[pskmail] Re: The hardware modem idea (sri, long rant)

  • From: Jack Chomley <radio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:39:38 +1000

Hi John,

Thanks for your insight.
I guess my reasoning for the hardware solution is because for many years that 
has been my main interest, from the early Packet days. Being able to run a 
Mailbox and Beacon, with no PC running at all. Being a mobile/portable operator 
meant that I could receive mail at any time while the PC was off and not having 
to switch it on, to check for mail......just look for a blinking status light 
on the box to know I had mail :-) secondly, I could load mail into the box and 
turn off the PC and IF anyone connected, they could collect that mail.
In answer to your question about Pactor and Winlink.......several things, again 
It's the old mailbox problem, the Server is the mailbox and you need to log on 
to it all the time to check for mail, bit like having to go to the Post Office 
to collect mail, because you have no mailbox at home!
In the days of FBB BBS operations, it would automatically forward to your 
mailbox and........you could reverse forward back to FBB.
SCS have been asked on a number of occasions to add features to their Pactor 
firmware, one option was a Beacon mode, another has been an more friendly TNC 2 
type mailbox, not to mention the latest DR-7800 modem has NO mailbox at all :-(
Many years ago I asked  for a mailbox in SCS DSP Tracker TNC that has Packet 
and Robust Packet, I felt that it would be very useful for Ham portable 
operation, due to size and features etc.
SCS refused on the basis that their products sales were only 5% to ham 
operators so they would not look at those features in any further firmware 
release.  People asked for Beacon mode in the PTC modems.............nothing :-(
So John, Pactor does not hold all the answers for the minimalist mobile 
portable station, on a low power budget. Again, speed is nice as in P2,3,4 
but........it's not deal breaker!
I favour lower speeds, in an effort to get Comms over more difficult link 
paths, with low power radios. With that comes the benefit of no cost Pskmail.
As you can see Pactor does not hold all the answers that Pactor operators seek, 
mainly because the box maker is not flexible in looking at our firmware needs.
As time goes on, our next big problem is bandwidth.......we need to get mean 
and lean ! As spectrum occupancy increases......the room to move, decreases. 
Bandwidth and filtering will soon be a big priority if links are to work with 
good propagation and high occupancy.
The concept and operation of Pskmail is a great one.....it really is -:)
I guess what I am looking for is how to get the most from it, without becoming 
entangled in a constant debug scenario, to make it work properly :-)
Maybe the Android phone Is the answer.........would be good to gut the unwanted 
phone firmware out of it and just have it as a dedicated Pskmail Terminal -:)
Client to client Comms with Android based Pskmail terminals would be great, too.
Leave the Android box in sleep mode, could make it the mailbox, we seek -:)
Again......just one mans opinion, in trying to contribute to progress -:)

