[pskmail] Re: pskmail/tty port to PocketDigi, info needed
- From: "John Douyere" <vk2eta@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:13:05 +0000
Hi Vojtěch,
Thanks for replying and I understand your position. If you could
implement FlARQ in PocketDigi, I have some confidence I could start
from there for an implementation of PskMail as there are solid
similarities between both programs.
For peole "on the move", especially in relative isolation at sea or on
land, it is good to be able to have a base or better, several bases,
which is are 24/7. Hence the appeal of PSKMail in these conditions.
On the memory ARQ side and from my experience in VK, I really think
that would be a plus. Here we have less crowded bands than in EU or
North America so not much QRM, but we get significant QRN especially
during the summer months. So anything that would allow the data to be
re-constructed when segments are missing would be a plus, being
longitudinal redundancy or memory ARQ.
Of course the choice of the mode can help here and be complemented at
the protocol level. I have setup my PSKMail server to be able to
change modes on-the-fly within a session so that I am able to see what
modes are more appropriate for these conditions. I will report when I
have had real field tests if you are interested.
Thanks Vojtěch and 73s,
John
On Nov 9, 2007 11:34 PM, Vojtěch Bubník <bubnikv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi John.
>
> I am pondering of porting flARQ to PocketDigi. I find it very useful to
> backpackers for sending things like their travel logs or small images. After
> this port is done, I would like to try to extend it by memory ARQ and
> increase hamming distance of control packets.
>
> > The interface with the GPS could be identical to the one used in Linux
> > through a serial port (real or virtual as with Bluetooth). Regarding the
> > modem speed, PSK63 as available in PocketDigi is already quite useable for
> > position reporting and small emails and maybe faster speeds like psk125 or
> > 250 may be added later on if processor speed and other timing issues allow
> > it.
>
> I will not implement it as it would probably be used by a marginal number of
> HAMs only. You are free to implement it yourself.
>
> 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
>
>
Other related posts: