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

Re: [Q15X25] Re: HF APRS and Q15X25 ?

Expand Messages
  • Jose Amador
    ... LINE, ... the ... Of course, I was refering to the non ham stuff. It is faster and easier, but does not carry the same ham radio spirit that I found in
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Charles Brabham <n5pvl@...> wrote:

      >> <co2ja@y...> wrote:
      >>
      >> The fuller picture I see is that "packet radio" has
      >> been associated for a long time with the Bell modem
      >> tones and modulation (which were developed for
      LINE,
      >> not for a RADIO environment), and that development
      >> in that area became stagnant for too long, while
      the
      >> rest of the networking scene did not stop.

      > I'm not sure which 'networking scene' you are
      > talking about there, Jose.
      > The non-ham stuff literally does not apply in a
      > discussion about
      > amateur radio. Some of it is useful, but a great
      > deal of it is not.


      Of course, I was refering to the non ham stuff. It is
      faster and easier, but does not carry the same ham
      radio spirit that I found in packet radio, being a
      user since 1990 an a sysop since 1992.


      > Good, bad, old or new, no amateur radio networking
      > system has been
      > developed that shows any significant improvement
      > over what we already
      > have in the so-called "Packet" network, which
      > utilizes the same
      > partially meshed network topology that the Internet
      > does.


      Well, I have been using pactor for BBS HF forwarding
      since 1998, with the same FBB BBS with a tenfold
      increase in thruput. Obviously the modem and protocol
      are important issues.

      Nevertheless, routing has suffered and now is much
      poorer than what was available in 1995.

      I had about 100 kb of compressed fwd per day with 300
      baud HF packet, and a megabyte or more with pactor.
      More than what anyone may read in a day.


      > There is an advanced networking system under
      > test/development, but
      > nothing that is in general use right now.
      >
      > Understand that I am not saying these things because
      > of any particular
      > preference for what we have now over new stuff. -
      > All I ask is that
      > the 'new stuff' we talk about improving things with
      > - actually exists.
      >
      > Dissing what is currently in use does nothing to
      > improve anything.
      > Developing a poor attitude about the best tools
      > currently at our
      > disposal will not lead to progress, only stagnation.
      > - That is the
      > primary reason why TAPR and the HSMM group never
      > accomplish anything
      > more tangible than whining complaints about what
      > other amateurs do, and
      > the primary reason why the European digital ham
      > radio network is more
      > than a decade ahead of anything in the USA. - ( For
      > the time being, at
      > any rate. )
      >
      > The simple little thing that consistently whizzes
      > over the heads of US
      > digital enthusiasts are concepts of cooperation with
      > and respect for
      > thier fellow hams, most especially those who do
      > something different.
      >
      > It really doesn't matter how clever you are in a
      > technical sense, if
      > you are too stupid and arrogant to play well with
      > others. - And that's
      > the main holdup, here in the US.
      >
      > Charles, N5PVL

      Pactor and multitone modems do far better than 300
      baud FSK for packet. But I had to experience it
      personally to see that the modem stuff is something
      that may be improved.

      I did have scanning working (the CAT on my radio is
      damaged now) and it allowed to dodge bad propagation,
      because the ionosphere does not follows the timings of
      our forwarding scripts....

      I believe that better modems and perhaps ALE would
      hold some promise for improvement...if there were
      enough people to run the HF network as it was 10 years
      ago.

      73 de Jose, CO2JA.
    • Jose Amador
      ... Something I did not mention on my other reply. I had to run 600 watts to achieve some 100 kb of compressed fwd per day. With pactor, 25 to 100 watts
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Tapio Sokura <oh2kku@...> wrote:

        > Charles Brabham wrote:
        > > If you want the very best digital mode possible
        > for APRS, then you are
        > > talking about HF Packet.
        >
        > I'm not convinced. I've spent a considerable amount
        > of time listening on
        > the traffic on 10151 kHz and only a small portion of
        > the packets are
        > decoded. You need a heavy signal, and even then all
        > it takes is a small
        > crack or quick fade in/out and the packet is gone.
        >
        > True, q15x25 was not designed for APRS, but neither
        > was 300 bps packet.
        > The speed of q15x25 is not what I'm looking for, I'm
        > more after
        > reliability of getting the packets through than
        > actual speed or channel
        > capacity. With the FEC and small packets I doubt
        > that q15x25 would in
        > reality be any faster than 300 bps packet, but it
        > could be more reliable.
        >
        > But I'm open to any other layer 1 suggestions as
        > well. Q15X25 came to my
        > mind because it already implements the AX.25 control
        > structures, so it
        > would be plug'n'play to test.
        >
        > Tapio

        Something I did not mention on my other reply. I had
        to run 600 watts to "achieve" some 100 kb of
        compressed fwd per day.