73,

Jack VK4JRC

Sent from my iPad

On 01/05/2012, at 12:53 PM, John Douyere <vk2eta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Jack,
> 
> I appreciate your input.
> 
> From a purely personal point of view I have serious reservations about doing 
> hardware development for anything if possible. 
> 
> When I look at the trend of ever more powerful hardware in ever decreasing 
> prices I really have difficulties justifying small volume hardware 
> development. Just looking at the cost of a Nue-Psk (a very well designed 
> system for its purpose IMHO) versus an Android phone or tablet, the cost 
> benefits in my opinion put the mass-produced items well in front, even 
> without considering the additional features of a smart phone.
> 
> Yes a hardware solution provides a better control of all variable that are 
> critical to top performance but I really think that we have ample speed and 
> link (not system) reliability right now and certainly even more after we 
> release the new modes. 
> 
> I agree with you Jack that some people will always want more throughput but 
> we are not that far from the limit of throughput in a given s/n and bandwidth 
> in fact.
> 
> I agree that Pskmail user friendliness could be improved. I believe we should 
> have a "Simple" and "Expert" mode where both functions and setting would be 
> either hidden/at default or visible to the user. Simple mode would have only 
> email, Ping and Beacon for example but not any of the other functions and 
> most settings would be to default.
> 
> Regarding reliability maybe we need to be more careful with what we call 
> stable and really have two streams, one stable and one development in 
> separate sections so that new users are not tempted to use the development 
> path.
> 
> We may also have to have a slower release path for Fldigi too so that new 
> modem features do not interfere with the reliability of the overall system.
> 
> Again personally speaking, I don't see why we should deviate from one of the 
> key initial objective of Pskmail: to provide an open source and free solution 
> when all (most?) others are paying and/or require proprietary hardware. I 
> really feel that is a cornerstone of what Pskmail is.
>  
> But still, I have a genuine question I would really like to have an answer 
> for, and believe me absolutely exempt from ulterior motives: for those of us 
> who have used/are using Pactor modems and Winlink why would we be interested 
> in Pskmail? There must be some reason?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 73, John
> 
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Jack Chomley <radio@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> For a long time I have sat and watched the progression of Pskmail, and I have 
> to say that everyone involved with its development do a very dedicated job.
> But in my opinion, its development path has seen a major priority to provide 
> more and more features, and this comes with a price.......increasing 
> complexity :-)
> It also means a constant flow of problem solving work, just look in the past 
> at all the posts, where this or that won't work......and it's only on maybe 
> some people's PC, or version of O/S.
> This means that it's hard to provide a stable release of Pskmail that works 
> reliably.
> I have had numerous tries at making it go, last week I put a stable? version 
> on a MacBook Air, but something is not quite right.
> For those who are in the development circle, the resolving of problems is not 
> so hard as they are very familiar with the program and it's progress along 
> the way.
> For an outsider, trying to climb onboard it becomes a big task to get it all 
> up and running.
> IF Pskmail is to get more acceptance, it needs to be easier to set up and get 
> running.......
> Whilst people generally look for feature laden software, I never 
> have......... I have always gone in search of reliability and simple to 
> operate setups.
> If I can have a Pskmail like system that has very narrow bandwidth, the speed 
> of PSK31 and the reliability to decode very weak signals with ARQ like Pactor 
> that can run on a small hardware box, driven by an iPod Touch, Android 
> Phone,,or similar........then my portable, low power budget needs are met. 
> Because the hardware box can run as a standalone unattended Mailbox, with 
> radio and if required the PDA/phone can be used only to read/send mail when 
> needed.
> However, the next person may want screens of swimming pools and movie stars 
> software :-)
> No automatic mode changing to up the speed, if a signal level comes 
> up.........speed is not critical, reliability is..........
> Yes, I agree that SCS modems are way too expensive and out of reach of many 
> people.
> We see many low cost processor platforms now on the market, maybe we need to 
> look at some of those to embed the Pskmail modems and Mailbox/Beacon 
> functions into..........
> Right now, my weapon of choice is an iPod Touch, driving a PTC-IIex with 
> FT-817 or Icom 703.
> A great system using the simple Get Console software for the iPod Touch or 
> iPad that works well and has a Mailbox, but no Beacon. The big bugbear 
> is.......the cost of the modem and the fact that there are no cheaper options 
> for Pactor.
> Yes, I also have the NUE-PSK modem which is a great unit, with a low power 
> budget, little bit heavier to carry, with keyboard but does a great job, for 
> what it is and is better cost-wise than Pactor and a far simpler system.
> Look, you cannot please all of the people, all of the time :-)
> We all have different ideas on how something should be done........maybe the 
> greatest potential lies with John's Android Pskmail ?? Take an Android phone 
> with a spare battery, along with a pocket solar charger and radio, that will 
> do the job well.
> The fact that Pskmail is free is to be applauded, but maybe it's reached a 
> crossroad? Does a software modem platform need to be used, that costs money, 
> or a piece of hardware?
> What now, if a change away from FLdigi? Can someone come up with a simple 
> software ARQ modem, that does not require lots of processing power? Me 
> thinking of the trials and tribulations the WINMOR team had.
> There are many considerations, and a hardware solution is just but one of 
> them :-)
> Please understand this just my opinion, just one opinion of many and not 
> intended to denigrate anybody, or their ideas.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jack VK4JRC
> 
> 
>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pskmail
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2012