<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 09:00 PM 3/30/2005, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Ah ha!!! The light came on
for me! Henk and I are talking apples to Pete's<br>
oranges... Apples and Oranges...</blockquote><br>
This discussion is silly. <br><br>
The key is to understand that the primary factor that influences whether
a station is CSMA or ALOHA is, at its most basic, simply a matter of
antenna height or more succinctly HAAT. <br><br>
If a station is running near a unity gain antenna at less than 10 ft
above ground it is almost always functionally ALOHA. The exception
being when it is on a high site or is located in a station dense
area.<br><br>
Conversely if it is located at 300ft HAAT or on a mountain it is mostly
CSMA. <br><br>
The key question is will it hurt the network to run a station that is
functioning almost completely on the ALOHA level in such a manner that it
can't hear before it transmits? The answer is no if it is set at a
reasonable beacon rate.<br><br>
Is it good amateur practice? This may be open to discussion but it
has nothing to do with the mode of the net. Ultimately the question
must be answered by the individual using their own ethical
standards.<br><br>
I personally don't think it is ideal practice but neither do I think it
should be considered bad practice. I see it as acceptable if the
alternative is not being able to use the network at all. This is
particularly true for the remote hiker who I feel has a greater right to
the resource when compared to the routine home and weather
beacons.<br><br>
Ask this question:<br><br>
If the transmitting station can not hear any station but the digi who
will be harmed by its transmission in the blind? If the digi and the
ALOHA collide who loses? <br><br>
The answer in both cases is nobody.<br><br>
Nobody is harmed by the blind transmission.<br><br>
The ALOHA station must accept the loss of this packet as part of
"its" network design it is expected and unavoidable therefore
not harmful.<br><br>
</font></body>
</html>