        With pactor, 25 to 100 watts were able to move ten
        times more traffic. I had a link with Africa for
        forwarding to Europe which worked many times with as
        little as 25 watts with better thruput than 300 baud
        packet with 600 watts in much shorter links.

        Jose, CO2JA
      • kd4e
        ... Which version of Pactor, please? Pactor III is proprietary and expensive and thus not an available tool for most Hams. The proprietary nature of Pactor III
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > Something I did not mention on my other reply. I had
          > to run 600 watts to "achieve" some 100 kb of
          > compressed fwd per day.
          >
          > With pactor, 25 to 100 watts were able to move ten
          > times more traffic. I had a link with Africa for
          > forwarding to Europe which worked many times with as
          > little as 25 watts with better thruput than 300 baud
          > packet with 600 watts in much shorter links.
          >
          > Jose, CO2JA

          Which version of Pactor, please?

          Pactor III is proprietary and expensive and thus not an
          available tool for most Hams.

          The proprietary nature of Pactor III makes self-regulation,
          a FCC priority, impossible given the inability for the
          average Ham to even monitor the traffic.

          It may be superior in certain ways and not in others
          but since it is not affordable nor healthy for Ham
          radio it is not the answer to the need.
        • Charles Brabham
          ... Personally, I have never heard of a Packet BBS SYSOP before who ran more than 50-70 watts power. If you were running 600 watts, that may have been part of
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador <co2ja@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Something I did not mention on my other reply. I had
            > to run 600 watts to "achieve" some 100 kb of
            > compressed fwd per day.
            >
            > With pactor, 25 to 100 watts were able to move ten
            > times more traffic. I had a link with Africa for
            > forwarding to Europe which worked many times with as
            > little as 25 watts with better thruput than 300 baud
            > packet with 600 watts in much shorter links.
            >
            > Jose, CO2JA

            Personally, I have never heard of a Packet BBS SYSOP before who ran
            more than 50-70 watts power. If you were running 600 watts, that may
            have been part of your problem with Packet.

            Were the stations you connected to all running 600 watts too? - Or
            were they running 50-70 watts, as all the SYSOPs I know have found to
            be work out best? ( I know a lot of SYSOPs, by the way. )

            Your story doesn't make a lot of sense... I have operated both modes
            and though PACTOR does give better throughput, it does not do so for
            all of the BBS software currently in use.

            PACTOR is also prohibitively expensive, and has virtually no signal
            detection capability, very often making PACTOR operators into
            unwilling ( and unwitting ) lids. Lots of BBS SYSOPs won't go for
            being party to that.

            Add the greatly expanded bandwidth of the higher performing PACTOR
            modes, and you have a nice QRM generation system there, second to
            none when it comes to crashing people's QSO's.

            Then there is the difficulty in trying to operate multiple PACTOR
            QSO's on a single frequency. Packet handles this just fine, PACTOR
            does not.

            Most SYSOPs utilize Packet because nothing better has come along to
            replace it. - You are welcome to consider PACTOR as a 'better'
            replacemnent for Packet if you wish, but understand that by doing so,
            you place yourself with a tiny minority among BBS SYSOPs, for the
            reasons outlined above.

            That's just how it is, agree with it or not as you wish. Whatever
            PACTOR is, it is not a "replacement" for Packet. - Good or bad.

            Charles, N5PVL
          • Jose Amador
            ... than 300 baud packet with 600 watts in much shorter ... Pactor II. ... Seems to be a matter of luck, as many other things in the human existence. And
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- kd4e <kd4e@...> wrote:

              > > Something I did not mention on my other reply. I
              > > had to run 600 watts to "achieve" some 100 kb of
              > > compressed fwd per day.
              > >
              > > With pactor, 25 to 100 watts were able to move
              > > ten times more traffic. I had a link with Africa
              > > for forwarding to Europe which worked many times
              > > with as little as 25 watts with better thruput
              than > > 300 baud packet with 600 watts in much
              shorter
              > > links.

              > Which version of Pactor, please?

              Pactor II.

              > Pactor III is proprietary and expensive and thus not
              > an available tool for most Hams.

              > It may be superior in certain ways and not in others
              > but since it is not affordable nor healthy for Ham
              > radio it is not the answer to the need.

