RadioBanter - View Single Post - Just exactly what is the "Problem" with Pactor

August 22nd 05, 02:28 AM

wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs protecting from Pactor?

No, CW does *not* "always get through".

No mode always gets through. There are some times when Morse
Code gets through and other available modes do not. This plain,
simple fact has been misquoted and perverted by some.

but can't you read the CW signal though the noise?

Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything else I hear about in HF

No, robots do *not* listen before transmitting which is against the regs and is the crux of the problem.

There's also the issue of what constitutes "listening". A robot
may listen for another Pactor III signal, yet not for a PSK31
or Morse Code signal.

so your issue is one that the robot doesn't do a good enough job of
listening

How much of a listen is long enough, and on how much on either
side of the frequency?

Isn't pactor relitively wide compared to CW and PSK 31? so if they are
lsitening across thier bandwidth they should detect a signal wether
they can read or not

and how long would satify you?

A human operator causing QRM is either lousy operating practice or an accident, a robot blindly causing QRM via it's inherent
design is illegal.

There's also the 24/7 nature of the robots.

Why is this a problem? indeed if they are doing thiss al thetime then
you could avoid them esierly enough

again if the they are lsitening

One solution might be to come up with a robot which tunes
around it's frequency before transmitting.

Yup. And maybe sends "QRL?" in Morse Code before it opens up.

why should it favor Morse code over PSK 31?

There's one for you code-writers to chew on.

The situation is somewhat like the dawn of the FM repeater
era on the ham bands. A typical ham FM repeater essentially
takes over two frequencies (input and output)in its coverage
area.

There was a time when a ham repeater required a special license
with special callsign, and the application for it involved a
pretty detailed description of the setup, its operation, etc.,
with things like HAAT specified. Even today we have repeater
coordination.

and today things seem to go enough without specail licenses

Why should Morse Code receive specail breaks that PSK 31 and RTTY don't
get?

But VHF/UHF coverage is fairly predictable and consistent. A
typical ham VHF/UHF repeater covers a few hundred square miles
except during unusual conditions. Even a moderately powered HF
station can cover millions of square miles.

that is the story you folks tell gues you haven't dealt with 6M
repeaters and the coverage is more viable than I think you accept Jim,
althought they are generaly smaller than HF I grant you

The "regulation by bandwidth" proposal has some good basic
concepts, but it needs some serious work before it is ready
for prime time. The fact that so many different groups are
opposed to it, and so few in favor, shows that it needs rework.

Indeed I am not certain why everyone is keying in this discussion on
the ARRL's regualtion by bandwidth proposal or is there only a real
problem with pactor when that proposal is discussed

73 de Jim, N2EY