[pskmail] Re: 300 Baud Rate in the USA
- From: David Kleber <kb3fxi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:50:51 -0800 (PST)
On a recent peer to peer test with winmor 1600 on a good channel, it took about
10 minutes to send around 30k of data with few if any retries. It takes about
10 minutes to send a 6k file with MT63 1k long. So, from my very unofficial
observations, Winmor is 5 times faster than MT63 1k long and should be about
500 wpm, or about the same speed as BPSK500, but with much better accuracy.
-Dave, KB3FXI
________________________________
From: Bernard Dekok <kc9sgv@xxxxxxxxx>
To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: [pskmail] Re: 300 Baud Rate in the USA
Dave,
Baud rate can't be WPM / 1.2
Winmor 8 Car 16PSK is 94 baud, at 3285 WPM on 1600 HZ bandwidth.
See the Excel spreadsheet on this thread.
Yep, 3285 words per minute.
Try doing THAT on CW.....=)
I vote for the Winmor virtual TNC as another mode option for PSKMail....
Bernie,
KC9SGV
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Kleber <kb3fxi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think I recall seeing someone post somewhere that BPSK500 goes over the US
throughput limit, but I've never seen what appears to be a well detailed
explanation. Also, there seems to be varying opinions on how to calculate baud
rates from wpm (wpm divided by 1.2?). It's all quite confusing.
>
>
>I wish we could just go to regulation by bandwidth with a separate playground
>for unattended ops. The robots in any bandwidth need to have their own
>allocations which makes sense for anyone on either side of the fence (whether
>you hate the robots or love them).
>
>
>We really need to get rid of the throughput limitation, which contradicts one
>of the key reasons for our amateur radio frequency allocation which is the
>advancement of the art (and technology).
>
>
>BTW, BPSK500 leaves a bit to be desired unless you're on a near full quieting
>path.
>
>
>-Dave, KB3FXI
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Bernard Dekok <kc9sgv@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:49 PM
>Subject: [pskmail] 300 Baud Rate in the USA
>
>
>
>Ok,
>So I read up a bit on this here in the PSKMail archives.
>300 Baud max on the HF bands in the USA.
>
>
>So what is the PSKMail baud rate at 500 HZ ?
>Why is PSK500 not allowed in the USA, when Winmor can use the 500 HZ mode
>unattended ?
>Winmor clients can indeed use the 1600 HZ mode if the station is attended.
>Some USA Winmor servers (RMS's), even run at 1600 HZ, in "attended" mode.
>
>
>What is interesting is that the Winmor baud rate is only 93 baud on 1600 HZ.
>See here and download "Winmor Rate":
>http://www.winlink.org/WINMOR
>
>
>Could we run a PSKMail PSK500 server in "attended" mode in the USA ?
>How about "unattended", but under control operator/sysop control via remote
>ops (say by VHF or Iphone/Echolink) from the lawnmower in the yard while
>indeed mowing the lawn ?
>
>
>We need more and faster PSKMail servers in the USA.
>
>
>Bernie,
>KC9SGV
>Chicago.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