              Seems to be a matter of luck, as many other things in
              the human existence.

              And of course, the need arises from the fact that
              something much better than packet exists and is not
              widely available.

              Plain pactor with memory ARQ achieves a thereshold 10
              dB lower than RTTY, and P II 18 dB lower. That may
              explain the lower power required to establish a link.

              Since it is a one to one link, there are no
              collissions, perhaps, maybe, ocassional QRM from
              others who consider to own certain frequencies. The
              transfer protocol is more elaborate and better
              (compression, interleaving, convolutional encoding,
              Viterbi decoding, etc).

              No wonder that some techniques used for space
              communications can also help in terrestrial comms.

              I have been following Q15X25 as it may have better
              characteristics, those of modern HF data
              communications systems.

              Certainly, 300 baud FSK is far from optimal.

              Q15X25 and similar modulation methods may allow to
              have more people to communicate with on HF. With
              recent developments, there seems to be hope for may of
              us.

              73 de Jose, CO2JA
            • kd4e
              ... If I recall Pactor II may be monitored without the costly proprietary SCS hardware and software, so it may be a more acceptable app in Ham use -- at least
              Message 6 of 17 , Oct 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                > Since it is a one to one link, there are no
                > collissions, perhaps, maybe, ocassional QRM from
                > others who consider to own certain frequencies. The
                > transfer protocol is more elaborate and better
                > (compression, interleaving, convolutional encoding,
                > Viterbi decoding, etc).

                If I recall Pactor II may be monitored without the
                costly proprietary SCS hardware and software, so it
                may be a more acceptable app in Ham use -- at least
                one may determine who the QRMing offender is and
                report them -- one may also determine is the op is
                sending Ham-legal communications or something else.

                QRMing is rarely against folks camoing out on a
                freq 24/7 but most often the result of someone
                engaged in a QSO where another op is too careless
                or selfish to bother to check for activity and
                who jumps on top of them.

                There is no lack of space on the bands, except perhaps
                during the all-too-frequent contests, so there is no
                excuse for QRMing -- especially witha digital signal
                that cannot be decoded by 99% of Hams and may be
                readily abused for non-Ham legal or nefarious purposes

                > I have been following Q15X25 as it may have better
                > characteristics, those of modern HF data
                > communications systems.

                That is why we are all on this list.

                > Certainly, 300 baud FSK is far from optimal.

                For sure -- but that may also be a regulatory quirk
                choking-off new technologies that needs to be addressed.

                > Q15X25 and similar modulation methods may allow to
                > have more people to communicate with on HF. With
                > recent developments, there seems to be hope for may of
                > us.

                Agreed.

                > 73 de Jose, CO2JA
              • Jose Amador
                ... It might fit in your frame if we used, as you do, a BBS only frequency. We did not, anyone could connect freely. Perhaps that´s part of my problem with
                Message 7 of 17 , Oct 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Charles Brabham <n5pvl@...> wrote:

                  > --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Jose Amador
                  > <co2ja@y...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Something I did not mention on my other reply. I
                  > had
                  > > to run 600 watts to "achieve" some 100 kb of
                  > > compressed fwd per day.
                  > >
                  > > With pactor, 25 to 100 watts were able to move
                  > ten
                  > > times more traffic. I had a link with Africa for
                  > > forwarding to Europe which worked many times with
                  > as
                  > > little as 25 watts with better thruput than 300
                  > baud
                  > > packet with 600 watts in much shorter links.
                  > >
                  > > Jose, CO2JA
                  >
                  > Personally, I have never heard of a Packet BBS SYSOP
                  > before who ran
                  > more than 50-70 watts power. If you were running 600
                  > watts, that may
                  > have been part of your problem with Packet.

                  > Were the stations you connected to all running 600
                  > watts too? - Or
                  > were they running 50-70 watts, as all the SYSOPs I
                  > know have found to
                  > be work out best? ( I know a lot of SYSOPs, by the
                  > way. )

                  It might fit in your frame if we used, as you do, a
                  BBS only frequency. We did not, anyone could connect
                  freely.

                  Perhaps that´s part of my problem with packet, I hate
                  losing time with bad links and retries. I was able to
                  do it, those were my finals and my power bill, at the
                  service of my users. And it never caused problems to
                  anyone. I do not operate a HF packet forwarding link
                  since 1998. With pactor, or whatever replaces 300 baud
                  FSK modems, it is not necessary to run high power to
                  run a reliable link.

