor II with 2 carriers) or more
                      carriers with no more complex constellations than DQPSK, starting with
                      as few as 2 carriers, and going up to as many as 16, depending on the
                      channel quality. It is complex and has a price, but works quite well.

                      Should a faithful copy be made? Guess not, including the avoidance of
                      patent infringements, but there are salient points in display for all to
                      see. Adaptativity and data protection seem to be the key.

                      The behavior with Q15X25 seem to follow this pattern, using slower
                      speeds if it is more reliable, and avoiding the filters passband edges.

                      In a multicarrier environment, it is wise to confine them in the
                      flattest propagation delay portion of the passband. The edges do not
                      have this desirable property.

                      It is important to go as fast as POSSIBLE to catch band openings and
                      move traffic, but with an eye in EFFICIENCY, neither that fast that the
                      water spills out of the bucket, neither that slow that it takes an
                      eternity to fill it up. With 300 baud packet, most of the water was
                      spilled outside (endless retries....remember?)....

                      It is better (for moving BBS traffic) to have one drop falling INTO the
                      bucket for a day than a large hose with large pressure bouncing the
                      water on the bottom of the bucket spilling it all over the place for a
                      short while (wasting bandwidth). The good choice seems to be an average
                      of those extreme conditions. Transmitting data, and not live voice, you
                      are not forced to some minimum transmission speed. Just use the one that
                      DELIVERS the most.

                      The HF channel is a variable one. In good years we can move to higher
                      frequencies, as close to the MUF multipath diminishes or dissapears, but
                      regional nets with the required path geometries do not enjoy these
                      benefits.

                      And yes, the trend in the times we are living is using PC's and sound
                      cards, as it is versatile and somehow, affordable. Making it open
                      software may allow some worthwhile contributions and a shorter
                      development time.

                      I have seen one similar solution: Using smaller motherboards with less
                      power hungry processors (VIA, etc) allows the development to be done in
                      the PC and ported to a smaller and less power hungry box, powered from a
                      DC-DC converter. It seems to be the fashion nowadays. There are non ham
                      networks in South America (and possibly Africa) being built that way.

                      The AEA hardware solution saw the light in 1988....almost 20 years ago.
                      And at the pace the development goes nowadays, and the attitudes we are
                      seeing (life is hard and short, I am not criticizing anyone), it looks
                      that those boxes are history.

                      Once again, pactor channel access solutions seem to show the way. You
                      can go with a single speed for all links in a shared channel, like in
                      wire (X.25 was born in that environment) on VHF/UHF, but on HF all paths
                      in a network won't show the same quality, so you cannot use the single
                      speed shared channel efficiently for all, neither a mix of speeds on a
                      shared channel seems to be a viable solution so far. So peer to peer
                      links at the highest EFFICIENT speed (maximizing ALLOWABLE thruput, not
                      HOPING the highest theoretical one to be AVAILABLE always) seem to be
                      the solution. It is the way the HF, ham side of the link works in
                      Winlink 2000.

                      Could a viable mimic of that be achieved?


                      Jose, CO2JA


                      PS: Daydreaming....perhaps...even a mixture of those ideas with ALE and
                      an SDR....

                      Second...could we be able to live with variable bandwidth, adaptive
                      digital transmissions in our ham bamds without quarreling among us?

                      Sorry for the crossposting, but to me, it seems interesting for both groups.

                      Ken wrote:
                      > Well some bad news today after so long a effort of trying to get this
                      > damn mode into current technology like the Kam XL.
                      >
                      > A response from Tomi to my request to have the mode properly
                      > documented so developers like Kantronics could include it in their
                      > TNC range.
                      >
                      > ---
                      >> Do you have a more up to date Q15X25 technical description
                      >> available
                      > please? (Last release received 2005-07-20).
                      >
                      > Sorry to say but no. I have mosty forgotten the whole modem as I
                      > haven't used it and I don't think anyone else does either... At least
                      > I haven't heard from anyone.
                      >
                      > Unless I get a sudden inspiration to document stuff, I probably won't
                      > update it any more. ---
                      >
                      > So it seems we are at a dead end again. :( Most disapointing. I have
                      > been chasing this since 2005! :(
                      >
                      > OK So whats next? We still need a newer faster mode for HF that is
                      > ax25 / packet compatable for our existing networks.
                      >
                      > Any idea's? The big issue I see is having something that we can get
                      > the TNC manufacturers to include. A mode that is within the
                      > capability of some of the latest hardware like the Kam XL's etc.
                      >
                      > My only other idea is to abandon triditional TNC technology and go
                      > down the path of using Embedded PC boards with USB sound card dongles
                      > and linux. While this would offer more mode flexability and access
                      > to a better supported software base it's main limitations are these
                      > devices are generally power hungry which is bad news for field apps
                      > like solar sites and digi's etc.
                      >
                      > Any idea's anyone?
                      >
                      > ~Ken - VK4AKP .-.-.
                      >
                      > --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q15X25%40yahoogroups.com>, kd4e
                      > <kd4e@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> Jose A. Amador wrote: Could I suggest that PAX/PAX2 be considered
                      >>> as candidate modems formats?
                      >>
                      >> There is no point to either -- they are costly proprietary formats
                      >> -- contrary to good sense and Ham tradition.
                      >>
                      >> Many manufacturers have tried the proprietary mode idea and all
                      >> have failed. Kantronics among them, more recently joined by Alinco,
                      >> Kenwood, and Icom's competing VHF/UHF digital and linking schemes.
                      >>
                      >> Ham radio needs a non-proprietary foundation same as in the
                      >> Internet realm, e.g. IEEE 802.11 and others.
                      >>
                      >> We need a robust format that is 100% non-proprietary:
                      >>
                      >> 1. All of the code is published and anyone is allowed to base apps
                      >> on it.
                      >>
                      >> 2. No exclusive source hardware requirement.
                      >>
                      >> 3. Cross-OS platform compatible -- Apple, Linux, and MS.
                      >>
                      >> Only then will we have something likely to earn the support of the
                      >> majority of digital mode Ham ops and only then can we move into the
                      >> digital mode future working together vs divided and making
                      >> inefficient use of fragmented development resources.
                      >> --
                      >>
                      >> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... somewhere in FL URL: bibleseven (dot)
                      >> com
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.