On 3/19/2014 9:35 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
> It doesn't take much of a message for a narrow sub-300bps signal to
> become painfully slow, and potentially problematic if conditions
> aren't the best.
If conditions aren't good enough for 300 symbols per second, they will
certainly not be any better for faster signals. PACTOR N is simply
trying to force a camel through an eye of the needle. 300 baud is
enough for *amateur* purposes at HF - if there is a requirement for
faster communications, take it to commercial internet either maritime
service or satellite based service.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/19/2014 9:35 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
Peter N5UWY wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net> wrote:
Most of what I see is a "position report"
see http://www.winlink.org/userPositions
date, time deg's north/south by east/west.
Or something like tell mom I will be in PORT NAMED tomorrow.
So why do the sailors insist that they need huge swathes of bandwidth to
transmit a few bytes of data?
Most of them...at least the clueful ones... know they don't need much bandwidth
for position reports (although the need for ARQ does add to the overhead).
The need for bandwidth/speed arises when there's a message waiting from someone
who doesn't realize brevity is a virtue.
It doesn't take much of a message for a narrow sub-300bps signal to become
painfully slow, and potentially problematic if conditions aren't the best.
(This isn't to say, however, that more couldn't be done to more efficiently use
the automated subbands.)
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|