                  > Your story doesn't make a lot of sense... I have
                  > operated both modes
                  > and though PACTOR does give better throughput, it
                  > does not do so for
                  > all of the BBS software currently in use.

                  So, what makes sense is to use the BEST BBS software.

                  I understand it does not make sense to you, but not
                  all BBS programmers (and I do not mean to offend any
                  of them) are equally gifted. Only the best software
                  did survive.

                  > PACTOR is also prohibitively expensive, and has
                  > virtually no signal
                  > detection capability, very often making PACTOR
                  > operators into
                  > unwilling ( and unwitting ) lids. Lots of BBS SYSOPs
                  > won't go for
                  > being party to that.

                  I do not want to impose that on anyone. Have I meant
                  that? Never.

                  > Add the greatly expanded bandwidth of the higher
                  > performing PACTOR
                  > modes, and you have a nice QRM generation system
                  > there, second to
                  > none when it comes to crashing people's QSO's.

                  Pactor 2 fits into my CW filter.

                  > Then there is the difficulty in trying to operate
                  > multiple PACTOR
                  > QSO's on a single frequency. Packet handles this
                  > just fine, PACTOR
                  > does not.

                  Pactor is not meant to do that. If you operated it,
                  and read the manual, you know that it does not make
                  sense to make that comparison.

                  > Most SYSOPs utilize Packet because nothing better
                  > has come along to
                  > replace it. - You are welcome to consider PACTOR as
                  > a 'better'
                  > replacemnent for Packet if you wish, but understand
                  > that by doing so,
                  > you place yourself with a tiny minority among BBS
                  > SYSOPs, for the
                  > reasons outlined above.

                  I do not do Internet forwarding. And you might know
                  that time in HF forwarding counts, when the bands are
                  not open 24/24 like a wire or VHF/UHF.

                  > That's just how it is, agree with it or not as you
                  > wish. Whatever
                  > PACTOR is, it is not a "replacement" for Packet. -
                  > Good or bad.
                  >
                  > Charles, N5PVL

                  I respect your point of view, you are entitled to it.

                  But I also feel I have the right to disagree. As I
                  disagree to go into a name calling fight that solves
                  nothing.

                  And period. End of the thread, at least for me, it is
                  not relevant to Q15X25.

                  Jose
                • Mark Miller
                  ... Do you recall how this is done? I have only seen monitoring software for PACTOR I and am interested in monitoring PACTOR II. 73, Mark N5RFX
                  Message 8 of 17 , Oct 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 07:43 AM 10/1/2005, you wrote:
                    >If I recall Pactor II may be monitored without the
                    >costly proprietary SCS hardware and software, so it
                    >may be a more acceptable app in Ham use --

                    Do you recall how this is done? I have only seen monitoring software for
                    PACTOR I and am interested in monitoring PACTOR II.

                    73,

                    Mark N5RFX
                  • wb8wka
                    APRS is not tied to AX.25. Most of the display programs as well as internet servers let you input data in a text format. The APRS spec is here:
                    Message 9 of 17 , Oct 7, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      APRS is not tied to AX.25. Most of the display programs as well as
                      internet servers let you input data in a text format. The APRS spec is
                      here: http://www.tapr.org/aprs_working_group.html

                      Being most APRS position reports are from 13 to 40 bytes long (native
                      APRS format) you don't need the speed of Q15X25. Also, most APRS
                      transmissions in the wild are UI frames, or unacknowledged information
                      frames. Meaning, they don't use the connected mode (or ARQ) function
                      of ax.25.

                      If your looking to optimize HF APRS from the present AX.25 UI frame
                      300 baud means, you'd be better off looking at a mode that offers
                      heavy FEC and good low signal performance. MT63, MFSK16 or perhaps
                      Olivia come to mind. All offer good low signal performance and heavy
                      FEC.

                      300 baud on HF, as a signaling rate, is less then optimal due to group
                      delay caused by different paths through the ionosphere. That is the
                      reason Q15X25 reduced the baud rate to 83.5 (on each carrier) to
                      reduce this effect.

                      Good luck.



                      --- In Q15X25@yahoogroups.com, Tapio Sokura <oh2kku@i...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi,
                      >
                      > I was wondering if there are any established a) frequencies and/or
                      b)
                      > Q15X25 modem parameters for HF APRS use? 300 bps packet seems to be
                      a
                      > lot less than optimal on HF and it would be interesting to see how
                      > Q15X25 would do instead. I did some googling on this subject, but
                      didn't
                      > find any concrete information on frequencies/parameters, just some
                      pages
                      > that mention the possibility of combining the two.
                      >
                      > Tapio
                      >
                    • Charles Brabham
                      ... If you are not operating within the automated sub-bands, then you are most definately QRM ing other hams with your PACTOR signals. The one and only place
                      Message 10 of 17 , Oct 8, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > > Were the stations you connected to all running 600
                        > > watts too? - Or
                        > > were they running 50-70 watts, as all the SYSOPs I
                        > > know have found to
                        > > be work out best? ( I know a lot of SYSOPs, by the
                        > > way. )
                        >
                        > It might fit in your frame if we used, as you do, a
                        > BBS only frequency. We did not, anyone could connect
                        > freely.

                        If you are not operating within the automated sub-bands, then you are
                        most definately QRM'ing other hams with your PACTOR signals.

                        The one and only place where you can operate PACTOR ( or Packet ) for
                        BBS operation without regularly crashing people's QSO's are the
                        automated sub-bands.

                        That's why they exist.

                        Packet BBS operation as a 'loner' who does not play by the rules
                        other SYSOPs operate by is a pointless endeavor. Competent
                        autoforwarding's first requirement is an ability to play well with
                        others, in a cooperative way and friendly way.

                        > With pactor, or whatever replaces 300 baud
                        > FSK modems, it is not necessary to run high power to
                        > run a reliable link.

                        You are the one and only amateur who has ever suggested to me that
                        Packet is unreliable except when using high power.

                        From my location at the southern tip of Texas, I forward regularly
                        with stations in Canada, California, Indiana, Florida and ( Here's an
                        easy one ) Missouri. - All with 50 watts on HF Packet.

                        > > Your story doesn't make a lot of sense... I have
                        > > operated both modes
                        > > and though PACTOR does give better throughput, it
                        > > does not do so for
                        > > all of the BBS software currently in use.
                        >
                        > So, what makes sense is to use the BEST BBS software.

                        http://www.uspacket.org/l_protowars.htm

                        What makes sense is to work with protocols/modes that are usable by
                        all BBS software, including the new BBS software that is coming up.

                        > > Then there is the difficulty in trying to operate
                        > > multiple PACTOR
                        > > QSO's on a single frequency. Packet handles this
                        > > just fine, PACTOR
                        > > does not.
                        >
                        > Pactor is not meant to do that. If you operated it,
                        > and read the manual, you know that it does not make
                        > sense to make that comparison.

                        Looks like you are picking and choosing what is or is not 'relevant'
                        according to how well it matches up with your personal views.

                        As manager of an ARRL Skipnet, I can assure you that the ability to
                        operate half a dozen or more stations on one frequency is highly
                        relevant, unless and until somebody comes along and finds a way to
                        greatly expand the autoforwarding sub-bands.

                        If we can only have two stations per frequency, and those stations
                        must be five or six times wider, that means that the network can only
                        have a few participating stations, and so it would have very little
                        coverage or capability, worldwide.

                        We are trying to get more BBS stations to participate, not to shut
                        them out by using inappropriate modes/protocols that do not 'play
                        well with others' and so reduce our capability in this area.

                        It should never be forgotten that participation in a network is a
                        cooperative venture. Your value to that network in large part hinges
                        upon your ability to work cooperatively with many other hams around
                        the world.

                        >
                        > I respect your point of view, you are entitled to it.
                        >
                        > But I also feel I have the right to disagree. As I
                        > disagree to go into a name calling fight that solves
                        > nothing.
                        >
                        > And period. End of the thread, at least for me, it is
                        > not relevant to Q15X25.
                        >

                        Right now I am manager of the NET117 ARRL SkipNet, experimenting with
                        utilizing Q15x25 mode for autoforwarding. In my case at any rate,
                        these questions and discussions are highly relevant to what I do.

                        I have to think about stuff like bandwidth, signal strength, the
                        ability to share a frequency, bitrate, compatability with all ( not
                        just my personal favorite ) BBS software and ease of operation, along
                        with a number of other factors.

                        Personally I would like to see Q15x25 mode go into regular use for
                        autoforwarding - but it is not my job to promote Q15x25. What I am
                        doing is evaluating the mode instead, doing my best to give it a fair
                        chance to show it's stuff. - Both good and bad.

                        I'm beginning to wonder if 17 meters is the best place to do this
                        evaluation, but that's the spot the ARRL folks gave me so that's what
                        I have to work with right now. - I sure wish 15 meters was open more
                        often!

                        Charles, N5PVL
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.